Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asenine 2


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
 * Withdrawn. I guess when you would be opposing yourself, you should withdraw, hence I am doing just that. I am also retiring with immediate effect.

Asenine
Final (5/17/2); Withdrawn by candidate 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

- Ladies and gentleman, I am glad to have the pleasure to present Asenine as the next candidate for adminship. Asenine came here in late 2007, and has over 8000 edits. Since arriving, Asenine has been hardworking, dedicated, and friendly. Asenine is a user I have seen around many times, at RFA, ACC, and multiple other places. He helps out new users, whether it's on talk pages, the help desk, or adoption. Asenine has also been active a lot on the WP:VPT and WP:PUI. Never have I seen him ever acting uncivil, or in any way being a negative. Looking at his coaching page, I believe that he has the knowhow to be an admin on the pedia. X clamation point  16:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept, and I would like to thank X!/SoxRed for obliging my request for him to finish off my admin coaching, thanks a lot.   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to work at/with WP:AFD, WP:SCV, CAT:PROD and CAT:CSD.


 * Although the above would be my main areas of activity within sysop work, if somebody were to request for me to do something else that required my permissions for a time, I would certainly oblige if I felt I knew the area well enough to participate. Being a sysop would mostly be about doing what at this time I have to request to be done. To be honest, I am a massive WikiGnome, so I would be only making the odd use here and there, mostly where there is blatant need for admin intervention.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Mostly a lot of WikiGnomish stuff, but I feel that my actions towards users and the community in general are some of my best contributions. I have helped users out when they have been confused over boilerplate templates and article disputes (this occured with Susan E Webb, who needed guidance with a page where a conflict of interest might arise, Wikiklrsc who needed guidance about image tagging, and LukeTheSpook who needed help with utilizing wikisyntax). I also have helped UzEE with the grammar in his userspace.


 * I also enjoyed working on this, which ended in an indefinite block - a perfect result.


 * I enjoy adopting users by giving them help and support (although admittedly my current adoptees very rarely contact me). It brightens my life to see that I help out in the community, and adminship would allow my help to be more efficiently delivered.


 * On the article creation side of things, I have created the following articles:


 * Bikini Bandits, Kill! Kill! Kill!
 * Blood Puke Salvation
 * Disfigured Narcissus
 * Detrimentalist
 * Funeral Marches and Warsongs
 * Grand Imperial (album)
 * Hip Hop and the World We Live In
 * Lister Wilder
 * Love & Hate (Aceyalone album)
 * Lux (album)
 * Oxidizer (album)
 * Ruin The Memory
 * Suture (album)
 * The National Lottery People's Quiz


 * Whilst I concede that these articles are in general far from perfect, article writing has never been my forté, and I mostly stay away from it.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have not been put under stress by other users before, but if I was to be faced by it I would leave them a notice regarding the problem, and deal with it efficiently and completely in good faith. If a user was putting me under stress to do something for them, then I would leave them a message stating that I would have a break from whatever it was for a while and that I would continue it when it was appropriate (if it was time-critical, to be honest with you I don't really mind stress). If it was a debate that was putting me under stress, I would either back out (I would only use this rarely and if it was really needed, I like to have my say) or would work out what is causing me stress and address the problem. If it was a user, I would simply tell them straight that I am rather stressed because of the incident.


 * I have been involved in only one edit war in the past over my addition of band logos to articles, but this was because I and another user (IllaZilla) were interpreting a consensus in different ways. The conflict was over soon after it began, as I backed down - I could see his point of view and I started understanding why he believed as he did. This conflict was carried out completely in good faith. I always leave stressful situations like this with a smile and a sense of satisfaction that two (or more) people that have disagreed, but at the end of it all there haven't had to be any sanctions imposed upon them. If there were any sanctions, I would be quite sure to keep my actions so that I was in the right and within rights. If another conflict were to occur I would discuss with the user why their point of view was as such and would quite happily back down as soon as I knew they were in the right, or it was turning into a WP:SNOW debate. If I still believed I was in the right, I would discuss with the user how to resolve the problem in the best and most constructive way, and if that failed, I would involve another administrator for a second opinion.

Optional question from Keepscases:


 * 4. Do you edit Wikipedia anywhere where a keylogger might be installed?
 * A: If you mean 'do I edit on a computer', then yes! It should be noted, however, that I regularly perform malware removal (including keyloggers) as part of my freelance IT work, so I know what I am doing with regards to that. At current, in the way of malware detection/removal, I have installed:
 * A heuristics program written by myself which is rather accurate, if buggy
 * Avira Pro-Home
 * AVG Anti-Spyware (yes, I know that their AV is rather poor, but their antispyware is one of the best free ones)
 * Malwarebytes
 * HijackThis (I am an expert in HJT analysis, and often view my own logs)
 * ComboFix


 * Even if someone were to compromise my account via keyloggers, which is highly unlikely as it is, I have a SHA1 on my userpage to help me regain control of my account quickly afterwards.

'''Optional question from Logical Premise
 * 5. You opposed an editor here for overuse of Twinkle when you yourself have more than a third of your total edits done by automated means. And here you opposed an editor based on a "bad feeling". Given that you have an over 60% oppose rating towards RfA's, please explain why the community should set aside the things you suggest makes other editors unworthy of adminship when they also apply to you. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I opposed this nomination but I have to oppose this question as baiting - this is in no way a fair sort of question to ask and it should be stricken. Shereth 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussing on your talk page. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not strike it, I wish to answer this.


 * The oppose of Gladys' RfA was not based on her constant use of Twinkle, it was because I could not tell her real contributions from what was left of the contributions page once TW was ignored. I feel that whilst I use Twinkle on a regular basis, I do a lot of other gnoming and communication without the use of the tools, which demonstrates what Gladys, to me, could not. As for opposing on a bad feeling, I guess what I meant was that there were a lot of things pulling me towards oppose, but none of them were striking me as being the most significant or important. I hope this answers your question, if not, please do reply.   Ase ' nine ' '' 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional questions that might seem awfully familiar from Protonk (talk)


 * 6 Why are both WP:V and WP:CON important for the project? Under what circumstances would they come into conflict where a simple reading of the rules would not "solve" the conflict (i.e. provide a clear answer)?  What would you do under those circumstances (if you think they can exist)?


 * 7 As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past? (this is just lifted, I like the question very much, so I didn't change it)

General comments

 * See Asenine's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Asenine:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Asenine before commenting.''

Discussion

 * General note – from a strong believer in "must have mainspace experience" arguments – to all the Oppose, uses Twinkle votes (sorry, !votes) – Twinkle, Huggle,AWB et al aren't evil in-and-of themselves, and it's perfectly possible to combine human-bot-hybrid edits with "big" edits. Penalising someone for using the most efficient tool for a given job seems perverse. –  iride scent 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As for my comment regarding this at Gladys' RfA, see my response to Q5.   Ase ' nine ' '' 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - I had this one watchlisted for some reason...Probably to support =) – xeno  ( talk ) 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Double-take OK, I know that sometimes people say "I thought you already were an admin." I used to do that sometimes, mainly for effect. But in this case, I really, truly did not know you weren't an admin. Since I already assumed you were an admin, I don't think I can reasonably do anything but support. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No “wrong queue” jokes today, folks. Just a simple message of support for someone who has been an asset to the project. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Yes, some of the opposes are concerning but I've only had really good interactions with this user personally. I do not feel like I could do anything but support on this one. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support appears to the right sort of person for adminship Ijanderson (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Oppose  per this. While many disagree with me, I'm not a fan of the "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach to fair use, and a lot of these images you've tagged seem to have been kept. Also, it's a trivial point but I really don't like the apparently random way in which you use the "minor edit" box, in which labelling an article as OR is a minor edit, but removing 4 line breaks (with an incorrect edit summary, and in violation of the AWB rules of use, incidentally) is a major edit. All minor negatives, but without positives to cancel them out there's nothing to push me to the "support" side – and, while we do need more admins, admins with an itchy trigger finger will end up causing more problems at DRV, ANI and the rest of the alphabet soup then they fix. Sorry… –  iride scent  17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Escalating to total oppose re "ended in an indefinite block - a perfect result". I hadn't noticed that. –  iride scent  17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The minor edit was automatically done by Friendly, just to let you know.   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and sorry, didn't notice about the AWB line breaks notice, I didn't realise that this had occured. I don't lock the edit summary, so I don't know what could have caused that to occur... hm.   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Looking through the user's recent Wikipedia namespace shows 2 things.  First, a large proportion of it is Twinkle tagging - not a bad thing in and of itself, but in the candidate's own words, "it doesn't allow me to see your policy knowledge or evidence of suitability."  (A large percentage of the candidate's mainspace contributions are also TW tagging/AWB typo fixing.) Secondly, a disproportionate amount of the contributions seem to be in and pertaining to RFA.  Something about that just rubs me the wrong way.  I'm also not impressed with this characterization of another candidate's RFA as "utterly ridiculous" - I'm not sure that's the kind of temperament I look for in prospective administrators.  Asenine is overall a good contributing editor to the project but I'm not sure I'm seeing admin material here. Shereth 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. Absolutely not. While there are many positive constructive traits about this candidate, Asenine's RfA behavior - which I think would be a predictor of admin behavior - is bureaucratic, arrogant and often nonsensical. The questions Asenine posts - so often they are templates - in (almost?) every RfA these days are ambiguous, of dubious relevance to adminship, and in my opinion, smack of self-importance. Often the questions are asked after an oppose !vote has already been cast, or directly before a support !vote ("the epitome of nothing wrong here"). Pointless timewasters. I've seen Asenine oppose for "being too bitey", and then come up with opposes like this and this. Hypocritical. This candidate puts too much energy into smacking other potential admins down, which indicates his/her perception of Wikipedia adminship is heavily skewed. Tan   &#124;   39  17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongest possible oppose -- not only completely and utterly fails my requirements, but shows too much love for automated tools and displays an awesome lack of AGF in that AfD RfA vote per Tanthalas39. Never.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hate to badger, but what AfD vote? I can't seem to see one anywhere on this page...   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect he meant RFA. -- how do you turn this on  17:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not badgering. That's fixing my dyslexia. :D -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We've all done it. :D   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) First off, I'm not impressed with this edit, where Asenine says "I'm not a fan of being badgered, either". I for one am tired of the word "badger" and its variants being thrown around to stifle discussions. Secondly, I found this edit summary, and I dislike what comes across as "shouting" in edit summaries. The following two edits, this and this, were, in my opinion, wrong considering the fact Asenine once said this. This to me was something else that seemed unnecessary, and things like this and this are unhelpful. I'm not sure Asenine has the right judgment for adminship at the moment. Acalamari 17:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea I had that effect on discussions =( Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I hate to pile-on, but I'm afraid I cannot support a candidate with a behavior such as Asenine's. Those diffs provided by Tanthalas39 are extremely concerning. Overall, I'm not too happy with what I'm seeing in Asenin's contibs. Mostly automated edits. Cheers, –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose, arrogant user (proved by their comments various places, including RfA), does not seem to understand AGF, has a very high proportion of automated edits, etc. Has some - in their own words - utterly ridiculous RfA opposes, such as this one. (...) "ended in an indefinite block - a perfect result" indicates the kind of prejudice an admin definitely should not have. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - doesn't seem to have the right attitude or temperament for adminship. Please don't take this as a criticism of you as an editor, since you are an excellent and dedicated one; some people just aren't suited for adminship, and you appear to be one of those people. Though of course, within time, people change, I'd love to support you in the future. -- how do you turn this on  17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose - per Iridescent - that's just unacceptable.  iMa tth ew (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I also hate piling on to, but I most going along with Iridescent and Aclamai(Sorry if I spelled the name wrong!)America69 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I know I do not need to preface an oppose with an apology, but here I feel somewhat compelled to. I like Asenine, I really do. I think he is extremely well intentioned, but that's not really the issue. There is an obvious and very real temperament problem that needs to be rectified before I can, in good conscience, support an RfA from him. Far too often have I seen ghastly comments at RfA. They sometimes churn my stomach.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Tan said what I thought when I saw this RfA.  naerii  19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Strong Oppose seems to have issues with WP:AGF. And this edit really seems to indicate that he doesn't realize Rfa's are a discussion and not a vote and that the user who asked him a question in an extremely respectable way was actually trying to discuss their !vote. Which makes me question if the candidate realizes things lika Rfa and Afd are not votes, which is important for an admin to know. -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually right now, RFAs aren't a discussion. That's why the votes are numbered and there's a tally at the top.. -- how do you turn this on  19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhoh, I smells drahma. Garden . 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that that is what many people think and how it looks, but its not intended to be that way (which is why they are called !votes and not votes), telling someone that they are badgering you when they have asked you a well thought out and level headed question is not becoming of an administrator. Whether its a vote or not. The conduct alone is enough in my opininion to oppose. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I am switching to strong oppose per things like this. That is a horrible way to treat such a situation, where they could have easily calmly explained their opinion. Instead they chose to WP:BITE. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - we already have too many unecessarily arrogant administrators here. I do not feel promoting another would benefit the project.  (Tan and iridescent sum it right up for me.)   Garden . 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Pretty much per iridescent. I'm sorry, but "The perfect outcome" is the first thing I saw when I opened your RFA, and that really upset me. A shame, thought you already were an admin at one point. &mdash; Ceran thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for exactly the same reasons as Tan enumerated above. Shoots first and asks questions later. Townlake (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Super Duper Oppose Look at my talk page for details but he just had a go at me.... for having edited my own talk page in a "wrong" way. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I was inclined to support, but I can't in the context of the opposers' comments. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I disclose I did 'admin-coach' Asenine for a short while, and he did have some merits in the way he answered some of the queries; however his questionable remarks at RfA leave a lot to be desired. Caulde  20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.