Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Auric


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Auric
[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page) Final (11/24/5); ended 02:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn — ΛΧΣ  21  02:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– It is my pleasure to nominate Auric for adminship. He has been in Wikipedia since 2003, and has wrote 318 articles. He also has the reviewer and autopatrolled rights, and has just over 43,000 edits, with 82.5% in the article namespace. I think with stats like that, and just how friendly he is overall, he would easily net positive for us. Overall, he is a great Wikipedian who should have been given the mop a long time ago. buffbills7701 12:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you.-- Auric    talk  15:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn.-- Auric    talk  02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I prefer a light touch, but I'm willing to do what is asked of me, although no deletions, since that's a tricky business.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I value all my contributions equally, but I like my articles about Goodmanham and General Order No. 11 as well as the more recent Dreams from My Real Father. I also value the SPIs for Kamran1370 and Codetruth.


 * 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: Some. I try to be polite and helpful. I forgive and forget. Generally I deal with stress by taking a wikibreak.


 * Additional question from Cindamuse
 * 4. Would you mind elaborating on your answers to Q1–3? These questions are asked in order to provide us with a starting point to evaluate your contributions and understanding of policies and guidelines, along with your problem-solving skills and process for resolving conflict. That said, your answers really don't offer us much to go on. For example, I tend to value quality of contributions over quantity. While I think it's great that you value your contributions, could you help us out by providing links to some of your contributions which you consider to be of higher quality? Further, you haven't actually referred to administrative work in Q1, so I would be interested in some clarification.
 * A:I'm being cautious. I don't like to brag and I don't want to be seen as a braggart. I'm used to people misunderstanding me if I try to explain, so I try to keep my answers short, since there is less to misunderstand. I really don't want to put my foot wrong here.


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech


 * 5.The nominator says you created over 300 articles on Wikipedia? Have any of your articles been deleted? Please elaborate in your own words. Thanks
 * A: 5 have been deleted - Gwenyth Hood, Grandfather's brother paradox, List of fictional books within the Discworld series, List of films about independent body parts, and Blood Libel (story).


 * Additional questions from Newjerseyliz
 * 6.Suppose you are editing in an area you know well and a relatively new editor is making some disruptive edits (a mix of good but mainly bad edits). The regular editors are becoming exasperated at having to revert some of his/her edits and complain to you. What would be the actions would you take in response to the situation?
 * A:
 * 7. You didn't give a very detailed answer to "How have you dealt with it [conflict among editors over edits] and how will you deal with it in the future?" Could you say more on how you'd deal with conflict? While taking a "wikibreak" might be useful as an editor, it isn't an optimal strategy for an administrator.
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Auric:
 * Edit summary usage for Auric can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Perhaps Q4 should be moved here since it is not actually a question, though I would like to see more details in Q1-3. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to RfA talk page. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as Nominator buffbills7701 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support seems like a clueful candidate. I do agree that the answers should be a little more in depth and you might want to change that before it torpedoes your RfA. Automatic 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Just kidding, I support you because you were here for a long time, and you are active. KinHikhari (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks pretty solid to me, good luck mate   ocee  Conas tá tú? 19:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I see nothing here that gives me pause in trusting Auric with the mop.  bd2412  T 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I can't imagine you'll get up there and immediately break all your promises by mass-blocking a bunch of high schools or whatever. If this RfA somehow passes I think you'll take it slow, as you've said you would, and I don't have any misgivings about giving my support.  — Soap — 02:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --cyrfaw ( talk ) 05:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Has been around nearly as long as me - a rarity - which shows a great level of commitment and patience, and that alone should be enough to swing it. Clearly won't abuse the tools. I am concerned that all the oppose comments below totally fail to understand that minor mistakes are not a big issue, and that people learn as they go along. If someone's bad at making AfD closes, they'll learn not to be in short order, you can bet on that. There is really nothing that Auric could do that would pose a serious problem. If his opinions differ on some matters, that's a good thing; diversity is strength, not groupthink and toeing a party line. If it's on matters of policy, he'll pick that up as he goes along. The oppose voters should all step back, read WP:Net positive and take a while to think about it. —  Scott  •  talk  10:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Auric has been editing here for a long, long time - and 82% of those thousands of edits are in the article space. How many of the editors on this page can say the same? I also like admins who keep their own counsel - so having someone who has their own views at AFD is good. We keep saying we want good content editors as admins - guess what? Found one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you come across any particular examples of good content work? I'm not being snarky, more looking for a reason to support and the best contributions given in Q2 are a start-class article and a disambiguation page. The userpage of the candidate doesn't indicate any GA/FA quality work, so it'd likely help your case and the candidate's if you could link to any you've seen. Thanks  Jebus989 ✰ 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't any GA or FA work, or at least none that I can identify. Nothing jumps out at me, really - it's just an impression that this editor has focused much more on article work than is typical of admin candidates these days - and that that was worth highlighting. YMMV. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. ''' Jianhui67   Talk   13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have read through the oppose !votes, and find them unconvincing. Best of luck, Signalizing (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose I think Auric is completely unsuited to be an administrator as he doesn't seem fully aware of how our guidelines and policies work. He makes comments that either are irrational or unresponsive to the situation behind it., really? He has a wrong interpretation of notability, and BLP and that's all within the past month or so. Combined with the nearly non-responsive answers to the questions, I'll pass. Secret account 20:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify when I said "wrong" in AFD, it's for comments like "If so, her notability goes up in smoke and the article can be safely deleted" which notability is not temporary and the BLP link which literally meant "I don't see abuse despite the subject claims, keep" which is arguably the worst way to handle the delicate situation, not to mention it is not policy based. Along with the first two links and IRWolfie below, I don't trust this candidate to do any administrative tasks, especially with deletions. Secret account 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per performance at AfD. Poor record at AfD. : over the last 50 AfDs 56% where vote matched result, while 38.0% did not. Poor rationale given in the AfDs the editor has participated in, many of the comments I have looked at don't advance any policy based reason to keep the articles; e.g where the reason given for keep was that the person had written an article in a reliable source., "Keep if solid sources can be found. The article is rather nebulous right now."  "This could be a good article. The Career section needs to pov-edited, and the matter of the medals clarified, but it looks sound."  etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the second link about Forced adoption is a rather acceptable comment on AFD, as he stated "if" solid sources were found, and the article did improve and was kept in AFD, everything else isn't policy based. Secret account 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone shouldn't vote keep when there actually comment is speculative and does not provide actual grounds for keeping the article. The comment is basically as redundant as stating keep if WP:GNG is met, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of which has even the slightest bearing on whether it will harm the project for Auric to have access to the admin toolset. —  Scott  •  talk  10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The kind of person who makes non-arguments at AfDs instead of making a policy based rationale isn't the sort of person that should be able to close said discussions, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @IRWolfie-, forgive me but I do undestand the relevance of the statistics (%) you provided. Is it bad for admins to have their own views on some issues and is it imperative that they always group-think? XOttawahitech (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the examples IRWolfie has provided, the implication I see is that the frequent departure of Auric from consensus is a result of his poor understanding of policies/guidelines. You can arrive at a 38% rate of disagreement because you're a strong independent thinker, or you can arrive there because you don't know what notability is. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case Auric can take the time to read up on that and use admin tools to help out in other areas instead. There is no shortage of backlogs around here. —  Scott  •  talk  10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should not be assumed that higher is always better. I see the distribution as U-shaped, with values above 90% as red flags, to check for gaming, which would be easy to do. I'd like to see a relatively high value, but will be concerned if it is too high.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. I was feeling neutral at first due to the near lack of answers to questions, but User:Secret's diffs tipped me over the edge. King Jakob  C2 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose 12 word answers are fine if they convey enough information for others to figure out what you mean. The ones given, don't. I am not worried that you are "wrong" at AfD, but IRWolfie points out that you seem not to grasp the fact that policy trumps opinion there.  Get a bit more experience there, and I suspect you will do much better.  Collect (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per Secret and Collect; the candidate looks rather clueless Kraxler (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I was hoping for better answers to the first three questions, as was Hahc21, but I have to oppose per Secret (but not his "horrible" AfD stats). I might've considered supporting or neutral if the question answers were more thorough, but unfortunately, I can only wish you better luck next time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per diffs provided by Secret and IRWolfie. I'm not convinced that Auric has a firm understanding of core policies and guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per this (did Auric really think that was helpful) and, more importantly, the answer to question 4. If the user finds that she/he is generally misunderstood when she/he gives longer explanations, she/he cannot fulfill what is probably the most important job of an administrator: to explain her/his actions in a way that makes them clear and understandable, especially to new/confused users. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per answer to Question 4, because good communication skills are, in my opinion, in the top four or so most important qualities I need to see in a RFA candidate (the other three being a good handle on the WP:RULES, demonstrated good judgement, and an even temper). Also, related to that, the box that looks like it should be an infobox on the User page, and says "Contact me:  no".  And, agreeing to this RFA, barely answering the standard RFA questions, and then buggering off on a Wikibreak for what is normally the most interactive part of any RFA.    03:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Moving to oppose from Neutral(which was due to lack of in-depth response to the basic questions). Atleast reading some history of RFA should have given what would be expected in RFA.  A m i t  웃  03:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Opposes above raise some red flags and (weak) answers to questions make me more confident to oppose as well.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  04:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose The concerns that Secret brings up are definitely alarming.  Spencer T♦ C 06:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be less melodramatic. Thanks. —  Scott  •  talk  10:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. AfD !votes are not sufficiently well reasoned. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the points made by Secret. I'm also concerned by the lack of detailed responses to the stock questions and the candidate's admission that they're used to being misunderstood when they try to explain things. We already have enough issues with poor communication on the part of some admins. I'm also unconvinced by the support responses. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for a couple of reasons. First of all, I found the candidate's answer to Q1 to be extremely vague. The original answer was, "Basically the same sort, involving tidying and reverting vandals. More will come," now it is "I prefer a light touch, but I'm willing to do what is asked of me, although no deletions, since that's a tricky business," which I assume is a change in response to other editors' vetting of the candidate's statements at AfD discussions. A lack of clarity suggests to me a lack of familiarity with most tools, even in passing. Secondly, I reviewed the articles mentioned in Q2: Goodmanham and General Order No. 11 (1862). For Goodmanham, one can review the full page history here, and aside from starting the article back in 2004, the candidate has only made simple edits since, making for a total of 9 edits. For General Order No. 11, 13 of the 16 edits to the article were back in 2004 as seen here. If these two examples are the best content-related contributions to be offered, I am not impressed. It seems to me that a lot of the many edits are here-and-there, which is acceptable but indicates a lack of familiarity with in-depth article writing and the policies and guidelines that go along with that. I doubt that the tools would be abused explicitly, but I am not sure if the tools will be used well enough that it will not warrant cleanup on others' parts. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. per Secret and Collect and Kraxler and others. Not good enough. T. trichiura Infect me 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - has been around a while but can't seem to get past 12-word answers for the three most important questions of any RfA, not to mention the diffs that Secret put up showing little understanding of important policies to everyone, not just an administrator. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  15:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Secret and Erik. With those kinds of responses to AfD and also the adminship questions I suggest taking a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and other RfAs. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 18:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Parking here until the candidate gets back from the wikibreak. It's not looking good, but maybe that's just because we haven't heard from the candidate on the more important questions. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose This editor does not meet enough of my RFA standards, specifically those relating to having a good understanding of guidelines and policies. Would be more than happy to re-assess in the future. Mkdw talk 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Answers to Q1 Q2 and Q3 do not inspire confidence. And Q4, which asks for elaboration of the answer to Q1 and which you essentially decline to answer, is a serious negative for me. Again on Q1, while deletions do need care and consideration, to state that you will make none is not to your advantage here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose While this guy has been editing for a very long time, the answers to the questions and the diffs that Secret and IRWolfie put up make me oppose. StevenD99  Chat 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - So far, I'm not impressed with any of the answers the candidate has offered. The first 3 questions especially concern me, as it appears all 3 of them were poorly answered or dodged. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - Per Secret and also per Auric's responses to the questions given, which are so vague as to be useless as far as determining whether someone should be trusted with the administrator user right. - SudoGhost 00:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I would like to see more comprehensive answers to the standard three questions before supporting or opposing. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Agree with Hahc, I would like more thorough answers before supporting or opposing. --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - While I fully endorse adminship as no big deal, I do not believe it is an exercise of nonchalance. Please do expand your answers to questions 1–3. :) John Cline (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral moved to oppose The answers to Q1 to 3 are almost inappropriately short and I would almost considered them not answered at all. As per the above, I would appreciate more thoughtful and specific answers before making a decision -- but leaning to oppose.  Mkdw talk 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They are fine. There is no requirement to write an essay for each question. Your use of "inappropriately" is verging on being out of order itself, from its implications. —  Scott  •  talk  10:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never asked for an essay. I'm sorry you feel that way but I also feel that way about some of your comments to others here. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree and simply respect everyone's right to express their concerns as they see necessary. Mkdw talk 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning oppose because while I  haven't  done any  research  yet, I  find the nomination  statement  insufficiently  convincing and the answers to  the questions significantly  lacking  in  depth. I  would have expected far more for  a serious candidacy and from their nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, this is officially my first nomination. Since you said that you wanted a more serious candidacy from me, could you give me some tips on how to do so? buffbills7701 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please consider my comment on the talk page. Thanks :) John Cline (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral "I'm used to people misunderstanding me if I try to explain" isn't encouraging, but I don't know Auric, and an oppose would probably just be piling on anyway. Auric, Q1-3 aren't asking you to brag, they are asking you to tell those of us who don't know you something about yourself as a Wikipedian. RfA isn't the place to be coy. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2013 (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.