Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout 2


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

AutomaticStrikeout 2
'''Final (5/16/7); ended 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC) - User has withdrawn. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I am submitting this self-nomination for adminship, not because I hold any expectation whatsoever of succeeding, but rather because adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I won't attempt to make a case for why you should support me because I'd rather you decide that for yourself. Besides, I don't need the tools anyway. However, I am taking this step because I want people to realize that RfA is not something to be afraid. I'd like to see more people throw their hats into the ring without any fear or trepidation. If adminship is no big deal, then an unsuccessful RfA is no big deal. I enter this process fully aware that I have many flaws which will no doubt be exposed. I do hope that regardless of if you support, oppose or go neutral, you will provide some constructive feedback that I can benefit from. Thank you for participating. AutomaticStrikeout ?  02:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: If, by some miracle, I do succeed, I don't expect I would use the tools a whole lot. Primarily, I guess I would close XfDs and block vandals. However, most of my tool use would probably arise from situations I came across in my regular editing, at least at the beginning.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have contributed to Wikipedia in a wide range of ways. I guess what I'm most proud is WP:TAFI, a project which grew out of one of my early proposals. Ironically, it was probably the only good proposal from my early days.


 * 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: Yes, I do admit I have been involved in my share of conflicts. I tend to have difficulty biting my tongue and I have rubbed some people the wrong way by speaking my mind. While I do believe that admins that should be careful in choosing their words, I don't think they should adhere to political correctness too closely. As far as handling disputes and stress is concerned, sometimes the best thing to do is just log out and step away. I believe I am starting to do a better job of that.


 * Additional question from Go Phightins!
 * 4. What is your opinion on recall, both in general, and as it pertains to you, if elected?
 * A: Well, I don't know if I wish to confine myself to specifically discussing recall, but I will address the general idea of community de-adminship. It should be evident by now that I think adminship ought to be no big deal. As a result, I also think that the community should not have to pull teeth in order to take the tools away from an abusive admin. As for me, if I was to be elected and then to abuse the tools, I believe the community should be able to desysop me. Obviously, we can argue about how this would be done until the cows come home, but I believe that anyone placed in a position of trust should not be allowed to abuse that position without facing the consequences.


 * Additional question from  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 
 * 5. Please could you expand on your answer to Question 2 by giving us some examples of edits where you have cited reliable sources.
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for AutomaticStrikeout:
 * Edit summary usage for AutomaticStrikeout can be found here.
 * Previous RFA for this editor:
 * Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout (October 2012)

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

Discussion

 * I would like to withdraw this RfA. However, I will also state for the record that I do not see my run for adminship as disruptive and therefore I do not think WP:POINT applies to this case. I find it disappointing that so many of you would default to such a bad faith response simply because I tried something new, but I'm really not surprised (in fact, I fully expect I'll be stoned even more for daring to say this). You can't complain about the lack of RfA candidates if this is how you treat the people who actually do run. AutomaticStrikeout ?  15:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely but it typical of what we have come to expect from the project and from the RFA process. Better luck next time. Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the above is not a reference to every single oppose !vote, but rather to the ones that dismissively accuse me of being POINTy rather that bothering to consider what I had to say. I question why it was really necessary for some of you to get all up in arms because I dared to run for adminship simply to show that I think it is not a big deal. AutomaticStrikeout ?  15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) User identified a problem (in this case, a dearth of RfAs) and is attempting to rectify it. I like people who act as well as talk. Past RfA shows no major concerns except for inexperience, but that was quite a while back. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) He has the spirit, and I'm sure that AS will be a great admin. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no problems with AutomaticStrikeout becoming an admin. Even an admin can have occasional mess-ups in conflicts, and I even see admins with years of experience that have this problem. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) This user has gained experience since the last RfA, which failed for the lack of such. I feel that AutomaticStrikeout can do well as an administrator. T  C  N7 JM  04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Regardless of the reason for submission this is a good candidate and giving them the tools will benefit the project. In my opinion all the petty opposes should be stricken unless they can show a valid reason why the editor should not have the tools.Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Thanks for offering to help out, but I don't think this is a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For those of us that are on the fence, can you elaborate? Or is it a general gut feeling "Not yet" !vote?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really trying to convince anyone, just registering my opinion, but yes I suppose you could consider this a generic "not yet" vote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Certainly well-meaning, but I'm not seeing the right things here. The nomination does not explain why AS would be a good candidate. "No big deal" does not mean suspending requirements for perspective, a cool-head, or common sense. Q1 through Q3 are misses. An expectation of failure is inappropriate; there were specific points in the previous RfA; why not a checklist of those with comments such as improved AIV reports. Q1's no clear goal is also inappropriate. Q2 leaves me wondering what AS has done with TAFI besides propose it; tell me. Q3 makes me cringe; it gives me no sense of understanding (when to bite the tongue and what determines the appropriate level of political incorrectness) and cites no evidence for improvement. AS has seen and participated in many RfAs, so I expect much better answers. Furthermore, an RfA is asking the community to devote 100 man hours to considering the issue, so I expect AS to put some time and thought into the RfA -- and to give the community a little guidance about where to look. AS has improved since the last time out, but I need to see more perspective and common sense. Glrx (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Dedicated editor with reasonably balanced distribution of edits overall. As a baseball fan myself, I've seen you around doing great work.
 * However, I have to address my concerns regretfully. I think you may have misinterpreted the quote on adminship being "not a big deal". It is certainly not a big deal, but it does not equate to not taking the process in an appropriate manner when you do decide to run. Becoming a sysop means that you have been entrusted by the community, and there are responsibilities that comes with the tools. Therefore, you should dedicate more time and effort in your answers to the questions, and improving on the aspects of a prospective sysop (indicated in the previous application) instead of talking about the process being not working on a regular basis. By the way, I had to transclude your nomination because you didn't do it properly and never corrected it. It was probably a honest mistake, but it could be another example of carelessness.
 * If you are running just to make a point, I feel it could be somewhat disrespectful since this process is not taken lightly by the community. Wishing you the best of luck if you do make it through. Alex ShihTalk 04:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) While I'm all for "no big deal", I have to oppose per Alex Shih. "No big deal" means "No big deal provided the user can be trusted to do the basic job and demonstrates a clear need for the tools", not in order to make a point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I could care less about how much you'll use the administrator tools&mdash;I care if you will use them well (or not). I'd have looked into your edit history if you'd given me a reason to, but you haven't given me any argument as to why you should be given the mop. So, while my gut feeling and past interactions say that I should support, this is an oppose. Sorry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Ill-conceived "protest RfA" gives me no confidence that he would be a good admin. WP:POINT is a guideline which this request arguably walks all over. I see no evidence in the rather cursory and poorly thought out answers to the questions that would change my mind either. Finally I seem to recall various unimpressive episodes where this user has dabbled unsuccessfully in admin-like areas; I have no diffs and would need to research them. But why go to the trouble when the candidate hasn't gone to any? Here and here are recent (less than one month old) examples of extreme cluelessness where your intervention actually made the situation significantly worse. Sarcasm, abusing those who disagree with you, and railing against those who write the articles; if these are examples of the style you would use as an admin, I'd say a huge "no thanks". Learn from your mistakes, get more of a feeling for our rules and norms, and come back in a year or so with evidence you have changed if you are serious. If you are not serious, please don't waste our time again. --John (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose (i) POINTy; (ii) Adminship is a big deal; (iii) you say you don't need the tools. - Pointillist (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) No way do we need any members of the sycophant claque being promoted. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since AS has asked for constructive feedback, I'll add that your request that Giano be blocked was one of the most childish, disruptive, disgusting things I've seen in my time here. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As the editor stated, he does not appear to need to use the advanced privileges and is doing this to make a point, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Oddly enough, there are some areas where AS has the strength and background to run for RFA. Yes, there are areas that need work.  However, if you're not willing to put forth the effort for an honest, non-pointy attempt to have those areas reviewed, there's no need to for the rest of us to put forth the effort either  ES  &#38;L  11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Time to stop trotting out this tired "no big deal" platitude. It is a big deal to be able to block and unblock editors, to delete things and to determine who can and cannot edit things. Candidate says "I don't need the tools anyway". Okay then :) --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Unfortunately, I don't believe you're mature enough to be given the mop. Sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Even if this were a real nomination (as opposed to a pointy one), I would still oppose. User has a tendency to retire in a huff whenever things don't go his way (which has happened 3 times the last 8 months alone) , and he has only just returned from his latest one (the retired banner was removed last week).  There's nothing wrong with stepping back and taking a break from Wikipedia when you find yourself getting frustrated (in fact, it is highly recommended that you do so), but doing it so often and in such a drama-filled way makes it looks like you are just seeking attention or confirmation. Plus, retiring implies that you are leaving for good, so the fact that you have tried and failed to retire 3 times in the last 8 months shows either impetuousness or lack of discipline, neither of which is an ideal temperament for an admin. SheepNotGoats (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per Salvio. The user might generally have good ideas and intentions, but this is definitely not a correct way to showcase them. Widr (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Immature point-making. Tiresome. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose and early closure — Per WP:SNOW, the candidate's admittance that they don't really need (or, presumably, want) the tools, as well as the above. This isn't Editor review. -- SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Well meaning? Yes. Trying to prove a POINT? Yes. GiantSnowman 08:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I can't support this RfA as it is far too POINTy, but I applaud the sentiment, so I won't oppose either. I guess that leaves me here. — sparklism hey! 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Please either submit an actual RFA or withdraw this one, since it seems to be intended solely to make a statement. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) per Reaper Eternal. Unfortunate, because a quick analysis of the candidate leaves me unsure why he didn't just submit a proper RFA instead of this. I'm not saying I would have supported after a full analysis, because I haven't done one - but there's nothing that leaps out and would make me oppose before proper investigation - except, of course, perhaps this WP:POINTy self nom itself...  Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This is silly, AS. After an RfA which failed essentially on experience concerns 10 months ago, you should be thinking about when you're going to file a real RfA, not throwing yourself on the rails with this kind of protest. I suggest you either pull this or re-write it so it reads as an appropriate request. Give people a reason to support and you might be surprised. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Begoon & Basalisk.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I think AS's heart is in the right place here, but this isn't going to solve the problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:01, 3 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.