Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paul Benjamin Austin


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

Paul Benjamin Austin
'''Final (0/4/2); ended 15:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I am an extremely long-serving and dedicated Wikipedian. I have had a registered account for over fourteen years and edited extensively anonymously before this. I was previously an administrator from 2003 until 2005, at which point I resigned my adminship due to stress. I pledge to recuse myself from any matters when asked, if that is a concern Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_adminship/PMelvilleAustin
 * Requests_for_adminship/PMA.


 * 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:


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:


 * 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:

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional question from WJBscribe
 * 4. Have you reflected on the comments made at Requests for comment/PMA? How would you approach being an administrator differently if this request is successful?
 * A:


 * Additional question from Joshualouie711
 * 5. Proper edit summary usage is frequently considered a requisite for adminship. However, for all non-minor mainspace edits, your edit summary usage is only 25%. Could you please explain the reason why you do not typically use edit summaries? Thank you.
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Paul Benjamin Austin:
 * Edit summary usage for Paul Benjamin Austin can be found here.

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

Oppose

 * You don't meet my criteria. That you failed to transclude this does not bode well. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - if it weren't for your impressive tenure I'd think this RFA was trolling. It seems obvious that you did not read Advice for RfA candidates. You didn't answer any of the questions before transcluding, and you didn't transclude properly. You're right, the process has changed remarkably from the era in which you were previously a sysop, back in the day when you could basically just email Jimbo and he'd make you an admin. Your nomination commenting that you resigned the bit due to stress seems dishonest, given the fact that you resigned the bit evidently to escape scrutiny while your egregious abuse of the tools was being discussed (per question 4 above) even though that was more than ten years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "abuse of the tools" - after i had found several editors *boasting on their talk pages* that they planned to collude to maintain a far left bias in socialism and communism related articles? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I wouldn't use such strong words as Ivanvector does above for someone who has given so many of his years to Wikipedia, significantly productively. I would have least wanted to be in the oppose section for a consecutive time. My opposition stems from a combination of reasons. While I would prefer an answer to the standard Rfa questions, the worry is that adminship might end up being stressful for Paul and perhaps not what he might actually require to take up. I no longer edit at Wikipedia. I can be contacted through the "Email this user" link. is a deal breaker, as are things like not leaving edit summaries for any reverts that the experienced editor is undertaking...and many other reasons, which I shall not actually wish to specify. I'll suggest an early withdrawal from this candidate to allow him to avoid the acrimony that he might face here. Lourdes  15:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Low activity level since 2009, almost no AfD contributions, low edit summary usage. &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Oppose with regret. The candidate has only !voted on a few AfD debates, their edit summary usage is worryingly low, and the incident that Ivanvector mentioned worries me. Sorry. Joshualouie711 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moving from oppose That you failed to transclude this does not bode well. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's transclude? the last time i was made an admin was 13 years ago. Completely different system. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This. You can read up about it at Transclusion. The community is likely to expect you to have familiarised yourself with how Wikipedia has changed over the past 13 years before seeking to be an administrator again. WJBscribe (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral A lot has changed in 13 years. While I personally wish the bar to adminship was not so high, it is. And you probably need to bring yourself more up to date on Wikipedia in its present state before running again. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * To withdraw, please either strike your self-nomination and leave a comment under it, or just leave a comment under the self-nomination indicating you'd like to withdraw -- samtar talk or stalk 15:55, 16 December 2016 (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.