Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RandomStringOfCharacters 2


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

RandomStringOfCharacters
Final tally: (10/14/12) ; closed by RandomStringOfCharacters at 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hello all, I am RandomStringOfCharacters, I have been editing Wikipedia since early 2008. I figure this question will be asked, so: Yes, I have edited under a different username. I don't want to disclose it for the reason I mentioned at my rollback request. My previous account was left in good standing, as I was given rollback after my request. As for what I do: I am a college student heading towards a compsci degree. On Wikipedia I do several things: image resizing (and other image things), anti-vandalism, new page patrol, some afc work, and I'm starting to get into more content creation. I also occasionally help people in the #wikipedia-en-afc IRC channel.

I will attempt to answer any questions you have. RandomStringOfCharacters  [T]  04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have decided to withdraw my nomination. Thank you to those who have taken precious time and participated. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  20:33, 5 February 2010 (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 with CSDs, help with the Category:Rescaled_fairuse_images backlog (and other image work), and continued work with anti-vandalism. As for other areas that I have less experience in, I would not perform administrative actions without first getting experience.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would consider this tool my best contribution to Wikipedia. To date over 2000 non-free images from this category have been reduced using it. I have also done a fair amount of new page patrol and anti-vandalism work.


 * 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 haven't particularly been involved in any editing conflicts. As far as dealing with stress and annoyances, I consider myself fairly good at staying calm, and I am able to recognize the few occasions where I should go take a walk and calm down. I have a general policy of treating people nicer than they treat me.


 * Additional optional questions from Davemeistermoab
 * 4. I respect that you disclosed having edited under a previous username and can understand why you don't want to publicly reveal said username. Would you be willing to privately reveal your old username to someone with administrator privileges so they can, without giving specifics, confirm to the at-large community if you have been involved in any Arbcom probation's, RfC's, repeated blocks, etc? Obviously this would be someone of your choosing that you trust to preserve your privacy.
 * A: I've already done this with Nakon in my rollback request, and I am currently in-process of revealing my previous username to a Bureaucrat for confirmation.
 * If you can have Nakon comment here, that works for me. I don't see a need to reveal this info twice.Dave (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nihonjoe has already checked and commented down below as to the standing of my previous account. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A few from Smithers:
 * 5. Please explain CSD criterion G1 in your own words.
 * A. I think G1 applies to new pages that are basically random strings of characters or words that cannot be parsed for meaning. For instance: lfof89y0hj0 would fall under G1, so would "pie not what jump die". Something like "the sky blue" can be interpreted as "the sky is blue", just poorly written, so it would not fall under G1.


 * 6. Please explain CSD criterion F7 in your own words.
 * A. F7 applies to files where for some reason a fair-use claim is invalid, for instance, a file that is easily replaceable with a free equivalent would not have a valid fair use claim, and thus fall under F7.


 * 7. Please explain CSD criterion F9 in your own words.
 * A. Basically, any file that an uploader claims is free (uploads under free license) which is obviously not free.


 * 8. Please explain the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3.
 * A. It is context versus content. A1 is for created pages where the subject can't be reasonably identified, A3 is for pages lacking meaningful encyclopedic content.


 * Additional optional questions from Groomtech


 * 9. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
 * A: Wikipedians do not have rights. They have privileges. If they abuse these privileges, they will have them taken away. I don't consider the "right to vanish" a right in the classical sense either. A person can always leave Wikipedia, it's not a matter of on-wiki rights, we could call it a right, but in the end it's just semantics. The disassociation of an account from a person (perhaps by changing the username) is not a right either, but a courtesy that isn't required to be extended to all. Accounts left in bad standing might not be extended this courtesy. This makes it, in my eyes, a privilege.


 * 10. Would you see it as part of your admin's role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
 * A: No, I don't believe this is the sort of thing a single admin (or user) should decide.


 * Additional optional questions from Coffee
 * 11. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?
 * A. I would likely close for deletion. This might vary slightly depending on the level of notability and the potential for harm the article has, but when dealing with living people, there should be reasonable sourcing -- especially if the article may damage a persons reputation because it was based on false data. So I agree with the ArbCom motion.


 * 12. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
 * A. I rather like the current policy. I think strict sourcing and notability requirements are necessary for articles about living people as articles on this site can adversely affect a person. Obviously having false defaming information is something that needs to be avoided. As for work with BLP' I haven't done any, so I definitely would not perform any admin actions on BLPs without first gaining lots of experience as a normal user.


 * 13. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
 * A. Wikipedia currently has policies regarding users posting the personal information of others which often will result in a block. However, I think despite visible suggestions that revealing personal information can bed a bad idea, that if a user posts personally identifying information, nothing should be done unless: 1. The users requests it's removal, or 2. It is noticed that a user that is likely a minor has unwittingly revealed personal information. For example: A very unique username that is used elsewhere online, and that more personally identifying information can be found there. If noticed, the user should be privately contacted about it. To clarify I think: In the case that a minor posts their name, or city or school, I do not think anything out of the ordinary should be done. For situations where personal information is unwittingly revealed, if noticed, the person should be contacted in some manner which won't reveal the personal information to others. At this point they can then request the information that led to this changed or removed.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on talk. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the previous account: RandomStringOfCharacters has contacted me via email and disclosed his previous account mentioned in his initial statement above. I can confirm that he had no blocks and did not appear to have any problems while using this previous account (I thoroughly reviewed his previous account's talk page). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd really like you to have a proper userpage. The random string of characters is cute, but as an admin you'll be chased by new and confused editors who want to know how to contact you. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just taken a look at the candidate's previous account, and I can confirm that it made approximately 500 edits, had a clean block log (ie. empty) and was assigned rollback rights. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also examined the previous account. The editing pattern is the same as this account - low level vandal fighting. The account was active for several months in 2008 with approx 400 edits - there was a pause in 2009 then about 30 edits in the summer. There's a couple of terse comments about edit reverts, but nothing significant. In my view it would contribute little to anyone's decision to ivote support or oppose. The reason RandomStringOfCharacters has given me for changing accounts is perfectly valid. It would be inappropriate to ask RandomStringOfCharacters to reveal that account.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support: For what you said you planned to contribute to as an admin, I think you have experience. Though you might be lacking in mainspace edits, and therefore experience in the issues arising from disputes in that space and how to handle them. Overall though, I don't think this is a reason to outright oppose you. Good luck, and regardless of the outcome thanks for your work! NJA (t/ c)  09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support: Experience issues are my main cause of concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per WP:AGF more so than User:A_Nobody/RfA, i.e. I am going only on what I have seen thus far and on the positive side of things, we have had no memorable negative interactions and you have never been blocked. While I suspect this candidacy will not succeed due primarily to having less than a certain number of contributions, I encourage you to consider some of the following ideas over say the next several months before trying again: 1) rescue articles for Article_Rescue_Squadron as doing simultaneously improves our content while earning the appreciation of those editors and article creators whose articles you improve; 2) help make Wikipedia a pleasant place through Welcoming_committee and KC, which are also sound ways to avoid conflict (although every once in a while you run into someone who acts miffed over being welcomed...); 3) consider joining Adopt-a-User where an established editor can walk you through and assist you with the many complexities of Wikipedia; and 4) get as many DYKs and GAs as you can.  Good luck!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support I like the answers to the questions, but agree that more diversity is needed in your edits. However, I refuse to pile on and hope you don't let this RfA discourage you.  AniMate   17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral support. I've seen RandomStringOfCharacters doing a lot of very good anti-vandalism work, and it always appears effective and efficient. I can't comment on other issues regarding this particular RfA because I haven't checked, but I do see admin material here - if perhaps not this time, then certainly in the future. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He has experience in the areas he wished to work. The admin tools don't help with writing pages, they help with maintenance. This user will do a fine job.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually 'She' - see user page. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  06:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The only issue I can really find is experience, and Nihonjoe's looking into your former account is good enough to satisfy that for me. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom If Nihonjoe has no concerns to report then that will satisfy me. You do have experience in the admin areas you plan to contribute to. Best wishes. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks odd considering this is a self-nom. :)     ArcAngel   (talk) (review ) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more odd if i trust the candidate but not the nominator. I value a sincere self nomination. om nom nom was made as a gift for me but it was deleted before i found a place to use it. This would have been one such place to use it. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support - meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits, interesting user page, and Rollback rights. I'd like more information, but will go with my gut. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. None of the opposes worry me one bit, and you have exactly the level of experience I would expect in the areas where you wish to apply the tools. — what a crazy random happenstance 07:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose 165 edits in the Wikispace? Sorry, but with that low of a number I cannot accurately judge your experience in that area.  While I see a lot of file work, and a bit less than 600 deleted edits, I would feel more comfortable if you had more edits to Wikispace.     ArcAngel   (talk) (review ) 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. While you've done some great work for the project (especially those non-free resizes!), I must agree with the above that you have rather limited recent experience in the Wikipedia namespace.  My ideal RfA candinate would have at least 700-9000 edits in this namespace with lots of discussion.  Hope to see you back here in a few more thousand edits and  several months.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Sorry, but your edit summary does not indicate a great deal of experience in consensus building or working with other editors on resolving disputes.  Your user talk edits appear to be mainly vandal tags, and you have negligible WP talk and article talk edits.  Were you to become more active in the content creation side of things, and had a demonstrated history of working with other editors to resolve differences, I would be more than happy to support.  From one Comp Sci major to another, good luck, and hope to see you back here in a few months once these issues are addressed. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. I've asked this a bunch of times, and keep getting ignored. Why in hell is it so easy for poorly-considered RfAs like this to get transcluded? Şłџğģő  07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the applicant getting some feedback. A quick and speedy "no" would be more likely to discourage future attempts, which isn't a good idea. In this case particularly, I feel the applicant simply lacks the resume, rather than the character, and would welcome them back when they have more experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As those numbers at the end of the RfAs go up, the odds of passage go down. Say the next RfA doesn't pass and RSoC becomes a worthwhile candidate thereafter. There will be votes opposing based on the number "4." Can this feedback come unaccompanied with the giant middle finger that is a WP:SNOW RfA? Şłџğģő  19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Clearly insufficient edits in the wikipedia namespace. A very quick look and I cannot find any experience at WP:AfD how can someone be trusted to do admin work with no evidence of experience in admin areas? Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, mate but they're not going to take you if you have less that 5,000 active edits (as has happened with me before) also the lack of expirence in the admin areas makes me oppose The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - You show enough mainspace experience for me to trust you know your way around the encyclopedia, but I'd like to see more evidence of good communication abilities and dispute handling. I'm not worried about your ability to properly delete CSDs, but what will happen when someone gets in your face about deleting "their" article? I don't just want an answer to the question, but actual evidence, and I don't see it. --  At am a  頭 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised that after several hundred CSDs, the only person who went into my face about a CSD is still Sslingbat. My response was to his question on my talk page. After this, he left a message on Talk: R.D. Kratz, syntactically directed at Wikipedia in general (though I can only imagine mainly directed at me). He said things like "kiss my ass" or "fuck you" repeatedly. At this point I decided not to respond. I said all I had needed to say in my response on his talk page. If he was going to say mean things instead of argue why his page was notable, I didn't see any reason to continue discussing his article with him. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a very good attitude and I think a lot of potential. Consider this a very weak oppose. I'd just like to see more in "Wikipedia:" space. (By the way, that anecdote would have been a great thing to mention in the answer to question 3.) --  At am a  頭 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. I'm sorry, I just don't feel you have the experience I'd like to see. I see no evidence of article building (rewrites, expansions, maybe an ITN or DYK, perhaps a GA or even FA are all nice to see)- you've never made (at the time of writing) more than 11 edits to a single article in the mainspace. I would also like to see more experience in project space- the number of edits to AIV shows me you're a proficient vandal fighter, but the lack to places like ANI, UAA or RPP doesn't show me that you'd be up to the job of handling anything more serious than petty vandals (though they do need dealing with) or that you keep an eye on pages that you know are vandal targets. I'd be more comfortable supporting in a few months when you have a little more experience, sorry. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Lack of content creation. Perhaps you should just write up a quick article and nominate it for a DYK? Low amount of namespace edits as well. I would love to support you but you lack alot of major "requirements" that most people have (Includeing me). I guess that my oppose can be sumed up as "per WP:NOTNOW". Come back in say April-May with alot more content creation and edits to articles as well as participation in other areas such as the AN or ANI and then I'll be more that happy to support. Good luck in your current RFA none-the-less!-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, lack of experience in administrator-based tasks in the Wikipidia-space. Otherwise a great editor. I'm totally willing to support of you make those improvements.  Marlith  (Talk)   05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The candidate's anti-vandalism efforts and CSD tagging look fine; however, I don't feel the candidate has enough experience in the project and project talk namespaces for me to judge whether she would make a good administrator outside of the aforementioned areas. The lack of article work is not her favor, either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Nope Disclose your prior account or forego my support. Evasion of scrutiny is not compatible with my trust, while admitting mistakes and saying what you've learned from them is. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this isn't evasion of scrutiny. My previous username is known by lots of people I've met. The corresponding Wikipedia userpage is the second google result for that username. While the likelihood of this causing a safety issue for me is fairly low, I'd still rather not take the chance. I'm fairly open about disclosing the account privately, as all I wish to avoid is a search engine indexed link between the two accounts. If you were to contact me via email or IRC (nick: RandomString), I would probably disclose the account to you. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This oppose is pathetic. There is a myriad of privacy concerns that may be behind RSOC's choice not to reveal her previous account. It is nauseatingly selfish to demand someone's personal information, especially in such a tone. Two administrators in excellent standing have had a look at the previous account and publicly stood by her, not to mention the fact that there have been countless RfAs where a new account created for privacy reasons hasn't caused a single raised eyebrow. Get over yourself. — what a crazy random happenstance 07:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *The activity of the previous account is pretty much the same as the current account. There is no activity on that account which needs to be concealed. RandomStringOfCharacters has a valid personal reason for not wanting to link the two accounts, and that should be respected. The Privacy policy is available via a link at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would like to see more experience.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral You do have lots of experience, but I'm not sure if I consider the tool you use as "mainspace" editing. Minima  c  94 ( talk ) 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I am unsure whether you are ready for adminship for the reasons given by the opposers, but I do not feel strongly enough to oppose. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral leaning support - Although this user has a clue, anti-vandal work requires WP:AIAV for example, and that number in the Wikipediaspace is a bit low....  smithers  - talk  16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Insufficient visible evidence in the WP namespace for me to go either way. I would advise getting a little more experience on this account. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I am on the fence and am not sure the user has enough experience in all facets of Wikipedia to be trusted with the mop yet. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral You are a great editor, but I don't see the sufficient experience. Don't get me wrong...you haven't done anything wrong yet, but I'd like to see some further experience before I support. The Arbiter  ★★★  01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral per those above. Keep on editing though and I will surely support next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Just looking for a bit more experience, as is almost every previous commenter.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Seems a little short of experience, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Bit of a plie on neutral if such a thing exists. You're well on the way, but you're not quite there yet. Ged  UK  12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral for the moment. There's a solid commitment to removing vandalism and newly created articles that meet the Speedy delete criteria. However, there's little evidence of anything else, and given the relatively short time the user has been here, and the lack of evidence of wider experience and knowledge of Wikipedia it is difficult to form a judgement on the user's abilities or character. Some opinion can be formed from this being the second self-nominated RfA in less than 6 months, and in both the community have expressed NOTNOW concerns. One can either admire the boldness, or feel it's a lack of good judgement.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral due to the answer to Q9. It may be a question of semantics, but personally I do feel that Wikimedians have at least one right, that of privacy. The irony is that the user is using this right in not declaring the prior account. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's primarily a difference of semantics. I tend to consider anything that can be revoked a privilege. So for a real world analogy, in the US, being able to have a driver's license is a privilege, while due process (justice system) is a right. That said, I think there are very few cases where privacy should be revoked and never to a total degree. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  00:59, 5 February 2010 (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.