Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vacation9


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

Vacation9
Final (8/18/7); ended 12:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate ~TheGeneralUser (talk)  12:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
- Today I am delighted to nominate User:Vacation9 for adminship. I have only ever had good experiences with Vacation9, they have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy and I have no reason to believe that they will misuse the tools.

Vacation9 has had an account since 2010 and has been active since part way through 2012. Throughout their time Vacation9 has participated in many AFD discussions, non admin AFD closures, CSD tags, reports to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP as well as participation in WP:ANI and WP:BOT discussions. They also appear in #wikipedia-en-revdel requesting various accurate revision deletions on a regular basis!

Vacation9 also maintains User:VoxelBot which looks after the vandalism level on Template:Vandalism Information as well as WP:FAC and WP:FLC requests.

 ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 19:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination
It is rare that I support a candidate for adminship who has the amount of experience in concentrated content creation that Vacation9 possesses. It is rarer that I end up "above the fold", if you will, on an RfA. That said, I have made an exception for Vacation9 because I, to sum it up in two words, trust him. I have absolutely no reservations whatsoever about V9 with the tools, and I am sure he would be a welcome addition to the admin corps. Addshore summed up his participation in various areas of the encyclopedia, so there's no need for me to rehash that here, but as a usual stickler for substantial content creation, I wanted to say that in this case, I am making an exception, and I would encourage the community to do so as well. Thank you. Go  Phightins  !  20:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I first encountered Vacation9 a while ago last year when he developed and deployed VoxelBot alongside Fox Wilson. After that, I asked him to assist me at writing a script to help at some tasks I needed done, and I was impressed by his efficiency and skill at bots. After taking a look at his edits, I discovered that Vacation9 was a very accurate vandalism fighter, and showcased a fair amount of knowledge of both the speedy and deletion criterias, which can be seen through his CSD log, and AFD statistics. Apart from that, Vacation9 has constantly showed a high level of compromise with the project, and given his promising record, I am sure that the tools will do good to improve his bot, deletion and anti-vandalism work. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. Thank you so much to my nominators, along with everybody who !votes below, whether it be Support, Oppose, or Neutral. Vaca  tion  9  17:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdraw. After reviewing the opposes, I don't want to waste people's time. Vaca  tion  9  12:09, 1 March 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: First of all, let me say I'm really a jack of all trades. That being said, I would mainly focus on behind the scenes anti-vandal work such as AIV, RPP, CSD, AFD, UAA, and IRC requests on #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help, and #wikipedia-en-revdel. I would also help out at Edit Protected, where help is desperately needed, Requests for permissions, ANI requests where what needs to be done is clear and is noncontroversial, add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, and really help out anywhere with a Admin backlog template. If, however, I am not familiar with the area, I will be extremely careful and only close/deal with obvious requests that I know how to do.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would definitely have to say my anti-vandalism contributions, including my reverts, AIV reports, UAA reports, and RPP reports would be my best contributions. However, there are also my New Page Patrol/CSD nominations, along with my Edit Semi Protected backlog clearing and my Article Feedback and Pending Changes reviewing. I also mostly wrote Google Takeout, a C class article, along with three other stubs which don't have much more I can expand on. As well, I created the VoxelBot tasks which corrected hundreds of thousands of Romanian characters from the cedilla letter (used due to prior Unicode issues) to the comma letter, as well as handling FA and FL nominations.


 * 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 can't think of any conflicts which have caused me stress, no. The worst dispute (not saying it was bad necessarily) I have probably been involved in would be this discussion on Mediran's talkpage about G3 vs A7 speedy deletion tags back in November. Of course, I've learned a lot since then and have much more experience with CSD, with a very high accuracy rate recently. I haven't had any stress from Wikipedia editing and I always do my best to be civil and courteous to all editors, new and old, even when my actions are questioned.


 * Additional question from Stalwart111
 * 4. I was one of those who raised concerns in November about some WP:AFD and WP:NAC things. You say above that you've "learned a lot since then" and I assume you mean with regard to deletion process in general, yes? I'm keen to understand what you've learned and whether you think it has impacted on your editing at AFD since (in general, as well as in relation to functional things like closing/relisting/etc). Stalwart 111  04:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Vacation9:
 * Public account:
 * Edit summary usage for Vacation9 can be found here.
 * Stats on talk page. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) As nom, of course. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As nom  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought transclusion wasn't until next week!  Go   Phightins  !  20:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support, Vacation looks like he will be a net positive as an admin, althugh the oppose section is already concerning. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) moral support I don't believe this RfA is going to pass at this time, and I agree with several users below in just not being totally comfortable with your level of maturity at this time. I feel that perhaps you need to wait six months or a year, work on your knowledge of the project (which is already significant) and get a better grip on cooperation, and I think next time this will sail through. I actually like your bold behavior. I think that the project NEEDS more people willing to dive into things. We have far too many wannabe politicians that try their hardest to make themselves as unremarkable as possible in the hopes that the virtue of never having given a real opinion on anything will help them slip through RfA. If nothing else, you impress me by this quality alone. Also... just some food for thought, IRC is the third rail. I have never seen anyone benefit in an RfA by their presence on IRC, it only hurts. Keep that in mind for next time. Trusilver  21:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. After reading Rschen's oppose I was initially on the fence, but after reviewing Vacation9's contributions, I find myself in favor of approving this request for adminship.  Most striking to me was the editor's CSD log, documenting a superb record when dealing with new page deletion.  Furthermore, I found the editor's comments to exhibit a high level of knowledge about Wikipedia as well as maturity.  It is difficult for me to believe that Vacation9 would somehow be too immature to handle the tools, especially without hard evidence to the contrary.  Lastly, there is no reason to oppose this editor for having 6 months of experience on Wikipedia--I was given adminship with 7 months of experience and I never broke the encyclopedia.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 21:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Definitely a net positive. — nerdfighter 22:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - He won't misuse the tools. WP:NOBIGDEAL. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose this candidate has shown immaturity as evidenced by the recent argument in #wikimedia-otrs; this evidenced a failure to understand privacy-related issues and what OTRS is / how the WMF operates, and overall being disagreeable while trumpeting the horn of "maturity". Furthermore, this user has taken actions that are similar to those of a hat collector, as evidenced by the user's request for global rollback while not meeting the qualification of having several crosswiki reverts (having joined the Small Wiki Monitoring Team 20 hours before). --Rschen7754 19:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to respond to the immaturity issue for everybody here. You of course have the right to your own opinion, and I don't challenge that. In #wikimedia-otrs, I argued, alongside gwickwire, that maturity is not equal to age. I demonstrated this in the fact that many administrators may not be of age in their area, while they have access to possibly sensitive deleted articles and revisions. Especially concerning the OTRS queues where there may not be much sensitive information flowing, I argued that the minimum age should be reconsidered and changed to a trust basis. This is partially because an adult may be just as malicious as a teenager, and that trust and maturity is the main issue here. Even if you disagree, I just wanted to have a discussion, and I still do not understand why you call me immature because of this issue, but all users have their views, and I won't try to change them. As well, I don't believe I was hat collecting persay since I had a need and demonstrated a need for the tools, I just didn't have enough experience yet. Thank you for your opinion. Vaca  tion  9  20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was also the tone that your comments took in that particular discussion; I can't go into more specifics without violating the "no public logging" convention of IRC. You were trumpeting the horn of maturity while acting immature yourself. Furthermore, there was no "need" for the GR flag; global Twinkle was sufficient for your needs at the time. --Rschen7754 20:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I believe Vacation9 has the best of intentions, but tends to "jump the gun" and rush things like 1, 2, 3 as well as other requests that I've seen on IRC. Legoktm (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your opinion, but could I ask why the VoxelBot BRFA was rushed? For the first example as well, there was no way I could have known about the issue without having a background in that specific area; I was being BOLD and approved the request. I don't question your opinion though. Vaca  tion  9  20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit busy to pull up specific diffs, but by my count you continually used the template even though a BAG member had commented recently (instructions state ~7 days). You even said there were "tumbleweeds around here" even though Chris G had commented less than 48 hours ago. My main concern about the first one is the fact that you made the edit even though you specifically knew you didn't have a background in the area, and were simply being bold. If you were an admin and someone asked for an editprotected request to a template used on 100k pages and had 100 nested parserfunctions, I would not want someone who had no idea what they were doing implementing such a request. Legoktm (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Rschen7754. KTC (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I really hate to do this, sorry. As stated by Legoktm, you have good intentions but I don't get the right feeling about you yet. As said, keep up the good work and come back once you have more experience and some more maturity. (I'm not saying you are immature, I just think you need to get the skills to not "jump the gun") -- Cheers, Ri l ey    20:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Only been editing for 6 months? I'd really have to see something incredible to convince me to !vote "support". Too much too fast I think.   — Soap — 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I have seen several instances demonstrating a lack of seasoned judgement recently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Rschen7754 and Legoktm. Furthermore, the user says that he wants to work with CSD, but some of his speedy deletion tags look problematic to me:  - this one was tagged only a minute after creation.  - this one was tagged as A7 when the article talked about the subject being on the verge of an international career, so A7 didn't apply; furthermore, close to the end of the page was a copyright notice, which should have clued Vacation9 into the fact that it should be tagged as G12.  While the tagging has improved over the last couple months, I think this RfA is rushing into things, and I think the user needs time to further prove himself before being given the tools.  So I am opposed for now.  If the user matures a little and shows consistently better CSD tagging, I'd probably reconsider in a year or so. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that those tags were last November, and I have learned a massive amount more about CSD tagging since then, with a 100% accuracy recently. Vaca  tion  9  22:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I acknowledged that, saying that the tags have improved. But personally, I need more than just 3 months of good tagging to be convinced.  Like I said - stay consistent like you have been over the past 3 months, and I'll probably support your RfA in a year. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose #1, #2, #7. Too eager to jump in. Not ready. Leaky  Caldron  22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Though you are a good editor and the global rollbacker case stated by Rschen does not cause any concern, I must oppose based on the other concerns of Rschen and Legoktm. Maybe once you reach 8 months minimum, though 6 more months without any repeats of the above cases should make a more positive view. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per all above, and the fact he has been editing for only about 6 months and that 37% of his edits are User-talk related Jay Jay What did I do? 22:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I really, really hate to seem like piling on, but feel I must chime in to give some advice. Although you registered back in 2010, you didn't begin editing in earnest until last September. Generally, editors who've only been here half a year don't pass RFA. I'm not writing off what you have done over the past six months, but the general haste of this request is enough to give me pause. You're going to be an impeccable candidate after a year or so's editing and honing your communication skills. You've got great potential as an editor and I wish you all the best for whatever your future here may bring. Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2013-02. In that respect, the amount of experience you have is not adequate, and Rschen7754's concerns are not good either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Based on lack of time on Wikipedia. While (s)he's edited quite a bit in the six month's (s)he has been active here, six months of active editing just isn't enough to convince me that (s)he's experienced enough to take on the mop. I'm sorry, Vacation9, and I hope that, if/when you try again later, you succeed. Greengreengreen  red  23:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Since they were linked above I looked at some of your non-admin closures. I consider them a poisoned chalice when it comes to RFA, but they do give an indication of an editors ability to read consensus and their understanding of policy. I am afraid that the your closures displayed a tendency to !vote count more than to dissect individual arguments. Some were also a little careless (it was moved during the discussion) or had unclear reasoning. AIR corn (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at the non-admin closures, since the CSD tags were enough evidence for me, but after looking through those, I see more concerning things. For starters, these two should not have even been closed by a non-admin, in my opinion:  and . Inks.LWC (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Competence and maturity concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all above and also emphasizing the comment of and .  Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Rschen7754. Widr (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose More edits to AN/I than any mainspace article is unusual for a new editor, it adds to the impression the last few months have been a concerted effort to make the right friends and pass an RfA Jebus989 ✰ 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Strong moral support, but neutral. In my singular opinion, I think you are a year away from being ready.  There are so many nuances in policy that simply take time and experience to fully comprehend. I waited 5 years, but I'm a slow learner ;-).  While I am totally comfortable with trusting you to not abuse the tools and know you wouldn't intentionally do any evil, I don't think you are quite ready to deal with the ugly problems that crop up regularly.  Your heart is in the right place, and I respect and admire your willingness to serve.  I look forward to supporting in the future.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I've seen Vacation9 before. He has strong editing capabilities, but I have observed issues with CSD and a few other admin-involved areas. I don't want to support, but I feel that opposing would be too much here. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Answers to the questions leave something to be desired...may change to support after a closer look. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support for a future RfA run. I feel confident that I could support a run in 6-12 months time, and I think that withdrawing at this stage would show good judgment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral Support, per Boing! said Zebedee. I'm usually generous with my support on RFA, but I would advise the candidate to withdraw and try again in a few months.  –BuickCenturyDriver 05:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, At this time, the candidate does not seem mature enough to become admin, but has demonstrated a solid understanding of policy in some areas. Perhaps in another year or so's time I would support.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral because I don't know the candidate well enough yet for a Support. What I saw recently impressed me! The user tackled a problem that was described as difficult (moving forward from ArticleHistory to article history), listened to the input of others but made decisions about what to take, and arrived fast at a seemingly simple solution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 1 March 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.