🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mr._IP
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr. IP

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Mr. IP

[edit]

Final (19/45/9); Ended 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate.

I am closing my Request for Adminship. I appreciate the participation of all users, regardless of how you voted. I apologize for any disruption that I caused; drama was not my intent in posting this request, despite its unusual nature. Ultimately, some of us are not suited for adminship, and I have decided that I may be one of these - or if not, I seem enough like one that adminship is not a fruitful avenue for me to pursue. I will continue to serve the project in other ways, since there are so many of them. Thanks again for weighing in. I look forward to working with all of you in the future. I will be posting much thankspam in the next few minutes. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP (talk · contribs) - I am a non-traditional admin candidate.

I am nominating myself as an experiment to determine whether adminship is or isn't "a big deal" at Wikipedia in 2008. Time was, anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the project and some knowledge of policy could make it through. We seem to have departed from that standard to the great detriment of the community. I think that we should either relax a bit, or just admit to ourselves that adminship is a very big deal indeed, and remove any misleading language to the contrary from our policies and guidelines. Beyond that, I plan to write a Wikipedia essay about my RFA experience, sort of a "state of the union" as regards the current process.

Besides, RFA has been slow lately :D

You could consider this a protest candidacy of sorts, but "experiment" is still closer to how I'd describe it. Personally, I know I'm a good candidate — love the project, care about the project, would never do anything to hurt the project, interested in helping the project in new ways — but I also know that in the current climate, this RFA could never be anything more than an experiment. I mean, I read Requests for Adminship every day and I'm well aware that I don't remotely fit the "right" profile...but I'm sick of the "right" profile. I remain inspired by the old-school approach to adminship, and I would like to give the old ways one last shot tonight. Here goes!

About me:

Why I want the tools

  • As I say below, I like to explore new areas of building the encyclopedia. I don't want any to be off limits because I don't have the necessary user rights. That's about it. I take a "why the hell not?" approach here. I like to help out in various areas, and would be happy to help with any and all backlogs. See my answer to the question below for a more detailed answer.
  • If even three users in good standing wanted me to relinquish the tools, I would step down. That's how harmless I intend to be.

Pros

  • I love Wikipedia and deeply care about its mission. I would never do anything to harm the project or abuse the tools.
  • I do not edit war. Ever. My approach to all issues is consensus-based.
  • Though this account is relatively new, I have been around, on and off, for ages. It's a point of pride for me to work with as many different areas of the project as possible. The only adminny area I've never really worked with is AI/V. My image work has also been pretty limited. Aside from that, I've touched on everything at one time or another, and I do believe I've read and re-read just about every policy page in town.
  • My mainspace contributions are pretty simple. I do cleanup-expansions ([1], [2]), rewrites, and gnome work. When I run into conflicts, I always work it out on talk pages before even touching mainspace again.
  • I represent an editor type which is severely underrepresented in the admin ranks. I provide an outside perspective while doing useful work and no harm.

Cons

  • Mildly checkered past. I have even been blocked — albeit briefly, a long time ago, and not under this account.
    • On the other hand: I feel that this gives me better insight into "problem editors" than most folks who come up for RFA. It never hurts to have some people around who understand the feelings and motivations of a "problem editor". I think I'd be much better able to work with such users than a more "upstanding" administrator.
  • I don't have many edits at all under this account. 500 or so now.
    • On the other hand: It's pretty easy for !voters to get a grasp on my editing history :D
  • I have fairly strong opinions about some of the trends on Wikipedia, and am more than willing to use satire, even a bit of theater (example: [3]), to get my point across.
    • On the other hand: I don't think I've ever hurt anyone's feelings, because I don't go after people, I go after policies. Further, I never, ever let my feelings about policy intrude on mainspace. Lastly, it never hurts to have some people with outside-the-mainstream policy opinions around.

Other

  • I hate cool-down blocks almost as much as I hate the Indianapolis Colts.

Anyway, I ask you to seriously consider the idea that a user such as myself could be valuable as an administrator today. How much of a big deal is adminship? Are we sure we want to squeeze out every admin through the same mold? Are we sure we want to set the bar so high that only the perfect candidate can pass? Are we sure we want to create a cursus honorum for Wikipedia? Are we sure we must vote "oppose" on a proposition such as this?

Like I said, here goes! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I proudly accept the nomination entered by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would prefer sticking to areas where I have experience in my past lives on Wikipedia, particularly AfD and RfPP. I am particularly interested in helping to develop a new system for RfPP which would provide more information in article talk space about the reasons for protection and the page's protection history — that is, I would like to better integrate RfPP and article talk, and I would like a better understanding of RfPP from the admin's side of the table. Really, though, I'm a jack of all trades and would like to explore new ways of helping Wikipedia, and would probably direct my energies to wherever the most help is needed. The only area I might avoid would be AI/V, due to lack of experience.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I like when I can make substantial improvements to an article in very few edits, while securing the approval and enthusiasm of previous editors to the same article. The previously-cited cleanup of Gary S. Paxton ([4]) is one of the better examples I have under this account.
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 have learned to minimize my wikistress through working out all disputes on user talk and article talk before touching mainspace. For a recent example, one of my recent edits to Grant DePorter was reverted by an IP editor without comment. Instead of going back to article space, I have suggested a compromise version and posted a notice on the article talk page and the IP editor's talk page. In the event that there is no response or objection, I will implement the compromise version within several days. This is typical of my methods.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: Thanks for the question. I have read this example at RFA enough times now that I have come to view this particular IP editor as an old friend, and would unblock him immediately. I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, the first thing I would do would not be to take any administrative action, but rather to engage this user further on his or her talk page. Based on our discussion, I would gauge whether or not the request was being made in good faith. If the request did appear to be in good faith, I would forget about the earlier incident and unblock. If the request, on further discussion, emerged as being obviously in bad faith, I would discuss our policies further with the user, and attempt to impress upon them the importance of editing constructively, while gently turning down the unblock request and allowing the block to expire naturally. If the situation remained ambiguous, I would make use of the {{2nd chance}} template. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Skomorokh

5. Would you care to quantify, in a unit of your choice, the extent to which you hate the Indianapolis Colts?
A: Well, let me put it this way. If I had to choose between my hatred of the Colts and my hatred of cool-down blocks, it would be rough. I think, though, that if I saw the Indianapolis Colts editing Wikipedia, I would apply a cool-down block. On principle. I hope that helps. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Sarcasticidealist

6. Here you express the view that "something needs to be done" about "the increasingly-extreme demands of the BLP activists". Could you expand on this a little, preferably explaining what you would like to see done and what demands of BLP activists you find too extreme?
A: Well, it is my feeling that we have gone too far in regard to catering to BLP concerns. Way, way too far. I understand the passion and dedication which many have for BLP issues, and I have come to realize that their views are based on deep moral impulses - the very definition of good faith. However, my own views about BLP policy are based on a moral impulse which runs in the opposite direction, specifically the belief that we must do everything possible to prevent the whitewashing of Wikipedia. As for what is to be done, I'm a consensus-based sort of guy, so my plan for some time now has been to compose an essay about my feelings, and to attempt to turn consensus away from the direction it's heading in. My general approach is to attempt to persuade others, rather than to force policy changes in any way. I never hide my views, but I would never impose them. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Unless I've missed it (which is very possible, especially since you mention that it should be easy to get a handle on your edit history) you haven't disclosed the accounts/I.P.s from which you've done most of your editing. Are you prepared to do so? If not, why not?
A: Well, to go through all the IPs would be very difficult. As for past accounts, it's hard to think up all the names — and to some extent I do want to leave the past behind, because I was less mature — but I don't think anyone here would recognize any of them. That is, there's no notorious stuff there, mostly just innocuous accounts along the lines of User:Bill Oaf, stuff like that. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followup from xeno: What about your most recent IP(s)? I understand if you don't want to disclose for privacy reasons, and wouldn't hold it against you, but some people may want to review more than 500 edits.
A: Good question. Let me poke around and see what I can find. In the meantime, let me drag out old Bill Oaf, who had something like 1,500 harmless edits just a year or so ago. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Definitely. --naerii 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Yes, thinking it over (and delving deeper through your contribs), I think you can be trusted with the tools. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Changing (hopefully for the last time) to oppose. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support due to no blocks and no negative interactions (i.e. assuming good faith) with candidate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see nothing, absolutely nothing, which makes me think this candidate would abuse the tools intentionally or unintentionally. Isn't that the point? nancy talk 10:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I commend you for taking the time to show how broken RFA is. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest possible support: I'm going to go against the grain and throw myself completely behind this user, who thinks outside the box and happens to have an edge (wow, can I possibly fit any more idioms into this sentence?). What really impresses me about this candidate is his sense of Wikipedia as a human endeavor. His defense of IP editors is provocative, regardless of whether or not we agree with it. He also gave me a serious wake-up call during another user's RfA: I was opposing like some sort of wannabe politician, until this candidate's input made me realize how silly I was being. Mr. IP is one of the most thoughtful and reflective editors I have encountered on this project, and I am happy to give this "experimental" nomination some very-much-beyond-experimental support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. Genuine. HiDrNick! 15:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mr. IP, from what I've seen of him, is a good-faith editor, and this nomination has been submitted in good-faith. I actually find it somewhat saddening to see this nomination regarded as a "joke" or "disruptive" when I don't believe it's been intended to be either of those. From his statement and questions, he has a sense of humor (a fine quality), but that doesn't make this a "joke". Acalamari 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who writes in their nomination statement that it's an "experimental RFA" is doomed to fail. As I said below, it's all well and good to test the waters and see if it's possible to pass RFA as a quasi-anonymous editor, but coming out and just saying it's "experimental" is dooming oneself to failure, imo. It's unfortunate, as I would've liked to see how this played out without that experimental business. I understand Mr. IP wrote that it in good faith, not wanting to deceive us, but it's really complicated things. –xeno (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call an experiment doomed to fail--just uncertain to succeed. The whole idea behind, say, an "experimental treatment" is that it's hoped to work, but, insofar it's pushing the envelope, it may or may not end up succeeding. Perhaps he has come close to WP:POINT territory (yes, I know that the guideline explicitly says, "state your point; don't prove it experimentally; emphasis mine), but I wouldn't say that he has crossed the border, because A) this user has stated the relevant points in various locations, such as his user page and the RfA that I mentioned in my support; he's not trying to "prove" in practice what we don't already know in theory; B) he has submitted what seems to be a good-faith, genuine RfA, which just so happens to be tinged with irony and humour; and C) as I mentioned, and attempted to demonstrate, in my support, this user in particular is especially attuned to the human underpinnings of the project. For instance, he prefers to edit anonymously, under his IP. Were this RfA to succeed, it wouldn't so much prove any point as it would simply validate a well-intending human being, who edits as an anonymous human being and administrates as a human being attached to the necessary evil of a user name. In short: absolutely not a case of WP:POINT, if you read between the lines. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I view self noms as prima facia evidence of good initiative and an attitude of wanting to help. NonvocalScream (Go Georgia Bulldogs!)
  9. Support. What an odd RfA. While I see the reasons for the opposition (basically, non-reverence and disrespect for the RfA process), when I boil it down to the usual relevant question - "do I trust this user with the tools" - well, I do. I don't agree with every opinion he has, but none of his contribs raised an eyebrow or caused me to do more than utter a "huh." As it turns out, a fifteen minute tour de contribs of this user was a pleasant experience in what we want Wikipedia editors to be. Tan ǀ 39 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support I most definitely trust this user, as strange as that seems. I've ran into this user a lot of times, so many I was incredulous to learn he only has 500 edits. This RfA is exactly what the RfA process needs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support I thought the same thing as Erik above in terms of the number of contributions. He seems like he would make a great admin with his sense of humor.--Patrick (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support sicaruma 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaruma (talk • contribs)
    The above user's only contribution has been to this RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And? Any user can vote on these, no? sicaruma (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Indeed An RfA where sincerity and honesty is mixed with intelligent humour - a winning formula. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support -I've seen IP around quite a bit, and I'm extremely glad he wants to be an admin. Wonderful editor. Leonard(Bloom) 20:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I strongly concur with IP that RfA has become much more of a big deal. I believe that the question asked here should not be "is this irreverent of the process?" but rather "will Mr. IP cause harm to the encyclopedia with the tools?" After looking at his recent contributions (the most recent 150-200) I have found his opinions to be well-expressed and thoughtful—though I don't agree with all the opinions he holds. He's done some nice gnoming work (example) and copyediting (example). One other thing that struck me was his courtesy to anonymous editors, a quality that seems to be in short supply as of late (example). All in all, I don't think that Mr. IP would cause harm to the project if given the tools. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, seems like a good user, and that's a good nomination statement. Everyking (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support. Adminship has become such a big deal these days, with people wanting certain percentages in editing categories, certain number of edits. There's admin coaching, theres the process of voting for people so they would then vote for you, theres pushing for featured articles not for the sake of writing good content, but rather to put another notch on their userpage, etc etc. These days to become an admin you basically have to be a politician. On the other hand here we have someone whose history and demeanor demonstrates that he/she cares about improving wikipedia rather than getting credit/amassing barnstars/making allies/whatever. I respect this. AfD hero (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support See no reason to think he'd abuse the tools Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Much as I love you for providing the lulz, I wouldn't really trust you as an admin. —Giggy 07:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. STRONGEST POINTY Oppose let's see a total of 503 (undeleted) edits. 18 total edits in wikitalk. I'm sorry, but you want to hold yourself up to make a POINT claiming that you want to see if adminship is a big deal or not... but all it is, is disruptive. You know that you are no where near the expectations of the community, but you want cry "it is a big deal" when your RfA goes down in flames. Normally, I wouldn't be this harsh with a person with as few edits as you, but you set yourself up as a person who reads Requests for Adminship every day and you want to write an essay on I plan to write a Wikipedia essay about my RFA experience. You know it is going to fail. This is beyond pointy, it is borderline disruptive. As for it being a big deal, even Jimbo Wales has said that adminship is a bigger deal than it used to be... that's old news.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as an experiment, it is naturally a bit disruptive; I agree there. It's just that there's not a lot going on at RfA right now, and this is ultimately pretty harmless. I do want to write an essay about this process, but it's not going to be a "poor me" rant. It's probably going to be a reflection on RfA, the need for a trial process, and the ongoing absence of a community desysop process. I intend to use my personal experiences with RfA in the essay, but it's not going to be some great big whine :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are the first to ever get a "STRONGEST" in the oppose from me. Your personal experience is totally skewed because you are so far off base here that it isn't even funny. I don't appreciate being used as an "experiment" Your experiment is an utter joke...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Balloonman, and out of curiosity, why did you find it necessary to capitalize "Strongest pointy" while opposing? Acalamari 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I haven't wanted to see an RfA fail like I do this one. The sad thing is, is if Mr IP, who I've seen around in his IP form, had taken this half way serious, I might have taken his nom half way seriously and given him a chance. Hell, I MIGHT have nomed him---I like non-traditional candidates! As it is, he is here for the SOLE purpose of writing a POV essay and to attempt to make a point. The POINT that he wanted to make is lost because he didn't take it seriously. I've lost the respect that I've had for Mr IP and his crusade. Instead, I want him to know fully well, that I OPPOSE his POINTYNESS.75.53.105.213 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I didn't get past the first two sentences in the nom statement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose- I don't think this candidate has nominated for the right reasons, and I don't think he takes adminship seriously enough. Reyk YO! 07:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I take it seriously in the sense that I take Wikipedia seriously - I believe in the project very deeply. I have also called adminship "Wikipedia's most successful institution" at one point. However, I don't hold adminship or the RfA as particularly sacred, and I admire the older model of admin confirmation. I would never abuse the tools, but I think we have set the bar too high. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, I'm sorry, but Wisdom and Balloonman are absolutely right. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ehh, the Colts thing was a turn on, but nothing else was. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WP:OWB #18. Of course there are other concerns, but the other WP:SNOWflakes either have or will bring them up. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 09:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I think on the whole you are very well intentioned, but this RFA is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, so I'm not sure I can trust that you won't use admin tools to do the same in the future. --BelovedFreak 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - this is disruptive. You're clearly unsuited to adminship with such low experience in every area for admins working and with a rather distractive attitude that could possibly lead to users who have never been to RfA before think this sort of RfA is acceptable (which it isn't). Rudget 12:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I wouldn't have minded participating in this experiment if you had been low-key editor with a year experience and a couple of thousand good edits in obscure topics, but not knowing you is a deal-breaker. Behaving well in 500 edits over a span of six months is easy for a troll who aims to hurt wikipedia after gaining adminship, and at this point, you could be such a destructive person or the best admin candidate ever. Too risky. – sgeureka t•c 13:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. From times I have seen Mr. IP around the encyclopedia, I haven't gotten the impression that he has an attitude that would make him a successful administrator. Unrelated, the answer to question No. 5 was quite funny. -- Natalya 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose This is an "experimental" RFA, so not really a serious attempt at adminship. Most telling, the candidate has claimed about 500 edits under this username. So this is an experienced user toying with us. While RFA is not a big deal, it is not a game or a toy or a lab in which to conduct psych experiments. Also, as we know nothing of the person behind the user's other accounts, it is hard to feel trust in someone who may already have an admin account, may be a banned user, or who may conduct further experimentation by abusing the tools. I see others have come right out and mentioned disruption and WP:point. If you are attempting to gauge the strength of "no big deal," you have failed. If you were trying to annoy a bunch of people who take RFA, flawed as it may be, seriously, then you have done so. Dlohcierekim 14:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Balloonman, Wisdom89, and Reyk. I know RfA's have become a big deal lately, but I'm sorry, with just over 500 edits, and less than 300 mainspace edits, I have to oppose. LittleMountain5 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. For one thing, as noted above, this RfA itself is basically a WP:POINT violation: the candidate knows full well that he does not satisfy the current community standards for RfA candidates, knows that this RfA will not succeeed and admits that the main reason for the nom is to write an essay about the experience. This is a textbook WP:POINT case. Second, the available contribution record of the candidate is too short (and the info about previous account names/IP contrib was not provided, as shown in the answer to Q7 above). The current account goes back to Feb 2008 and there are only about 500 contributions on it, total (mainspace, projectspace, everything taken together). The candidate says that he loves Wikipedia, deeply cares about its mission and would never abuse the tools. That is very good but such self-proclamations are not sufficient. The trust of the community for the use of admin tools has to be earned first, by a substantial contribution record to the project. Right now we have little other than self-proclamations of being trustworthy to go on. That is certainly not enough. Nsk92 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In all the RfAs I'm voted in (and I haven't even been active in them for the past four months or so), I think I've only opposed in one or two, this being the second or third. As far as I recall, I did not oppose "per" someone else's oppose argument. Unfortunately, after slogging my way through the entire nomination and all the questions, and looking at the support and oppose votes, I have to say that I am opposing per nearly every other oppose vote; I can't really single out one opposing comment that's better than the others. I'm sorry. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:53 3 August, 2008 (UTC)
  15. Stong Oppose (giggles) WP:POINT admin ship isnt that big, but it is bigger than your making out.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose on account of WP:POINT nomination, failure to disclose prior accounts.  Sandstein  17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I view pointy self-noms to be prima facia evidence of a higher probability of abusing the tools. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per nom (no that is not a mistake) :P I'd like to think that you'd would at least be serious about adminship. Your self-nom convinced me to oppose. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - this isn't the first time someone has done the "Experimental RfA to test the 'no big deal' theory". It won't be the last, either, I am sure. I'm going to be taking a stance of opposing these nominations without making any specific judgment toward the candidate themselves. Shereth 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I honestly think you are not taking this serious enough as Diligent Terrier said. I can't support. America69 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Tim Vickers below. This is not a valid experiment. --JayHenry (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Xeno brings up some good points about the validity of whatever kind of "experiment" this candidate is trying to run. I'm certainly not opposing for the sake of this candidate being unconventional; however, Mazca hit the idea right on the nose...without being able to find most of your contributions, I just can't trust you with the tools. Accountability is extremely important for admins. GlassCobra 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose All you have done is to postulate a self-fulfilling prophesy, in that your nomination statement is obviously and inevitably going to generate a lot of oppose votes. And that is a pity, because I suspect that an honest and straightforward application, including your experience under other names, might well have passed. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Time was, anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the project and some knowledge of policy could make it through. The issue here is that this experiment's aim (as determined by the content and context of that statement) are flawed. The ideals of RFA (to grant +sysop to dedicated reasonably knowledgable editors) have not changed one whit. The criteria and standards to prove commitment and knowledge have however. This is a result of wider circumstances, not least of which is that Wikipedia is now the 8th most popular site on the net. The vast damage that can be caused by poor deletions and bad blocks are no longer small things. And the technical ability to replace the main page with the image of an erect penis now has far greater reach then a few years ago. Whilst I don't disagree RFA has huge failings I am also of the opinion and understanding that our best output in all areas (main space, projects space, software implementation etc.) comes from discussed changes. Yes, WP:BOLD is good. But WP:RECKLESS is not a guideline or policy. I respect the debate this RFA has created, and I understand the intentions of MR. IP and would be pleased to support him in changes to the community's approach to adminship. But not in this fashion. Therefore let us disregard the "experiment" aspect of this RFA, in which case it boils down to the basic RFA criteria of "Do I trust you to use the buttons correctly?". On the evidence of contributions, not yet. Certainly not "never" but not yet. I'd also request that he perhaps now discontinue the experiment as I can see no further value that will be gained from it. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro makes an excellent point that some of us are missing. Strip away the trappings of the broadcasted experiment, and look at the candidate objectively and we find, essentially, just inexperience at this point. Not quite ready in other words. NOTNOW, but definitely not NOT EVER. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By a straight edit count, maybe. I judge a candidate differently. Tan ǀ 39 20:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you Tan, I never make RFA comments on edit count. Trust me!Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Je n'accuse pas. I was more commenting on Wisdom's evaluation of essential inexperience and my disagreement with it. Tan ǀ 39 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do look at the edit count as an indicator, it certainly isn't the only criteria that I use for evaluation. I always make it a point to go through the contributions, and per this, I just can't get a feel for the user's experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate. Ironholds 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Disruptive RFA. Thinking outside the box is fine, but the user has less than 1000 edits and seems drama prone. 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding dated but unsigned comment added by Sumoeagle179.
  27. Oppose I don't feel labelling the RFA an experiment should automatically make it a failure. Nor should whether or not he wants to write, even whine, about his RFA experience - many people who fail RFAs do that. But it does seem to me the editor wants it both ways. He wants to be assessed as an experienced editor, but has just 500 edits on this account. Asked to specify previous accounts, he says that's too hard to remember and he wants to leave the past behind. But if he is to be assessed solely on this account, the only answer can be that more experience is needed. Dean B (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose per above. You are, essentially, doing this just for the purposes of causing drama. You're wasting the community's time by doing this and you know it. Also, from this "...Shadow Arbitration Committee... [is] essentially a bit of political theater aimed at the legitimacy of the actual Arbitration Committee, which I intend to either reform or delete", I can gather that you're here to cause trouble. Wikipedia is not "a bit of political theater [sic]" for you to cause drama on. Are you from WR? Not revealing your previous account(s) is also a big no-no. How can the community trust you if they don't have access to your past? ScarianCall me Pat! 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per WP:POINT tabor-drop me a line 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Most of the points have already been given above, but I'm going to cite inexperience as the deciding factor as to why I'm opposing. However, I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose: not qualified yet. Jonathunder (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose: I dunno what to say... ☝ have stolen the things i wanted to say and ☟will say things i will say in the future.
    ☺
    --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Whilst I also regret the fact that adminship is now treated as a bigger deal than it once was, an RfA is really not the place to discuss this issue. That aside, I would find it very difficult to support a candidate with such a low edit count who admits to editing using other accounts, and being blocked, but is circumspect about actually naming these accounts. I am willing to let bygones be bygones but 500 quality edits in six months really doesn't convince me that I can trust you; using your RfA as a soapbox doesn't help, especially given the problems we've had in the past with admins acting unilaterally. At this stage it is far too soon to judge whether you are a good-faith, reform-minded editor or something more sinister. Your edits with this account have been good, don't get me wrong, but, given the circumstances, I am going to err on the side of caution. Rje (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Confused Oppose - Okay, I'm lost. One, what other username do you edit under? Two, are they usable per policy or are they sockies? Why should you be an admin if MR IP must be you main account and you main account has only been here about as long as me? Gears of War 2 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose adminship may be no big deal, but you still have to know what you are doing. Prodego talk 00:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - for not supporting the Indianapolis Colts --T-rex 01:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose WP:POINT. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. OPPOSE I do not trust this user with the tools. MBisanz talk 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. We do not need administrators who make disruptive proposals. Daniel (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Oppose - Oh dear, where to even start? Lack of trust, pointy RfA, disruptive, no need for the tools....overal a very strong oppose. Please do not re-request adminship. Tiptoety talk 06:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I take this user's comments at face value, so I assume he really is an experienced, good faith, user. Besides, even if he wasn't, he could easily get a few thousand more edits a la Archtransit. My concerns are that, first, he's apparently unwilling to divulge the majority of his contributions, including the block he admits to having received in the past and second, I don't believe he's sensitive enough to BLP concerns to be an admin (the link I posted in Q6 is troubling to me, because I have a lot of apprehension towards promoting anybody who thinks that Dragon695's approach to BLPs is praiseworthy). BLP approach matters not only for content disputes, but also for use of admin tools: some substantial portion of my protections, blocks, and deletions are BLP-related, and I think it's an important area for admins to be sensitive towards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Oppose - Granted, I am still new on Wiki, so I am still familiarizing myself with the RfA process. However, after reading his opening statement, I was already thinking that I wouldn't want him to have the tools. Then after taking into consideration WP:POINT, that sealed the deal for me for opposition on this one. Silverwolf85 (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose We had one of these a few months ago, from a more qualified user. I just can't trust these WP:POINTy users - we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to politic and "experiment." Even if this were an earnest RfA, the candidate has (by his own count) only around 500 edits. faithless (speak) 09:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) After giving it a bit of thought, this was unnecessary and reads more callous than was my intention. No need to pile-on, so I'm striking my oppose. faithless (speak) 09:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Adminship shouldn't be seen as a huge deal. But neither should it been seen as such small deal that someone with less than 300 Mainspace edits, less than 50 User talk edits, and less than 500 edits overall should be considered an appropriate candidate. More general experience and familiarity is needed to earn community trust for adminship tools. Zaxem (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weakish Oppose - You seem genuine, and yet, not. While I realize that, on the surface, there really doesnt seem to be a concrete reason to oppose besides the block... I just dont feel right going on trust alone. You seem like a nice guy... but then again, so did my last boss. I'd say come back in about 6 months, when there is a firm history on your part; but you wont. And thats fine, too. Qb | your 2 cents 11:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - please conduct your breaching experiments elsewhere. Neıl ☄ 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
I've a few concerns, but I'm likely to change to support/oppose once more !votes come in and persuasive arguments are made. For now, I stay neutral. Best of luck though, mister anon. ;-) —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. While I like the answer provided to Q4 (except he shouldn't decline it even in the latter case of continuing bad faith), I have to agree somewhat with B-man and Wisdom. If you want to do an experiment, you don't come right out and say it. That kindof defeats the purpose of running an experiment. On the fence for now. –xeno (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AMEN! Announcing that this is merely an experiment makes this, and any essay you might write, a mockery.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, yes. This is not the venue to do it. It's inappropriate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to mislead anyone about what I'm doing, which is why I was upfront about the experimental nature of this self-nom. I don't think it would be fair to people not to let them know that I am approaching this experimentally. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your results will be horribly skewed. A proper experiment needs to be blind. –xeno (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The moral of the story is, you're not supposed to approach it experimentally anyway. RfA isn't for tests or experiments, it's serious, and for you to use it as some sort of toy is wholly inappropriate. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 08:00, 3 August
    (ec)I admire your candor I suppose, but given the fact that your edit count falls below the normally expected threshold for admin candidates, you knew that you shot yourself in the proverbial foot with your nom statement. Besides, an experiment should be conducted without the audience knowing, at least in this case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the nature of the experiment was to see if WP would take on an admin like me, and part of who I am is this business of just trying something out to see if it works, and telling everyone up front what's going on. If people don't dig it, I can understand, and I'm not gonna complain too much. Not everyone has to be an admin, right? Some of us might just be temperamentally unsuited to the work. I think I am gonna channel my Wikipedia energies into dispute resolution instead; maybe the admin business just isn't for me. But I do remain committed to the idea that all Wikipedia processes should be open to experimentation and play. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    nature of the experiment was to see if WP would take on an admin like me--- no, you are being pointy. If you really wanted to see if it would work, then you would have presented yourself as a serious candidate, shared your primary IP addresses, and explained who/what you are without making this into a psych experiment.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral.`Let me ramble a little: Firstly, I think your answer to xeno's Q4 is truly excellent, one of the best answers I've seen to that question. I also genuinely laughed out loud at your pre-emptive Kurt answer`- in fact many of your question answers are very good indeed. Unfortunately, the blatant 'experimental' nature of your RfA, combined with a difficult-to-impossible task of actually finding the majority of your contributions, makes me far too wary to support this. For the first point, we've had two fairly-recent 'is adminship really a big deal?' RfAs, and neither of them succeeded - Ali'i stimulated some good discussion and a lot of support, but ultimately failed with a lot of well-argued opposition too, while RMHED did worse, owing mainly to it being just as experimental and rather less polite. So, in my view, conducting this experiment to see if RfA is a big deal is akin to running an experiment to test whether air is breathable - it clearly is, as has already been demonstrated. In fact, while adminship itself probably still isn't that big a deal, the RfA process very clearly is, and that should be clear just from looking at a few recent RfAs. Hence, I don't really think you expect this RfA to succeed, given that I've seen you at RfA a lot recently and I hope you've noted the same as me about the general criteria. As a result, this pretty much falls into the category of 'disrupting Wikipedia to make a point', or just 'making drama', and I don't really want to support either of those things. My other concern, the sparsity of your contributions that we can actually review, is another point I know you're keen to demonstrate - that allowing IPs to contribute freely is important. Unfortunately, the biggest problem with IPs is that they are generally dynamic, and so while I fully agree that IP editing is important to Wikipedia, for specific exercises in community trust like an RfA it's just insufficient - because we can't get a handle on how you behave overall in the long term. In summary: (1) Nice question answers, I suspect you're entirely well intentioned (2) but I can't really tell that for sure, and I don't like the method you used, and (3) Wall Of Text hits you for 2521 damage. You have died. ~ mazca t | c 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree 100% with the first third and the final third of Mazca's comment immediately above, disagree with the middle part. I actually like your answers (well not thrilled with the BLP answer, but other than that) and attitude, and agree with the general idea that adminship should be less of a big deal than it currently is, but it shouldn't be that small of a deal. If you had signed up for an account earlier, I suspect I'd support. But IMHO, a review of a reasonably long contribution pattern is crucial, and we just can't do that for your IP edits. The part above that I don't agree with is that this is disruptive. It's no more disruptive than starting thread #6534 about how RfA is broken on WT:RFA. The only way this would be disruptive is if someone was holding a gun to my head, and forcing me to comment. I wonder (probably assuming less good faith than I should) if "disruptive" isn't code for "not showing RFA the respect it deserves"? --barneca (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a hard RFA to simply take a side on, and I'm not sure why you went through with this RfA in the first place other than to prove a point and "experiment." I think you have good intentions, but it's hard to know for sure. Also, you can "re-do" WP:RFPP without admin tools. Malinaccier (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not bothering to pile-on the oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Your experiment fails to test your hypothesis and appears more more like an attempt to create drama. I'd recommend that this RfA be closed since it is not performing any useful function. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - I really liked some of your answers to the questions (specially Xenocidic's quetion). However, I don't think that you're ready for adminship, you only have 498 edits, at least I recommend 900+. Also I agree with Mazca's comments. doña macy [talk] 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC) P.D. You're likely going to get an oppose from Kurt Weber because of the "I hate cool-down blocks almost as much as I hate the Indianapolis Colts". Anyway, it's a comic RfA xD[reply]
  8. Neutral I don't want to hurt you by opposing you. It is quite clear that this RfA will be unsuccessful. Please made more edits and come back after sometime. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: same reasons as mazca and barneca above. I appreciate the idea behind this RFA, and I would like to support, but I just can't - because your contributions with this username are not sufficient to be an admin, and that would be true whether this nomination was an 'experiment' or not. If you revealed all your previous IDs and allowed your edits with them to be examined, I might change my mind, but as it is you just haven't given people enough reason to trust that you'd make a responsible admin. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mr._IP&oldid=1316171327"