Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva 2

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.

Apteva

[edit]

Final (2/27/1) Ended 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC) (non-crat SNOW closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Apteva (talk · contribs) – Self nomination, per suggestion (see previous try). Apteva (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Same as now -WP:RM, WP:RCP, and solar. As an admin, though I would add WP:RPP, WP:AfD WP:AN, WP:ANI, and others to my watch pages and step in as needed. Right now I only watch village pump and a few occasional other pages. I edit too many pages to add them all to the watch list. NB I am not watchlisting this page and do not expect to respond quickly to questions, but will answer them when I do see them. My priority is fixing problems.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Helping pages improve. I started editing only to fix obvious errors, and have little interest in non-tangible articles such as entertainment/sports articles.
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: Focus, focus, focus. Step away and take a break if discussion gets off topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Accuracy is more important than speed.
Additional question from King of Hearts
4. Since you're active in editing articles about solar power, I'm sure you've come across a variety of conflicts along the way. Could you elaborate on your response to Q3, addressing specifically how you have dealt with disputes in that subject area?
A:. I had one and only one unfortunate incident. It went to mediation over which image to use at Solar energy in the lead. A suitable alternative was identified and that was the end of it. I say unfortunate because the other, essentially SPA, editor stopped editing when someone else started editing their article. I am confident that IRL issues were more prevalent and they will be back to edit when they have the time. I can think of one other protracted argument, also over an image, but was resolved amicably, with an RfC as I recall, but that was a long time ago. Solar is not a particularly contentious subject, but I have no problem bringing a level head to really contentious issues, from time to time.
Additional question from Rschen7754
5. I'm a bit confused as to why you have two separate accounts. Can you clarify what they are for?
A: Thank you for asking. They are for privacy. I edit Wikipedia solely under the condition of anonymity. Policy interferes with that in the extent that to edit policy requires disclosing this account, which is moot because it was already disclosed, but I have no interest in making it worse. Apteva (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support I am sure you've realized this RFA is far from successful, but it'll give you the path to improve as a user. I am sure that, with more experience and work, you may become an administrator in the future, but not now. You said you are willing to work on RPP and AFD, but I see no substantial work there. To be an admin willing to work on such areas, you need to put yourself through those processes first to fully understand how they work, and what will you do there as an admin. As I have hear before, we don't need admins learning on the job, but before. I hope this little feedback from me helps you on your wikicareer. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - Concerns about both insufficient experience and maturity. Candidate expresses an interest in working at AfD and RFPP in an admin capacity, but so far has only participated in 4 AfD's total (all of which were from 2009), and has only made a single edit to RFPP. Recent threads on the candidate's user talk page regarding their activity at WP:RM also do not inspire confidence. ‑Scottywong| express _ 06:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Considers this to be harassment. Also this doesn't inspire confidence. Legoktm (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My recollection is that I thought it was canvassing, not harassment. Canvassing is considered harassment. Apteva (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is canvassing harassment? Additionally I'm not sure how that's considered canvassing since Masem was the one who brought the issue up, and the message was neutrally worded. Legoktm (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time someone posts something to your talk page it lights up the annoying message bar. That to me is harassment if it is not for a legitimate reason. Canvassing is not a legitimate reason. There is absolutely no reason to assume that if someone has edited something or brought something up they are still interested in it. WP is a big wide ocean and they may have just as easily moved on to other interests. My apology if they had left a note to please notify me if this comes up, or something like that. But the way collaborative editing works is that anyone can edit - there is no need to wait for the person who created the article to come back and fix it. Apteva (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure how you can read Wikipedia:Harassment and come up with "leaving someone a message which isn't legitimate is harassment". Legoktm (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he very, very badly misunderstands what "harassment" means on WP, which is something people can be blocked for, yet is asking for the power to block people, is pretty much all anyone needs to know about why he can't be made an admin, without even getting into his blatantly disruptive behavior. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose no evidence of understanding policy (see 'crat request), sketchy sock account use, etc. --Rschen7754 06:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, there is no policy that says you have to be an admin to be a crat. It's certainly a community norm, but it's not policy. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I didn't get the sense that they understood the bureaucrat position. --Rschen7754 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I understand it fully, I just did not want to go through the trenches to get there. But either way is fine. Apteva (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to strong oppose. Canvassing is NOT harassment (not commenting about the above links being canvassing). --Rschen7754 07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer "and may be seen as disruptive"? To me that means harassing, and don't even think of canvassing on the German WP. Apteva (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, disruption is not harassment either. Harassment is a serious accusation to make and the consequence is usually a block, possibly an indefinite. --Rschen7754 09:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Based on my recent interactions with this candidate in various move reviews and move requests, I am sorry but can not support this candidate, I can not see how a candidate that has trouble dealing with/understanding opposing consensus can be a good admin. See also the discussion at WT:Manual of Style#Ending the endash/hyphen warring. PaleAqua (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose With the account as old as it is, and with 6,000 live edits, 2/3 of them being very recent isn't encouraging for the experience and maturity needed to be an administrator to work in the desired areas. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This candidate has been trying to make a small change to the style guide regarding dashes in proper names. This has been met with very little support, but this editor has dragged it on for months almost singlehandedly in many forums, starting multiple move requests on the same articles in close succession, dragging those to Wikipedia:Move review when they were closed early despite overwhelming rejection, etc. The candidate should have realized that consensus was overwhelmingly in opposition to the proposed changes, but instead chose to continue a disruptive campaign. The candidate lacks the judgment required of an administrator to work in the intended areas. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a minor correction to the MOS that has been causing major problems. Fix it and move on. Apteva (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So your opinion trumps consensus, does it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose – Per Scottywong, Legoktm, and Rschen7754. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - lacks experience & knowledge. Both can be easily changed though - I suggest you seek a mentor. GiantSnowman 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent suggestion. Anyone who wants a grad student please contact me on my talk page with an offer to mentor. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Seems to think that "lighting up the annoying message bar" is harassment, and that when consensus disagrees with Apteva, it is consensus that has to be made to change. Also agrees that mentorship is needed, which seems like a self-oppose to me - I'd suggest withdrawal at this point. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Some of Apteva's comments about consensus in a recent discussion were rather concerning: "What is appropriate, is to propose here, should we change that, and if even one editor objects, drop it." "Run the proposal up the flag pole, if it meets with an objection, drop it." —Emufarmers(T/C) 09:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: Does not "lack experience or knowledge" as GiantSnowman put it (he's been editing for a long time as an anon IP), but rather – and much worse – he ignores what he does not agree with, and games the system with excessively tendentious and "parent-shopping" exercises in his incessant campaigning against style nitpicks, to such a level that it's looking fanatical and self-appointedly righteous. Apteva is about to be subject to WP:RFC/U over this issue, within the next day or so. The candidate has demonstrated a consistent pattern of process abuse, at WP:RM and elsewhere, that would be a serious problem if he had admin bits that enabled him to rename protected article titles at will. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Concerns about understanding community consensus, soapboxing and some of the comments listed above. That this page even exists is a concern for a prospective RfA candidate at this point. — sparklism hey! 10:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose based on Apteva's own comments in this RFA. I don't know if it's inexperience or something else, but xe has definitely demonstrated an insufficient understanding of, well, take your pick. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - seems rather confrontational. Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose (moved from neutral) per concerns raised here by others regarding user interactions. Additionally, while a satirical view of Wikipedia may be appreciated by some from time to time, I think its inclusion within a userbox is questionable at best... especially so when displayed[1] by someone (and coupled with the wording This user is not a Wikipedian, and works on the 1% of Wikipedia that is useful) who expects to interact with numerous other editors in the course of performing admin duties. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Totally unsuited to adminship, in terms of temperament and technical knowledge. Sorry Apteva. And your mind would be a great asset to the project if you could be less obsessive. I look forward to working with you. Tony (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, per the candidate's comments above. If the "You have a new message" bar lighting up is considered harassment.... well, I hate to break the news, but as an admin? You're gonna get messages. You will delete something that someone liked, you will protect the wrong version of something, you will do something that someone questions. Being available and willing to discuss your actions is one of the most important roles of an admin. So, yeah. Sorry. Good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Too many reasons to list, but the confusion about harassment, and edit-warring over en-dashes are sufficient.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Misunderstanding of policy, cognitive dissonance, lack of maturity - reflected in comments/answers and reinforced by review of edits. Not a stronger candidate than they were in 2009, really. -- Scray (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Likely to misuse the tools in unpredictable ways, thereby unlikely to inspire the sense of dread and inevitable doom of systematically defective administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Wizardman 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, is not willing to respect consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Doesn't understand policy, lack of maturity Vacationnine 16:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Hate to pile on, but two self-noms is revealing. Apteva seems to have an insufficient grasp of policy (and is too contentious) for the tools at this time. Miniapolis (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Per virtually every other oppose above. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Same as above. Statυs (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. If normal admin openness to random queries is not your cup of tea then adminship is not really something you'd enjoy. Also your alt account's comment shows a divergence from the academic mainstream that I find troubling for a position in an Academic project. ϢereSpielChequers 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Pending further evaluation of candidate. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Moved. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Seems to have improved since last time. But the answer to Q5 is rather dodgy and does not inspire confidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that you feel that way. I am fully aware of the one person one account standard and fully aware of the exceptions. Even Jimbo Wales has two accounts as I recall. But not for the same reason. Apteva (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral support (for now), pending further investigation into the candidate's activities and experience. -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2012 (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/Apteva_2&oldid=1187818253"