Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Justin Eiler

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

Justin Eiler

Final, (1/5/0); Ended 05:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Request withdrawn by Justin Eiler

Justin Eiler (talk · contribs) - I'm not primarily a deletionist, or an inclusionist. One thing I've been doing lately (a lot) is looking at the edits by new users: 10-30 WP:SPAM entries per day, vandalism, people trying to take advantage of the platform here to push a particular point of view. Justin Eiler (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Wherever the need is--even (or especially) if it's something that others might consider "scutwork." There is no "unimportant" cleanup, but there is sometimes cleanup that gets lost in the shuffle.

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

A: Before I took an extended wikibreak, much of my effort was placed towards improving Wicca and related articles, and in that regard I was one editor of a group of about 6 to 8 persons who were all contributing to a common goal. We brought the Wicca article from a conflicted and frequently vandalized mess to a viable candidate for GA, and an eventual candidate for FA. There's more work to be done, to be sure, but I'm proud of the progress made.

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: Yes, I have--and I'm not always proud of the way I've handled myself. I tend to stubbornness if I'm persuaded that I'm in the right--but I also tend to retreat and leave things to others if I feel the situation is untenable. Sometimes that's a good thing--if I'm in a situation where I'm butting heads with another editor and a third party steps in to make a compromise, it could be that the best thing for me to do is to get out of the way. But sometimes that's not a good thing. It's an area I need to work on ... and I'll probably need the admins (and my fellow editors) to step in from time to time to tell me when I'm being too hard-headed.

General comments

See Justin Eiler's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Unsolicited question.

1. If accepted for adminship, will you place yourself on Admins open to recall? Why or why not.

A. I was actually under the impression that all admins were subject to recall--it was not until the day I read through the RfA process that I realized this was not the case. Yes, I will place myself under WP:AOR. Accountability to the other admins and bureaucrats is one thing, but in my view I must also be accountable to the editors--even (perhaps "especially") the "rank-and-file" editors.

Optional questions from Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. The biggest difference that I'm aware of is that blocks are imposed by an administrator: bans are imposed by the community.

3. Under what circumstances would you dispense an indefinite block to a user?

A At first? Only if I had a more experienced admin to review the action. :D

More substantially, indefinite blocks are reserved for someone who in my best judgment considering the evidence I have available is not interested in contributing positively to Wikipedia. The big problem with that judgment is I can't read minds: people can change, and I don't have a crystal ball available.

Short answer: I don't know if I can give a boilerplate response. Indefinite blocks are a big deal, Wisdom: each one is going to have to be considered individually, and that would make any boilerplate answer I give here a "pie-crust promiste"--easily made, and easily broken.

4. You are asked to by a third party to mediate in a content dispute that has escalated to edit warring between two other users, how would you approach the situation, what actions would you take?

A.First and foremost, offer my services as mediator to the two warring parties. If the parties will not accept my mediation, then the only option left is the "admin club." And that's not an option I'm fond of.

Beyond that, however--mediation is a complex process that is also very difficult to distill down to a few basic boilerplate steps. In face-to-face mediation, sometimes I've had to be the neutral party that both sides get to shout at--and they shout at me so they can talk civilly to each other. In some, I've been the "cheerleader" who facilitated the two parties to an agreement that they wanted to achieve anyway. And in some, I've had to be the person who told both parties (or one party) that they were in the wrong.

(Side note: my previous mediation experience comes from my time as a member of the Wiccan clergy. For some, that may make them feel that I have an inherent bias on certain subjects: while I do not want to shoot myself in the foot, as it were, I feel that all cards should be on the table.)

Optional Question From Balloonman (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I noticed that in 2006 you were active for a few months around the start of the year. In 2007, you were active for a few months around the start of the year. Now, it's 2008, and you are active at the start of the year. Is there a reason why your edit history is indicating this pattern? Are you going to be disappearing from wikipedia for 8 months once granted adminship?

A.No. Most of my editing patterns have been based on my work schedule--my job has changed so that I am available year-round.

Links for Justin Eiler: Justin Eiler (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Justin, just a note, the way you are responding to the comments/votes is messing with the numbering. Always remember to place # next to your indent to maintain the order. Thank you! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl: All of you have given me a considerable amount to think about--and a considerable amount of improvements to make. I wish to thank you all for your input--especially the ones who opposed. I definitely have some work to do. :D Justin Eiler (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong Support Of all the admin requests this is one of the stronger ones. His answers are great! - I really like his answer to the first question. Second, he really wants to be an admin. I believe he is being true. His contributions may be a little weak but I believe his professionalism makes up for it. Good luck.Thright (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
Thank yuou, Thright. Those who have opposed my request, however, have brought up some extremely good points, and there are definitely areas I need to work on. Justin Eiler (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Just to soon. Your contributions seem to be very scattered over a couple of months, with other showing little to no contributions. While I appreciate your enthusiasm anti-vandal work is not the only important aspect to being a admin. Might I recommend that you familiarize yourself with WP:ADMIN and get a admin coach, participate in more admin related areas such as WP:ANI, WP:AFD, WP:AN ect… give it a few months and try again. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an editor since 2006--but as Balloonman points out, my activity has been erratic. Justin Eiler (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've looked through the edit summaries of all your articlespace contributions (~ 2000 of them), and the overwhelming majority are reverts. I disagree on principle because I feel wikipedia needs writers, not traffic cops. I've also seen your contributions to Wicca, and my opinion has not changed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that, and I thank you for your opinion. Justin Eiler (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your answers to my questions were a little vague to be honest - especially Q3. I would have liked a more detailed response. However, I have some issues. As an example, did you actually think these warranted direct admin attention? [1], [2], [3], [4] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vague is unavoidable, I fear--I was hoping my reasoning would be clear, even if my answers were (necessarily) non-specific. Nonetheless, I do thank you for your opinion and input.

For the username edits--with the possible exception of "Zeusalmighty", yes, I felt they had potential for problems. Even as an administrator, however, with my current level of experience I would have referred them to a more experienced admin. To me, the username guidelines are subjective--perhaps too subjective, perhaps necessarily so. For the things that I feel I have sufficient understanding of the policies, I can act with confidence: for those areas that I do not, I prefer to defer to those more experienced while I learn. Justin Eiler (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relectant Oppose I think you have a good outlook but it just seems too soon. Administrators need to be more consistent and show a detailed knowledge of policy. I just can't see that you've done that. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this RfA succeeds (which I'm OK with either way), I'll definitely be seeking out an admin coach if I decide to pursue this course in the future. Thank you. Justin Eiler (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I checked out this users edits and he seems very ready to apply speedy tags to articles. And I didn't agree with many of the reasons for them, for example, he tagged Ramesh Maraj as blatant advertising. The article probably should be deleted (via AfD) as non-notable, but the article isn't blatant advertising. If this is blatant advertising, then many of our other articles would have to be deleted. I see virtually no real interaction with other users (other than the fact that his page is a constant target for vandalism.) And I found his answers to be extremely weak. In short, I hate to say it, but I have very little reason to believe that the tools won't be abused by this user.Balloonman (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.