Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Excirial

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

Excirial

FINAL (0/8/2); closed per WP:SNOW by Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excirial (talk · contribs) - Excirial is a very experienced Wikipedia user who has been on Wikipedia for 9 months. During those nine months Excirial has tirelessly performed the admin-like tasks of vandalfighting and new page patrolling. Administrative tools would allow him to perform his tasks more efficiently and make Wikipedia a better, more reliable and professional encyclopedia. With his long Wikipedia experience, evidenced by his 25,00+ edits and nine months of experience, I believe we can trust him with the tools. From my experience seeing this user on vandalism patrols, and from his edits, I can see that making Excirial an administrator will help Wikipedia, while not exposing it to any risks. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel truly honored by this nomination, and i will gladly accept it. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I would like to withdraw the RFA. I believe there is no chance that this RFA will end up successful, which means i better spare everyones time :). Also, i highly respect the opinions Iridescent and Wisdom89, two editors i worked with in the past. If they deem it "Better not" or "Better not Yet" then i have no reason to question this. Thanks to everyone who participated though :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My main line of work on Wikipedia is vandalism and newpage patrol, which means that the obvious answers for this question are WP:AIAV and WP:RPP. Due to the nature of my work these are the pages i constantly encounter and work with as a non admin user, and as of such know best of all the admin pages. Other then these pages i am also specifically interested in working on WP:CSD, WP:UAA and WP:AFD as these are also sections i have worked with at times, and which could also use a hand every now and then.

I will not only work on the previously mentioned sections. I am interested in helping at whatever page that requires administrative attention; The project pages i specifically mentioned are merely the pages with which i have the most working experience, meaning that i am accustomed with their functioning. Other pages such as copyright issues would be completely new for me, and before taking any admin action on those i want to make sure i fully understand those pages as well.

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

A: My best contributions are probably the one i have made during Vandalism patrol, more due to the amount of them then due to their individual quality. The results of my editing i am actually most fond of is my cleaning of 1.5 months of WP:GEO backlog and the few articles i have created or substantially altered. For the more seasoned article writer these articles will be nothing special, but since they are so far from my regular work it felt like a real accomplishment that i actually managed to write and source a completely new article :).

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: Not counting the occasional wrath from an IP user who turns my user page in a swear farm, and also leaving out the occasional friendly misunderstanding, i have had only one major collision with a fellow editor about 7 months ago. For the people who like reading a full transcript is available in my talk archives..

I am not exactly proud of the way i initially handled this issue back then. While i still stand with my original opinion that the other two editors should have formulated their wording more politely, i can not say i stayed comfortably within the WP:CIV guidelines. I ended up opening a Wikiquette alert to get some form of feedback on my own, and the other editors handling of the issue. I have since that day double-checked my responses before posting them, as i had the habit of being cold/rude when trying to write in formal wording(Non native english user). As i have had no other major conflicts since then, i think that this issue hasnt been troubling me a lot since then. :)

Optional question from Tan

4. While you are obviously prolific in vandal-fighting, most RfA regulars feel that a more "well-rounded" resume is required. I personally feel that you might lack nuance when dealing with new editors. Can you comment on your skewed experience, and this specific diff? I will preemptively admit that NawlinWiki indef blocked the user, but at least one user initially agreed with me. I would also like to point out this question is indeed optional, and if you choose not to answer it, I will !vote based on my opinion now. Tan | 39 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A: Its rare to issue a warning for edits like these. This is trivial at best, and normally i would check if the edit was correct or not. If it proved incorrect i would post a friendly message (Manual, and not an UW) on the respective talk page to ask if there would be a source for the edit.

However in this case the user has an already present level 3 warning on his or her talk page from NawlinWiki. After seeing a few changes like the one discussed, and knowing that Nawlin is an administrator (So i assume he knows when to issue a level 3), i decided to up the warning to level 4 as a level 3 already signaled malicious (Bad faith) intent. Normally this would just be a level 1 warning at best, but its normal to up the warning level by one, rather then starting anew. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Excirial: Excirial (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/Excirial before commenting.

Discussion

• What is up with Q4? America69 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator support- See the nomination statement.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Strong Support Great editor healthy edit count. Will do a great job. Meets my Criteria!!America69 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose at the moment as I can't see any significant mainspace contribs other than reverts. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do; however, if you do have some significant article work that I've missed due to the "burying" effect that mass bulk edits have, I'll happily reconsider. – iridescent 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   As my main activity is vandalism patrol, my contributions log is indeed cluttered with revert notices. I actually deem vandalism patrol a hobby or fun activity, which makes the cluttering even worse as i can literally spend hours at a time on it. I have made some main space edits concerning content, most notable to Primavera Systems, Watershed segmentation algorithm and Trove Categorization. A very far from complete list of edits is available at User:Excirial/Sketchbook.

   As for the total magnitude of these content edits, i expect that they constitute about 4% of my total edits, or about 1.000. I understand that this is is rather low, but i don't deem myself an accomplished writer, and i believe that the article creators out there can do a much better job then i can. While i have the theoretical knowledge on article creation (The guidelines) my personal joy comes from protecting the content other users create. I don't think this will hinder my work in the sections i intent working on and actually... it takes fairly little empathy to understand a users anger when hours of hard work get thrown away due to deletion. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Escalating to Strong oppose per this, which was only two days ago. Sorry, but I have absolutely no confidence in giving the power to carry out some extremely disruptive actions to someone who thinks "I am sorry for the inconvenience" is a valid excuse for obvious misuse of an automated tool. (Yes, I know I'm supporting another candidate with a similar incident in their history, but that was long in the past, not two days before the RFA was transcluded, and their explanation gave the impression that they understood just why account security is a big deal, which I don't see here.) And the spectacular display of bad faith in "Any IP or new user who makes a trivial edit consisting out of only a minor change such as an altered number, (Year, Birth date) name (Changing a nickname with a few letters) or anything alike will be Reverted as sneaky vandalism when no plausible edit summary is provided" is IMO totally unacceptable in a day-one new account, let alone an admin candidate. – iridescent 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   I have heard this before, and im afraid i will never hear the end of it. This problem is simply a matter of the Law of large numbers. I cannot, nor can anyone else, guarantee a 100% fault free patrol. Due to the amount of time i spend on patrol, i am simply bound to make more errors then others. I made over 2.000 edits in three days, which gives me 2.000 chances to make a mistake. So yes, i end up with more mistakes then average being on my user page. Most of them i clean up myself with a sincere apology added to the user page in question. Still, if this would be viewed upon as a percentage of the total amount of edits, im sure this would be much less as a problem. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Badgering me about how I "just don't understand how Wikipedia works" is definitely not going to change my, or anyone else's, mind on this. ("I made over 2.000 edits in three days" certainly isn't!) As per the warning in large letters on WP:HG and whenever you load Huggle, "Responsibility for edits rests with the owner of the account with which they are made. "Use of an automated tool" is not an excuse." Wikipedia is not an MMORPG with spots on WP:WBE as prizes; it's perfectly possible to use automated tools without making this kind of mistake if you take the time to look at what you're reverting. – iridescent 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   And it's not going to change mine either. America69 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   I am by no means trying to show of some form of useless statistic in order to change someones mind, nor am i trying to say you don't understand how wikipedia works. I know that quality goes far above quantity, and that editcount is not a factor in an RFA. I am merely trying to point out that due to this i have a higher chance of making errors. I agree that every error is one to many, but you will have to understand that i may miss at times. My goal is to keep vandalism out, which means i couldn't care less about pages such as WP:WBE. Feel free to remove me from that list, i have no interest in being on it. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Per this edit. I really think the user would do a good job, but this edit worries me. Iridescent puts it best to. America69 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - completed mishandled an encounter with me as described above. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Response to both user above me: I am not going to defend myself against this one, mainly due to two wrongs not making a right. I cannot deny that this edit was a borderline WP:CIV case from mine, but also from Allemandtando side. However, i think this gets a undue weight as this is a singular edit since as far as i remember, there is no other recent edit alike. It is, however, a good idea for me not to respond to any issues when i don't have the time to double check them, as they tend to be generally rude for reasons explained in question 3. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Unfortunately, since I've had good interactions with this user before. However, the above concerns me, and yes, I'm going to analyze his UAA contributions as that is where he intends to work. not offensive, not every username with the term "spam" in it needs to be blocked immediately, this is a stretch, this is offensive? To who? People who love puppies?, [1], confusing? Looks like another language. Anyway, given the amount of intense automation, coupled with these kinds of biting reports, I cannot support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Wisdom's diffs. Spceifically, [2] and [3]. Doesn't seem like Excirial can understand what is and isn't offensive (seriously, anybody who thinks the puppy thing was offensive needs to grow a pair) and would likley mis-use the block button.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
6. I see your potential in high-volume editing/tasks, but looking at the above evidence provided by those who objected you need to work on your communication approach and prove that you are able to advance beyond Huggle in more complex situations. - Mailer Diablo 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I'm not going to oppose you just for using automated tools, I use Huggle, too, but an extreme majority of your work is automated. You haven't edited articles much aside from reverting vandalism. You haven't done much communication with other editors aside from warnings. Communication is a very important trait in an administrator. Also, per a couple of Wisdom's diffs above. You're a prolific vandal-fighter, but not well-rounded enough for my taste. Useight (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose a number of curious and worrying edits brought to light above, some of which are rather too recent. :S There is potential though, the mistakes just need ironing out. Huggle make up a vast majority of the article work - all automated - which I also do not like. Administrators have to show good decision-making and interaction skills, which can't be achieved via tool / bot usage. Lradrama 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral to avoid pile-on. You seem nice enough, but defending a Huggle revert is never a good choice of action -- especially by rubbishing DTTR. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting to improve the quality of the Wikipedia environment, and I am impressed by your anti-vandalism work. However, some of your communications with other editors have been less than diplomatic, and I am concerned that you may use the admin authority to block people first and ask questions later (if at all). I also haven't seen much in the way of content creation and expansion (unless I am missing something in my research). At this stage, I would vote Neutral and hope that you can improve on your work for a future RfA. (And, yes, where did Q4 come from?) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above 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.