Avicennasis (
talk·contribs) – I came across Avicennasis quite by accident, actually, by seeing their
bot fixing a double-redirect. I then searched a bit more and saw that they have, since 2006 2010, clocked up over 70K local edits, over 200K global edits, and have acquired the Global Rollback right along with two local Sysop rights (all in addition to successfully running the aforementioned Global Bot). Thus, with regards to trust, bluntly, if we cannot trust Avicennasis with the tools, I do not see how we can trust anyone. It's a similar story re. experience, with the candidate not only participating in other projects and on a Global level, but also on en.wiki in areas like
WP:Categories for Discussion.
The candidate's areas of interest seem to be mainly technical, and I should expect that, as an Admin, they would join the top cadre of technically-minded admins, given their professional background (judging by their userpage) and extensive bot experience. Having said which, on the odd occasion that the candidate has had to deal with
"unusual" editors, they seem to have handled it well, suggesting that they would be competent in this side of administrative matters, too. It Is Me Heret /
c10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have been informed that saying that Avicennasis began editing in 2006 is disingenuous, since they did not begin actively editing until 2010. Apologies for any misunderstanding; I got the figure just by reading off the bottom line of their
POPUP, and did not think to look into it any more deeply. It Is Me Heret /
c23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
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: I intend to help out more at
WP:UAA, as well as
WP:CFD/W/M and
WP:CFD/W, since some of the work there requires admin rights. I also dabble in anti-vandalism work on occasion, so blocking vandals after repeated warnings would likely come into play. I may venture out into other admin areas over time, though I'd make sure I had a good grasp on things before diving in.
Avicennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 /
06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd have to say that
AvicBot is, by-and-large, much more helpful to both the community and the encyclopedia than I am as a single editor. Most of my edits are on the small and repetitive side, though I do make more substantial edits from time to time - and I've even managed to pass a
good article review before. My best work, I think, has been done on IRC, when I've been able to provide assistance to new editors.
Avicennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 /
06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I can't say I've really been in any "major" conflicts - and all the conflicts I can think of have been resolved peacefully through discussion. I personally have never been stressed or upset due to anything on Wikipedia, and I believe that keeping your cool in any given situation goes a long way.
Avicennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 /
06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
A: I haven't given it much thought, but I don't see why not. I fully understand that, If this RfA passes, I only have the tools by the community's trust. If I break that trust to such a degree that the community feels I should lose the mop, then obviously I would be doing more harm then good by keeping it. I don't know what criteria I would use for the recall itself - I'd have to read over some guidelines from other admins - but I do plan to always keep myself accountable to the project and the people that support it.
Avicennasis @ 07:29, 29 Iyar 5772 /
07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
6. I have noticed that you have only taken part in 19 AFD discussions
[1]. What are your intentions related to
WP:AFD? Do you intend to refrain from closing discussions for any amount of time and if so, at what point would you consider yourself ready to close discussions?
A: As with any admin areas where I haven't participated much, I will not be closing AfDs anytime soon.
If I were to head in that direction, I would start by being much more active in AfD discussions. After a while of that, I'd start looking closely at AfDs coming to an end, and decide how I would determine consensus and close them, and seeing how closely my thoughts align with how another admin actually closed it when the time came. I'd probably even poke an admin or three I'm familiar with for guidance before closing my first AfDs. I don't have a timeframe to give for this, as closing AfDs is not something I'm actively pursuing, but I hope my caution before heading down that path addresses any concerns.
Avicennasis @ 07:19, 29 Iyar 5772 /
07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
7. Would you agree or disagree with the thesis that the reason you've never been involved in any major conflict is because you've never been involved in any significant content creation?
8. I know I've already supported below, but I thought this was worth asking. One of your intentions is to work at
UAA. How would you handle the usernames in
this diff?
10. You have a lengthy quotation by Neil Gaiman on your user page. Is a quotation of such length a copyright violation, or not?
A: I would say not. First off, if I felt there was any copyright violation, I'd remove the content myself - I've always done my best to respect copyright laws as I understand them. While my work on Wikipedia is all public domain, the few photos that I've personally taken and uploaded to Commons (
such as this one) are all released under a Creative Commons license, that I would hope will be respected. The quote, I believe, would fall under
fair use - It's a small, educational and non-commercial use of a work that does not effect the value of the copyrighted work itself. EnWikiquote has a slightly longer version of the same quote.
Avicennasis @ 03:07, 3 Sivan 5772 /
03:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
11. This is related to WTT's oppose: Although I'm not that active in the last time in IRC, would you release your username/cloak and tell me/us when you are regular online. (Timezone-specific, like normally between 20:00 and 22:00 UTC, or similar)
A: Sure. My cloak is wikipedia/Avicennasis, and I usually am nick'd under Avicennasis or some variation of Avic (Avic, Avic_, Avic2, etc.) I can't really say what times I'm usually on - without going into detail, the schedule of my "real life" job varies wildly from day-to-day and week-to-week. Lately, though, I've been available from 2:00 UTC to 8 or 9:00 UTC.
Avicennasis @ 08:11, 5 Sivan 5772 /
08:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Trustworthy long-time active user. Avicennasis does good work on a variety of projects and I'm sure they'd be a net benefit for the project with admin tools.
Jafeluv (
talk)
07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. A long-time contributor who has been active in the category space and indicated category discussion as their main prospective activity as administrator. We have an acute lack of administrators, and this is somebody who very well matches the profile.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Happy to support. Long term editor with good contributions to the encyclopedia. This user has created well over 100 pages (mostly stubs/excluding redirects). I am slightly concerned by the lack of experience in many admin related areas, but the 2 years of active editing and the response to question 5 reduce my concern. In addition, of the AFD discussions, Avicennasis !voted in line with the result or in a discussion closed as no consensus 100% of the time. The trust placed in this editor by other projects and the massive list of userrights leads me to believe that we can trust Avicennasis with the mop here.RyanVeseyReview me!07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I am quadrupling my support per
this dummy edit. It was fairly clear that the revert followed by a self revert was probably a mistaken click. The communication to explain the issue is exactly what is needed in an admin.RyanVeseyReview me!08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support The low AFD-participation rate was slightly concerning; however, the answer to Question 5 along with the user's technical interest and vast number of good contributions lead me to believe that they would be a good admin. Canuck89(converse with me) 00:54, May 21, 2012 (UTC–7)
Support It's difficult to evaluate Avicennasis' contributions given their frequent use of bots, but the glowing nomination and sensible answers to the above questions indicate that he or she will use the admin tools wisely.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - per nom. He has done a lot of excellent work in various areas, but the statement in the nomination concerning when he began editing is somewhat disingenuous considering that one of his edits in 2007 was simply vandalism. I won't hold that against him, since it (obviously) hasn't been repeated and he has clearly matured in the past five years.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
In the words of
a great parody of the great Walter Cronkite, "Well it's about fucking time!!!!". Avicennasis was the person who
welcomed me on March 5th, 2010, and though my userpage hasn't changed a bit since then I've had one hell of a time. I have to admit, it does feel a bit strange to be an admin and now see the person who helped get me into Wikipedia run for adminship.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい)
16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - No major concern over contributions from when user got seriously into editing. Answers to questions looks good to me.
KTC (
talk)
16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Concerns about them using an emoticon in the answer to question #6 not enough to overcome a very positive record. Seems trustworthy as they come. Pity not more content creation, but there's time for that, if they cares to.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Really? "I think it is very important for someone who wants to have, and use, the 'Delete' button to know the Article-writing process, to know exactly what needs to be done to bring an article up-to-snuff, and how a New User might feel if their hard work was removed."
MalleusFatuorum22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
You seem to have skipped over the sentence directly preceeding that "However, I do look for Content Contributions for Admins who self-identify as wanting to work in Article Deletion." I take candidates at their word for what actions they're interested in. Since Avicennasis has not indicated a CSD, PROD, or AFD role, I see no need for heavy Content work. We're here to build and encyclopedia, and not everyone needs to be able to write one.
Achowat (
talk)
16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Weirdest contributions pie chart I've seen in a while, never knew there even was a CATEGORIES section and here's someone with 13,000+ edits there.
Carrite (
talk) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit:
Carrite (
talk)
19:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Avicennasis seems like a net gain for the project overall, and I see no compelling reason why bestowing the admin buttons upon this user would be anything other than a positive step. --sparkl!sm hey!07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support because RfAs are a rare event nowadays and IMO we need to accept all the help that's offered unless there is a clear reason to reject it. I realise that others' mileage varies on this but I see absolutely no such reason in this case - quite the contrary.
Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support User self describes as suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder, his contributions seem to be the various fiddlings/automated actions of such categories of editors, and he has no track record whatsoever of content creation or involvement in disputes/dispute resolutions. Not too long ago showed serious signs of immaturity. Also per My best work, I think, has been done on IRC. Appoint him to arbcom already!
Bali ultimate (
talk)
16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I'm one of those who was quite surprised to learn that Avicennasis was not an admin. You don't need to write DYKs or GAs or FAs to be a good admin; technical skills and people skills are really the important things, and it seems to me that this user has them and will use them productively.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Look through
here. It's not something that you can demonstrate with a single diff; you can only say it honestly if you've been at least somewhat familiar with the person over a comparatively long period of time.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
All the same, I was hoping that if you were citing this as a factor in supporting, you would be able to find one specific instance which demonstrated it especially well. It is disappointing that you cannot. --
John (
talk)
08:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - I would like to see more in-depth content creation, but the candidate's other qualities win me over. The candidate seems knowledgeable and level-headed.
P. D. CookTalk to me!18:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support While I think a good understanding in content creation is needed to pass a RFA unless there's special circumstances, and I see Avicennasis qualifying as an exception because of his bot work.
Secretaccount21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support candidate seems to be experienced, qualified and sensible, and I'm not impressed with the oppose rationales. Lack of participation in AfDs is not an issue, since the candidate doesn't intend to close AfDs, the answer to Q5 shows they have the good sense not to try, and we don't require potential admins to have experience in every admin-related area. Content contributions are essentially irrelevant for the vast majority of admin tasks, including all the ones the candidate has expressed interest in. Hut 8.518:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
"Content contributions are essentially irrelevant for the vast majority of admin tasks" - on the contrary, content is relevant to the vast majority of admin tasks. If there was a technical or policy-based method of limiting non-
content admins to the few areas to which content is truly irrelevant, that'd be great...but there isn't, so !voters must judge potential admins in the context of all admin duties.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should have phrased that differently: the skills required to create high-quality content have essentially nothing to do with the skills required to perform the vast majority of admin tasks. Writing content is not an administrative task, and admins are not lords appointed to rule over content editors. Requiring that an RfA candidate produce an FA or similar high-quality content does not mean that the candidate will be any better at deciding, say, whether a username is inappropriate, and if we did require it before granting adminship then we would either get large backlogs in places like UAA or we would have to draft content editors in to handle inappropriate usernames. Neither is a good outcome. We don't require that potential admins be experienced in the area of all admin duties - something which is virtually impossible - provided the candidate has enough good sense to avoid the areas where they have no experience, which this candidate has demonstrated in their answers to the questions. Hut 8.509:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
No, admins are not lords, and you'll notice I didn't say anything about FAs. However, a) article work demonstrates collaborative skills and ability to interpret policies and guidelines (and sometimes conflict resolution), and b) admins can block content editors, protect pages, and otherwise "interfere" with or affect article editing. If we could limit the candidate to areas like UAA which actually have little effect on content, I'd support - but we can't.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
This is a collaborative project, you'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of it which doesn't involve a considerable amount of interaction with other editors and interpretation of policies and guidelines. You didn't mention FAs, no, but other people did and the argument works equally well if you substitute some other type of high-quality content. Requiring a candidate to be experienced in every possible area of admin work on the grounds that it's impossible to keep them out of those areas would make it virtually impossible for anyone to pass RfA. Hut 8.513:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nikkimaria, some editors may feel that any admin hopeful must have a GA or preferably a FA collaboration on their portfolio...I use to feel that extensive article writing experience was a minimal expectation. However, with the serious decline in our admin staff and few successful new recruits, my stance has changed to looking for abuses of others, potential tool misuse and potential abuse of power and position. I have seen nothing that indicates this candidate will misuse their tools or position...and though we can't predict the future, this candidate has demonstrated further evidence of coolness under pressure during this Rfa.
MONGO15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - I have had nothing but outstanding dealings with this editor. Avicennasis has shown nothing but an abundance of clue and care for this project. This is a noBrainer and a net positive to the project.
Mlpearc (
powwow)
01:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support plenty of experience especially in admin areas. We need admins of all types. I am unconvinced by the opposes. Royalbroil04:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support unconvinced about the opposes as well. If we can't trust an user with such background, expertise and global flags who is doing a great job here as well, who should deserve our support then? --
Mark91it's my world16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that significant content creation is necessary for admins. There doesn't seem to be much question here about this candidate's trustworthiness, and there is a compelling use for the tools.
ErikHaugen (
talk |
contribs)
18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support This user seems exceptionally trustworthy and has a long history of vandal-fighting. This user also has rollback, reviewer, and autopatrolled rights.
Electriccatfish2 (
talk)
20:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support After reviewing this editor's contributions I think it highly unlikely that he/she will go around destroying the encyclopedia and reasonably likely that they will use the tools for the betterment of this project. While I agree that dealing with content in controversial areas is a useful learning ground for admins, and respect opposition on those grounds, I also think we should not be overly hide bound about that sort of thing. In this case, we have an editor who is unlikely to act hastily, a useful trait in an admin, and I have little hesitation in supporting the request. --
regentspark (
comment)
20:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support candidate has a clean blocklog and varied contributions, has been active and useful for well over a year, and would make a useful admin. Kudos for sticking with the same account and earning a good reputation despite that edit in 2007. Of the various oppose reasons the one that would have convinced me was over content contributions, but the candidate has more than enough content contributions to demonstrate an ability to add reliably sourced material to the pedia. An FA is not required for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers07:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per review of a random selection of contributions, questions/answers, and some time pondering some of the well-considered opposes here. --
joe deckertalk to me23:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Although Avicennasis has created many categories, I don't see evidence of contribution in CfD discussions themselves. At the beginning of February, Avicennasis spam-tagged thousands of stub articles about asteroids. He tagged the changes as "minor". He made no attempt to discuss the matter with
WikiProject Astronomy.
Axl¤[Talk]11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Greetings Axl, I hope you have been well through the interim of our last interaction. Because I do hold you in esteem, I give weight to your concerns. Your last comment is a bit uncharacteristic in that it appears to be encumbered by some measure of POV. Why do you categorize the tags as "spam"? I am aware of tracking categories, most often hidden, that may appear thankless, but often serve a much greater purpose. What causes you to presume there was an issue requiring discussion? Taken at face value, is it not possible that the matter was intuitive to the editors most closely associated? Why did it aggrieve you?
My76Strat (
talk)
11:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
From
WP:MINOR: "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit... Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article." I characterize the edits as "
spam" because Avicennasis blanket-targeted thousands of stubs using little/no thought as to the best way of actually fixing the stubs. I accept that this use of the word is not part of
WP:SPAM.
Axl¤[Talk]11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
You're opposing someone on the sole basis that he or she say they are open to the idea of recall, after they are asked the question by another user? It is unenforceable, but then there are just under 200 admins categorising themselves as open to recall, are you suggesting they should never have became admins because of it? --
KTC (
talk)
13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Just out of interest, Hipocrite, what would your reaction have been if the candidate had answered "No, I will not be open to recall"? (Genuinely curious here, and not intending to badger). --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify my motives for the question, I was not so much interested on whether he was going to be open to recall or not, but rather his reasoning. After having a few discussions about it, I apologize for asking it.--SKATERIs Back14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Bulk reply here. KTC - no, just those who passed rfa due to recall (archtransit, elonka, notably). BtZ - I likely would not have voted to a flat "no," but a well reasoned dodge of the question would have led me to review editong history in hopes of supporting.
Hipocrite (
talk)
14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Don't mind him, he
alwaysdoesthis, and it always predictably becomes a drama magnet. The only right answer to this question, according to Hipocrite, is to
not answer the question. Hipocrite is apparently compelled to oppose nearly every candidate who has been asked this question (regardless of their answer), while simultaneously he believes that
asking the question is unhelpful and divisive. It seems odd to me that someone would reliably oppose candidates based on an "unhelpful" question. On the contrary, it seems quite helpful in making up Hipocrite's mind on a candidate.
-Scottywong| chat _17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Scottywong, please redact your personal attack "compelled" unless you want to be blocked, besides losing your administrator status. Kiefer.
Wolfowitz16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Only seven edits before February 2007 is not "active since 2006". The single GA review referred to was more than a year ago now, was pretty poor, and the article remains in a pretty poor state. Those seeking to be placed in positions of authority over content creators ought to have experience of the trials and tribulations of content creation here, which are considerable.
MalleusFatuorum18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I appreciate all users with technical expertise to operate bots and I think this user has made good contributions otherwise, although as Malleus Fatuorum says I would like to see at least a little bit of substantial article development before voting support. I also did not like the nominator's portrayal of Avicennasis as having edited since 2006 when Avicennasis had only made 5 edits before February of 2010. This editor has made few comments at AfD and I would like to see admins participate a little more in the process by means of which admins are created. If this user does not pass adminship this time I expect that I would vote to support after this user reviewed the criticism and then made or accepted a future nomination, because I trust that this user means well and is highly competent. I am just not sure that at this time Avicennasis has enough experience to be a role model as a Wikipedian because I cannot find evidence of participation in most of the typical experiences that Wikipedians have on the site, such as content creation and participation in community article development projects. Again, I really appreciate the technical expertise Avicennasis brings to the Wikipedia project.
Blue Rasberry (talk)21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't think there's a reason for the mop, and there isn't enough suggestion of a reason given, at least. All these duties have been going `on just fine without special permissions, and I don't see any reason why this needs it.
Shadowjams (
talk)
10:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per SilkTork's discussion (maturity), the lack of content contributions, and prolix prose. Come back after writing B-class articles or writing substantively and informatively on the dark side of Wikipedia (e.g. RFAs). Kiefer.
Wolfowitz15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose An admin needs to demonstrate people skills and an appreciation for the creation and maintenance of content. The sole example of a conflict linked in the introductory text above, where the candidate responds to a query about a list of sockpuppets he created with first a "not my fault; I was just following orders" and then a "talk to someone else", is not comforting. I am hard pressed to find any content or editor interaction. (Thousands of bot edits is not content, in my view, however useful the wok may be.) Most of the tools are about people and content, where he has no real experience. Get involved; come back in another year.
Bielle (
talk)
16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - no content contributions of note. We need admins who are familiar with the problems editors face writing articles, not admins who play with bots. Parrotof Doom16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Given the perennial backlogs at
WP:CFD,
WP:UAA, and
WP:SFD, it seems that admins who "play with bots" (or in Avicennasis' case, categories) is precisely what we need. Unless you'd like the content creators to come down from their mountain and start mopping.
Danger! High voltage!19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Your technical contributions appear to be of high value. However you do seem to be lacking a history in content & some other areas. There's no partial adminship, and no limits on what areas you'd go into once you have the bit. Combine that with the fact that it bothers me a bit that you signed off on that nomination statement with the 2006 date in there (now revised to 2010) I must oppose.--
Cube lurker (
talk)
18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry - I believe this editor means well and does good work, but I need to see some evidence of how an editor will handle conflict before I feel comfortable trusting them with adminship. I don't see much meaningful interaction with other editors, and certainly no indication of how this editor will behave in an actual on-wiki conflict. Absent that, I can't support this request. MastCellTalk20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Per Malleus Fatuorum, SilkTork and Bielle's comments, lack of content creation/dispute resolution, signed off on incorrect activity date. Try again after bring an article to FA.
— GabeMc (
talk)
01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - lack of content contributions, little evidence of dispute-resolution or other relevant activities, and an unfortunate lack of collaboration indicators, all of which are essential to the admin portfolio. If there was a way to grant access to admin tools only for the very technical tasks, I'd consider it - but there isn't.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
A statement like "my best work has been done on IRC" shows complete unfitness to be an admin on a project that values transparent decision making.
Skinwalker (
talk)
17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Helping out new users is honorable work, but I will not support a candidate who cites IRC as a qualification for adminship. Until all en-wiki IRC channels are publicly logged, IRC and transparency are fundamentally incompatible.
Skinwalker (
talk)
18:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Something's really not sitting right with me. For an editor who has over 140k edits across multiple accounts, I'd expect to see more discussion on his talk page, but going through the talk page archives, there's almost nothing there. That's probably because such a vast majority of the edits are automated. Now, I don't have a problem with automated edits - but I'd like some sort of evidence of discussion, some thing that shows that this editor would have the right temperment to de-escalate problems they may get into as an administrator. On the IRC front, I used to use IRC, but have no recollection of interacting with the editor, so cannot say one way or another whether he helps new users. I'd like to see some evidence that he's been helping editors on wiki too at the many different help venues. I'm leaning neutral, because I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic, but at the moment this is where I sit.
WormTT· (
talk)
13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Not particularly. I did not doubt that he was telling the truth, but since IRC isn't logged, I cannot tell how helpful he is nor what his demeanor is when working with editors. It's not something I'm going to go on hearsay for.
WormTT≡talk≡11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I would have supported this, only I can't find any way to judge Avicennasis's people skills. In addition to WormTT's point above about the user talk archives (which I also looked through), I didn't find many messages to other users in other namespaces. Taking the period from January 1 this year until the start of this RfC, I only found one substantial comment in the Talk namespace, and less than twenty comments to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces (combined). Not that there's anything wrong with that, and you could turn these statistics around and say that they show that Avicennasis gets on with making edits that benefit the project without getting involved in any drama. Indeed, his edits seem a great benefit to the project, and he shows a great amount of clue in his main editing activities. I wouldn't feel comfortable with supporting a candidate for adminship without being able to judge whether they are good at getting along with other editors though, as these skills become more important when one wields a mop. — Mr. Stradivarius(
have a chat)14:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose I really need to see some evidence of conflict resolution before entrusting someone with the tools. Great editor, and I have no reason to doubt they are anything but cordial and helpful, but I've been wrong before. -RunningOnBrains(
talk)20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I don't expect a nominee to be exceptionally good in content-building, but an admin must show that s/he can actually work in article namespace. And, what I see here is only hundreds of minor edits.
— Bill william comptonTalk05:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Did you consider
this one? Describing the candidate as not having written an FA is fair comment, though few would oppose over it. But the candidate's work on that GA does mean that they have actually worked in the article namespace. ϢereSpielChequers10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
There are some content contributions, but not very significant ones. There's a real lack of evidence of thoughtful discussion with other editors, evidence of the ability to see both sides of a complex issue or to defuse disputes. The candidate cites IRC help as his best work, but I've not noticed him helping there, and a few queries to people who keep opposite hours to me suggest they haven't seen much either. Not right now, I'm afraid. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
22:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The candidate says that his "best work...has been done on IRC, when [he has] been able to provide assistance to new editors," but I have not once seen him help another user on IRC. This wouldn't be as major of a reason for opposing if it weren't for the fact that he said that his "best work" is on IRC. Just because IRC isn't logged doesn't mean that you should make up facts about the work you do there.
LoganTalkContributions23:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I have seen many cases of assistance on IRC. I don't know exactly when you are usually on, but Avic tends to be on after midnight US central time UTC-5.RyanVeseyReview me!23:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, after some thought. There are many supports with decent rationales from well-respected users above, so this was one I had to carefully consider. My oppose is solely due to minimal involvement with content - namely content creation or dispute resolution. Both of these are desirable qualities in an administrator - content creation allows the candidate to put themselves in the shoes of the editor whose article they are about to delete, dispute resolution requires the candidate to have limitless patience, sound negotiating skills and an excellent knowledge of policy. I appreciate the hard work the candidate has done in maintenance areas, and acknowledge that they would do a decent job in the areas they intend to work in, however I worry how they would act in areas where familiarity with content is required. My suggestion for the candidate would be to work on a few articles, have a go at resolving a few disputes, and reapply in six months. Do that and you'll pass easily. Regards,
StevenZhangGet involved in DR!08:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Primarily as per WormTT ... on-wiki assistance, and working around the areas that admins work is a key task. IRC is, um, well ... let's not go there. Suffice it to say that IRC work should never be used as your example of the "best work on Wikipedia" - not only because it's not on Wikipedia, but for many other reasons (
talk→BWilkins←track)
11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I would like to support but something just doesn't seem right. For one, the talk page archives doesn't really have a lot in them. Other than
WP:UAA which is minor, I really don't see how this user needs the tools. Feel free to argue with me about this.—
cyberpowerChatOffline12:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Malleus and, to rip a page out of
User:David Fuchs' playbook, "a lack of audited content contributions". Building up new or existing articles generally result in a far better understanding in how the collaboration processes work and how articles are and should be constructed in best practice. --
MuZemike13:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, with regret. I've found this one really tough. I started out wanting to support, and was minded to do so. I don't insist on seeing masses of content work before I support a candidate, but what I do want to see is content-related interaction and I want to be able to judge a candidate's interaction skills in content-related areas. I fully expected to be able to find plenty of examples, but I was surprised that I really couldn't - I'd expect an admin candidate's Talk page to be full of content-related discussion, but as others have pointed out, it isn't. After looking quite hard, I found very little content work, I haven't really found much content-related discussion, and I haven't found enough personal interaction to really have any idea how the candidate would handle disputes. Sure, it might all be on IRC, but given that that's all out of sight to me, it might as well be on Mars. I'm not saying I think Avicennasis will make a bad admin - not at all. Avicennasis might make a great admin - but I just can't tell. If this RfA doesn't pass, then I could certainly see myself supporting a future run if I see more involvement in content-related work and more personal interaction - things like helping with content disputes might be a good way to go. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
IRC isn't really a good base to judge personal interactions, as it flows in a different way than onwiki, so even if it wasn't "out of sight to you", I would advise not using that as a base for judgment in general. SnowolfHow can I help?04:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral
I'm still looking through contributions so I haven't made a decision yet, but thought it worth pointing out that Avicennasis has been contributing since 2010 rather than 2006. There were only five edits from 2006 to 2010, and one of those was to
remove a warning for creating an article about Shane: "There is an indivual, know only as "Shane" that has managed to anger every goverment office that exists. He is a highly-watched person, and at any given time has around 10 FBI Special Agents watching his every move. He is capable of great destruction in the right conditions and with the right knowledge. Therefore, as the highest matter of National Security, many things must be Kept From Shane. Many of these things, like the building of Atomic Bombs, would lead to great destruction if they were ever learned by Shane." People do mature, and that was a while ago; however, it is relevant for people to know that the positive contributions date from the start of 2010 not from 2006. SilkTork✔Tea time10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing much in the way of discussion. User talkpage edits appear to be mainly templating or categorising, and the same is true of article talkpages. To balance that, there is some involvement in project space, and a cooperative attitude shown during the bot appeal -
[2]. Mainspace contributions are mainly in the form of minor repetitive tasks - usually minor formatting such as
[3] and
[4]. What I am seeing is a user who is well meaning and useful, though I am not yet seeing evidence of judgement and decision making nor of coping in a conflict. There is, really, no reason to object to this nomination; but at the same time there is little solid evidence of the character skills we like to see in an admin on which to base a decision. If we had an easier way in which to recall an admin (it's actually easier to indef block someone than it is to desyop an admin) I would say, yes, give him a go, but as it stands I would rather see more evidence of good judgement, such as time spent in AfD or helping out in dispute resolution, or in doing a Good Article review, before supporting. SilkTork✔Tea time10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)reply
The deleted article you mentioned is perhaps my biggest shame on Wikipedia - it was created after I had seen some
joke pages and decided to make one myself for a friend. This was long before I understood namespaces, or indeed, what kind of jokes were appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't offer this as an excuse, just as an explanation. It was never my intent to vandalize or harm the project.
Avicennasis @ 02:51, 3 Sivan 5772 /
02:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral Just because this user had been working behind the stage, that's not a correct reason to oppose. But per SilkTork's quote and all, I am pretty neutral about it.--
Ankit MaityTalkContribs17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral lean support. The lack of content creation and concerns about depth of communication with other users is enough to keep me from supporting, but not enough to lead me to oppose.--
Slon02 (
talk)
23:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral, largely per SilkTork. Although I definitely care about content creation, I am inclined to reject some of the oppose arguments as being too dogmatic about that requirement. But I find arguments about experience in discussions of disagreements about content, such as those made by MastCell, Worm That Turned, Mr. Stradivarius, Steven Zhang, and Boing! said Zebedee, compelling enough that I cannot support. Because I find some (not all!) of the other oppose arguments obnoxious, I do not oppose either, and I want to offer moral support in the spirit of learning from this experience, addressing the concerns, and trying again. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutal There are some issues raised in the opposing section and one of them being dispute resolution is quite important for an admininstrator. Futhermore user says that they want to work in
WP:UAA but have not answered Question 8 above. I agree that the user is experienced with bots and other types of technical work but all the responses made by everyone in both support and oppose section give me a mixed result. Anyways Avicennasis all the best.
TheGeneralUser (
talk)
06:16, 28 May 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.