Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKMask

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AKMask (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 7 June 2007 (→Questions for the candidate: fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AKMask

Voice your opinion (42/3/0); Scheduled to end 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AKMask (talk · contribs) - It is both a pleasure and an honor to be chosen to nominate AKMask for adminship. To those unfamiliar with him, I'll start by saying he has a long editing history that goes back to November '05, with substantial participation in our project since March '06. Many of you will recognize his name from his regular participation in discussion at AfD and AN/I, where he's a respected and thoughtful voice, often displaying keen judgement at complicated and delicate situations [1] [2] [3] [4]. His continued activity aiding new users understand IP range blocks and signing up account requests on the unblock mailing list, an ungrateful and tedious work, also speaks volumes both of his technical knowledge and his helpful and patient attitude, as does his participation in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC answering questions from new wiki users. AKMask also displays a knowledgeable approach to Fair use, both in theory as proved by his insightful general thoughts commented here, but also through the long, boring, but necessary Wikignomish work of cleaning up dozens of Fair use galleries, as even a cursory look at his contributions can prove [5] [6] [7]. Few of us have the perseverance he has shown in his effort to keep this a truly free encyclopedia. All this work, however, doesn't mean he has neglected contributing contents, as Republican Moderate Party of Alaska or Alaska Electric Light & Power, which he created and expanded into the informative articles they are today can attest.
I won't end this without thanking AK for his will to accept the duties of adminship. I have the utmost confidence that his demonstrated abilities will benefit greatly with the tools - just as we all will. Phaedriel - 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Co-nom: It's my pleasure to co-nominate AKMask (I had planned to nominate, but he was stolen from me) ;). AKMask has shown a remarkable temperament for adminship, through his willingness to learn about policy, his dedication to performing thankless tasks, and his true desire to use enhance the project. I can attest that he is more than willing to ask for help when he needs it, accept decisions he doesn't like, and seek other opinions and consensus before entering controversial actions. AKMask has been a familiar face to me for some time, and I was surprised to realize he wasn't an administrator. Even before my shock at that was over, my first thought was that he should be nominated for the job. The project will be better with him in possession of the tools, it's that simple. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I quite happily accept, although I'm blushing from all the nice things said about me :) -Mask? 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would focus mainly on the work I am doing now, utilizing the extra tools to better facilitate my work dealing with the blocking matters. By this I primarily mean evaluating unblock requests to deny/approve them based on the situation and lifting autoblocks that cause excessive collateral damage after the damage has ceased. I would also appreciate the chance to volunteer with WP:RFPP, evaluating attempts at resolution and placing [semi,full] protection when it seems rational to do so. -Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, the best contribution in my mind revolves around my clearing of fair use galleries in articles where not appropriate and/or missing fair use rationales. I came to this project from my participation in and use of open source software software projects, so I understand fairly well why we want to use this content only where the use can be defended unquestionably. I regularly look at things as to how they impact the distribution of the encyclopedia to downstream users, and making sure instances of fair use can be held to be unquestionably appropriate so as to ensure the unfettered distribution in all instances where that distribution complies with the necessary requirements. -Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (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: Conflict follows wherever people go, so I have had my instances of bumping heads with other editors. In most cases I recognize the absurdity of holding on to a position at the cost of everything else, and frequently use a bit of sarcastic, self-deprecating humor. I find poking fun at my own arguments encourages others to step down from an all-or-nothing approach as well. We can do incredible things when we don't frame the debate as good vs. evil and allow for the debate to take place in a fully amicable environment. When all else fails and I'm stuck in a conflict I cant get to deescalate, I fall back on a user-specific version of the old IAR phrasing, 'When a user makes you depressed or annoyed, ignore them'. There are almost 2 million articles on the encyclopedia, theres no reason for me to stay hung up on one of them, and I go work on something else. The same would apply to administrator actions. From what I hear, plenty of backlogs out there.-Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin
4.What do you think will make a good/bad admin?
A.I'm afraid I must request a bit of a clarification from you on this. Do you mean what would make myself a good or bad admin, or traits I see in others that make them good or bad admins? -Mask? 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.Thoughtfulness and communication are always good, because it vastly helps assuming good faith when you can understand another's position and explain your own. If Phaedriel has taught me anything, it's that a small amount of kindness returns to you exponentially when it comes to dealing with others, and often keeps things quite civil. One of the bad traits I notice is thin-skinned tendencies. People who let others get under their skin, or quit when a decision goes against them or such tend to be unable to handle stress well, which is never a good trait in an administrator.-Mask? 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5.What does the policy IAR mean to you? (from Matthew)
A. WP:IAR is one of our most important policies. Within it is shrined the concept that the rules lag behind the practice a bit, the principle behind the Be bold motto, and the grease that keeps wikipedia functioning from day to day by allowing us flexibility. In conjunction with Use common sense, IAR can be used to solve any problem you run across when you kick the idea around with others. The other rules provide a handy guide to what others have noticed works when they encounter a situation, and as such need to be respected, but there are always new situations, so there will always be a need for IAR. -Mask? 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of idle optional question from TwoOars
5A. Since your answer above seems pretty standard , can you think of any particular instance where you think IAR could have been applied or where you did apply it?
A. Didn't realize it was standard, it was kind of off the top of my head. IAR applies mostly when the letter of the law gets in the way of the spirit. Edit warring with out breaching 3RR is the canonical example, but my personal one is a bit different. There was a user whose name had been a bit iffy for a couple years, it was a British insult to an Irish republican. The irony was that the user was an Irish Republican himself, from Ireland, and was using it to poke fun at himself a bit. In this case it violated the letter of the username policy (no slurs/insults) but not the spirit (dont be an asshole with your name). The discussion ended with him being allowed to keep his name. -Mask? 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite
6. Could you please explain what this mass AfD was all about? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Simply put, I did not believe the pages to be encyclopedic, and noticed that a rather large numbers of keep votes were along the lines of 'it's useful' without much backing. I discovered it about a month after the first AfD had closed, and thought with a better explained rationale, they might be trimmed. This did not happen, the will seems to be that they were encyclopedic despite my concerns, and so I haven't really thought of them since. If the question is trying to get at my reasoning, I assure you there was nothing pointy about it :)-Mask? 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I support you, I would ask that if you become an admin, that you refrain from closing the AfD discussion if the articles ryan asked you about are nominated for deletion again. BH (Talk) 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely agree, that would reek of Conflict of Interest. -Mask? 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin
7.Why was you banned from the Anti-vandalism channels?(Please explain further and the details)
A. Sure. Just to note here, I requested and had that ban lifted, and participate in that channel at this point at times. We were having a discussion about the CVU in general at the time, and I expressed the opinion that the CVU presented this militaristic, everlasting battle that did not seem helpful. I was also, however, praising the IRC bots that they used, and essjay encouraged me to fill out an app, saying that I'd be able to use them. He walked me through the process, helped me out with questions, then showed me which channel to join, were to submit it, and promptly banned me from the channel and when I asked why he hadn't just told me 'no', he said he wanted some fun. To note, because this incident occurred off-wiki, I don't really want to shove it around, but it is why I opposed essjay's RfB. --Mask? 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AKMask before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Ninja first co nom supportSee above co-nom for my reasoning. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom, happily and without reservations! :) Phaedriel - 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is a standard "this is really a vote not a consensus building discussion" support. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Think it would have been better to ask them to emphasize? Wikidan829 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Note: This is a standard don't make this RFA an extension of the Fair Use Wars support. /me coughs. We could use some more clueful administrators. Sean William @ 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I believe that this candidate will make a good admin. --rogerd 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I've seen this user around a lot and even thought he was an admin a few times. No opinion on the 'fair use in article lists' thing. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This user enforces the fair use policy, and I like that. Seriously though... anyone that active on the unblock mailing list needs the tools. Like what I see. Good luck :) Riana ⁂ 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per answers to the questions. Cheers, Lanky TALK 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Peacent 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Note this is a standard I think this ser will make a good admin support, sincerely BH (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per question 4.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems to be ready for the tools. One Night In Hackney303 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - all in all, you're a very good editor, knowledgable about policy and obviously dedicated to the project. I've got to say, some of your comments in the Kelly Martin RfC really did p*** me off, I had a fairly serious concern and although you weren't the major player in it, some things you said got to me. Anyway, despite that, and the AfD above, I think you will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I see no objections. I feel that the candidate's mass AfD referred to above was justified, as the notability of the articles was shaky. --Agamemnon2 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - If she supports, I support. Mystery message 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good answers to questions, trustable user. Good luck Changed to neutral, see below Changed my mind again (last time thats happening) I would trust AKMask with admin tools, and the 3RR I changed to neutral about was 9 months ago, and the admin did it improperly. Good luck! Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cautious support. Some of your deletionist tendencies worry me, but otherwise you seem alright. Good answers to the questions. — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, because it's clear that he'd be beneficial to the project. ~EdBoy[c] 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Adminship is no big deal.--MONGO 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Reasonable person, have seen him around in admin-related areas, always had a good impression of him. Willingness to tackle fair-use issues is a plus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support User has showed attempts at diplomatic efforts and trying to keep people at a cool tone. Keeping an eye out for other users. This demonstrates that the user will not become outraged with emotion and ban people just because he doesn't like them. I liked all the responses to the answer above. More importantly, being an admin isn't a big deal. I don't feel this user would abuse the tools. Wikidan829 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per above reasons. Whsitchy 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support This user has the best interests of the project in mind, should certainly be promoted. GDonato (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - per all reasons stated above... :)..--Cometstyles 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good user, but I don't like his userpage – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Plus you don't even have 1.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about Gurch. Wikidan829 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Looks good to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support - if Matthew doesn't like the guy then he'll make a bloody good admin. Lollipops indeed. Nick 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are supporting because Matthew opposes? Or is there another reason? Majorly (talk | meet) 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is an unknown statistic that every admin that Matthew opposed has ended up one of our finest. ;P Wikidan829 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's silly. And guess who nominated me? Majorly (talk | meet) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little curious, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly doesn't seem to exist, nor does it have a deletion log. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. Miranda 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. If a user as fabulous as Phaedriel trusts him with the tools, I can't do anything but support. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support As state above. Good editor. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - good answers & fine track-record. Previous block was long enough ago & things have clearly moved on since - Alison ☺ 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support looks like a helpful dedicated user. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I agree with Majorly. Captain panda 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Admin tools for an editor user doing grinding policy work as useful as this can only be beneficial. EliminatorJR Talk 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support absolutely, even though I had to deal with the consequences of that mass AfD (assisted by User:Wimt for the last stretch).  ;) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate. --After Midnight 0001 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Bit foolish thinking he was already an admin... We need more administrators strict on the fair use policy. --Dark Falls talk 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Nothing but helpful and supportive in IRC. Knows policy well. — Taggard (Complain) 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Well qualified and helpful. I'm convinced this users has what it takes to be an admin. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I'm Moreschi and I approve this message even before Mailer Diablo does! 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Per silly opposes.[reply]
  42. Support per Moreschi. No offence, Samir Will (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support —Anas talk? 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I do not believe granting this user the sysop flag would be beneficial to the project. The user has totally the incorrect demeanor, which leads me to the conclusion that they would not only make stupid mistakes, but harmful ones. It's my opinion, which I know is shared, that this user does not understand our fair use/non-free content policy,[1] or for that matter the recent foundation resolution,[8] this is not counting the fact they're under the impression fair use is banned within LOEs. Nor does this user understand our blocking policy, having made veiled threats previously.[9] Another problem I foresee with this user is that their edit summary usage is low, and when they do use them they give misleading edit summaries,[10] then there's the point they're an edit warrior.[11][12] Oh, one more thing: is there any need to make repetitive edits to remove images? Can you not do it all in one go? I do believe he is here in good faith and can, if he decides to, be an asset to this project to create a comprehensive encyclopaedia.
    Summary: AKMask has clearly fallen in with the wrong crowd -- and thus fallen on to the wrong path, I do believe that eventually he can become a good Wikipedian... and someday a good administrator. At present, however, granting him the "mop" would be akin to making Cyde a bureaucrat. Also remember that if you're going to enforce "policy" that you must be 100% compliant yourself, otherwise it's just hypocrisy. Matthew 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is Matthew's standard "this user enforces the fair use policy, and I don't like that" oppose. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a standard because I prepared it yesterday? Riiight. Lolipops. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least he gave specific reasons and actually provided diffs. This is a good precedent. :) Wikidan829 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the diffs are entirely uncompelling. Rather, the opposite. AKMask acquitted himself appropriately. The "wrong crowd" bit further supports Steel359's above comment. I've had tanglings with you over fair use in the past. You disagree with our fair use policy. This doesn't make AKMask a bad nominee. --Durin 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they were. I haven't voted either way yet, I was just commenting on the fact that he did look at the candidate, maybe not for ideal reasons, but that he did. His vote was more than "I just don't like him" ;) Wikidan829 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the "implicit threat of a block" was addressed to Matthew. DGG 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose civility concerns. My brief interactions with him have all been negative -- Samir 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind giving us some diffs illustating this please? --Dark Falls talk 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind giving us some diffs illustrating your support reasons? Majorly (talk | meet) 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose Civility concerns are just the beginning here. This user has shown poor judgment, displayed poor respect for other users, and has even harassed other users, especially on IRC. Be sure to see this diff, which shows him as being banned from our antivandalism channels since March of 2006 (this was released earlier this year per consensus of the VCN staff). My interactions with this user, especially concerning channels that are necessary and beneficial to the project's operations, have been nothing but negative. Someone who cannot show respect towards others, attempts to slander a beneficial organization to the project, and resorts to harassing other users, regardless of their ideas, beliefs, or operations, should not and can not be trusted as an administrator on this project. -Pilotguy hold short 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice. Can you provide an example of any incivility ON-wiki? I think that most people would agree that behavior on IRC should not be poured over into actual, loggable(is that a word?) wikipedia.com. The IRC channel, and the website, are completely different things, and should never be crossed. That's just as good as saying he gave me the middle finger at the store, so I'll oppose. Wikidan829 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your still talking to other editors on IRC, if you can't be civil there, then it's not great that you want to be an administor. I wouldn't have a problem with it usually myself, but to get banned for harrassement???? That must have been bad. I'm waiting in awe for the answer to question 7. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So I actually took a look at your diff. It's interesting that the ban occured when he was actually a newbie, and not completely initiated in the way this site works. So much for WP:BITE, eh? Wikidan829 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, I had civility issues with him last month but put it down to a one off, but looking at this - possibly not. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AKMask has been here since 11/2005 so that was like 6 or 5 months later.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arnon, I think you missed the part right after that, that said he wasn't really participating until March '06.
    To Ryan, diff please? Wikidan829 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing on several anon IPs from home, work, wherever I am, for years. I created an account in February 07, didn't start participating in anything until May, and I would still consider myself a newbie. Wikidan829 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I see now, but anyway go on I waiting for the answer.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned by Essjay, the hypocrite? I am not sure I trust his judgment, esp. after I heard Terence Ong was banned capriciously. My point being, I want users to behave on-wiki and nowhere else, if there is not a single diff to support incivility on Wikipedia, then you have not got a legitimate reason to oppose. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Good user, but I don't like his userpage Changed to support to keep Sean William happy – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a dick, Gurch. Sean William @ 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hehe Wikidan829 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Whsitchy 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Gurch. - 68.106.140.79 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave him be guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral (changed from support) I just noticed, He was blocked for a 3RR violation nine months ago, this normally would make me vote oppose but I feel that AKMask learned from his mistake and I feel he would be helpful to Wikipedia. But a 3RR violation makes me say neutral, sorry Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AKMask&oldid=136612306"