Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Avicennasis

67/34/6. Closed as unsuccessful. WilliamH (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

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 Here t / c 10:32, 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 Here t / c 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What else did you fail to look "deeply" at? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you, and I accept. Avicennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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]
Additional question from Rschen7754
4. For the record, can you identify which wikis you have the sysop right on?
A:I am an admin on the Scots Wikipedia and the Strategy Wiki. Avicennasis @ 06:30, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Skater
5. If this RFA were to pass, would you add yourself to the admins open to recall?
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]
Additional question from Ryan Vesey
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]
Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum
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?
A:
Additional question from The Blade of the Northern Lights
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?
A:
Additional question from Carrite
9. Have you ever used another screen name to edit Wikipedia? If so, what are the details of that name or those names?
A: Yes. Primary I use AvicAWB for AutoWikiBrowser edits, and on occasion I edit with AvicPublic from non-trusted PCs when needed. Avicennasis @ 01:54, 2 Sivan 5772 / 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Diannaa
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]
Additional question from Mabdul
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]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support-Why not?--SKATER Is Back 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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 - Per It Is Me Here's glowing nomination, good scouting! — GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. 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. Ryan Vesey Review 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)
  6. Support. Safe, trustworthy... actually had assumed they were a sysop already. QU TalkQu 08:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support experienced user. --Rschen7754 08:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as nominator It Is Me Here t / c 08:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Really no reason to oppose and editor looks like an experienced, trustworthy and responsible candidate. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, yes, heck yeah, absolutely! My76Strat (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support because this user is not yet blocked for a five-year period. *Adjkasi* (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. For someone that's worked (albeit not as frequently) as me, I'd say this editor is more than ready. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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]
  14. →Bmusician 12:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. Support StrikeEagle ✈ 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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]
  19. Seems active in the areas of interest where they intend to start out, no reason why not. Monty845 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. Support Per Skater. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strongly support - clearly and convicingly passes my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Seems fully qualified Pol430 talk to me 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Its a pleasure to support Agathoclea (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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]
  28. Support No concerns, solid candidate overall. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Passes My Guidelines without worry. Achowat (talk) 19:49, 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." Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 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]
  30. Support - Found no reasonable reason to oppose. -Scottywong| confer _ 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I have seen no evidence that this candidate will abuse admin tools or position.--MONGO 22:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked for any? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Extended discussion moved to talk page.)
  32. Support No red marks and competence in areas sorely needing additional admin attention makes this an easy vote. Danger! High voltage! 22:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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]
  34. Support Look fine to me--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Adjkasi, and the fact that this user has yet to be the subject of a request for arbitration. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. Support I think he could use the tools.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Extended discussion moved to talk page.)
  38. Familiar ith this user as a global rollbacker and on Commons. Highly competent. Courcelles 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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]
  40. Support: Seems like an acceptable candidate with a drama-free temperament.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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]
    Um...ok. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
    Can you show evidence for the people skills claim? --John (talk) 20:45, 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]
  43. 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. Cook Talk to me! 18:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, largely per Ryan Vesey. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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. Secret account 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support of course - reliable established trustworthy editor. What more is needed? Answer: nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 02:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  48. Support You'll make a great admin. ☮Soap☮ 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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 8.5 18:39, 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 8.5 09:00, 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 8.5 13:37, 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.MONGO 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support experienced user. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. Support plenty of experience especially in admin areas. We need admins of all types. I am unconvinced by the opposes. Royalbroil 04:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support AndrewN talk 06:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Presumably you have a reason for strongly supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 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 world 16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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]
  56. Support - seems trustworthy. Malick78 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support -- Good candidate. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support no concerns, I trust this user to not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 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]
  60. 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]
  61. Support Qualified, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. mabdul 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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 me 23:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I don't see any major concerns being raised here. Adminship is no big deal, remember. Snowolf How can I help? 00:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good at what he does and tools will help. Can't be concerned about what he doesn't do. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Sorry, this is a double vote ☮Soap☮ 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support- Despite the issues raised, overwhelmingly net positive. Dru of Id (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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]
    Thank you for voicing your concerns. Just as an explanation, that tagging was done in response to a request, rather than solely on my own accord. Avicennasis @ 14:52, 29 Iyar 5772 / 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Promises to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus, and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum I did not notice the "best work on IRC" statement. If ones best work is on IRC, one is not working here. Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 27 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.--SKATER Is Back 14:20, 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 always does this, 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.Wolfowitz 16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiefer, I don't exactly see a major "personal attack" here. Certainly nothing that warrants a block or desysopping. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Kiefer, try not to make this a battleground. His comment was quite tame. Malick78 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks Hipocrite - I can see where you're coming from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
    The candidate didn't actually make a promise to be open to recall if you actually read his whole response. Mato (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's standard talk:Hipocrite, almost nobody takes him seriously as is... he wants to be the new dougs tech.... that's his stupid prerogative. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You ought to think very carefully about the wisdom of that comment before you withdraw it. Malleus Fatuorum 10:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh the irony Malleus. Shadowjams (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus Fatuorum weren't you topic-banned from editing WP:RFA pages. Sorry, if I am wrong.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he was not - he was topic banned from WT:RFA pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. Oppose Quite a weak oppose mainly based on Silktork's comments in the neutral section. --John (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. 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.Wolfowitz 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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]
  9. 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. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 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]
  10. Weak Oppose Per BR and ST's points. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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]
  12. Oppose per Malleus...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Lack of significant content contribution. --Bua333 (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I can't support at this time --Guerillero | My Talk 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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. MastCell Talk 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
    I didn't see it that way at all. We direct people to the IRC help channel, and someone has to do the work there. That's not interfering with transparent decision making at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 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]
  19. Oppose, per Skinwalker. --Schnoatbrax (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Lacks relevant experience. Warden (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. oppose per Colonel Warden: The candidate lacks experience edting Wikipedia, so he doesn't need the tools for now. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 02:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I feel that I have to fall into this section I'm afraid. He does tend to work in the 'backstage' area of Wikipedia, which is fine; but what I want to see is enough substantial article contributions to make me trust the candidate for adminship. Minima© (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 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]
    I would just like to draw your attention to the discussion below the struck oppose (between №s 28 and 29) if that helps at all. It Is Me Here t / c 19:07, 27 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]
  24. 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]
    Thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the reasons I struck weak from my oppose. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 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]
  26. I think Bluerasberry expressed the concerns I have regarding your fitness to serve as a sysop much better than I could, so I'll just say "per BR". Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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 comptonTalk 05:37, 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. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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. Logan Talk Contributions 23:24, 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting. I stand corrected. Logan Talk Contributions 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 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, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 08:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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]
    Excuse the ignorance, but could you (or someone else) please spell out just what it is that you don't like about WP:IRC? It Is Me Here t / c 19:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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. --MuZemike 13:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per all the reasons above.--Deathlaser :  Chat  16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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. Snowolf How can I help? 04:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. 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 time 10:21, 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 time 10:50, 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]
  2. 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 MaityTalkContribs 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - There is, really, no reason to object to this nomination, neither support it. Monterey Bay (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Avicennasis&oldid=1223716705"