Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majorly (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 16 February 2008 (→Oppose: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:59, 16 February 2008 by Majorly (talk | contribs) (→Oppose: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

^demon

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/22/7); Scheduled to end 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

^demon (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination for restoration of my sysop rights that I resigned back in December. At the time, I indicated that I was revoking my right to have them automatically reinstated by bureaucrats upon my request. Thus, I am re-running RFA to see if the community still wishes for me to work with them on administrative tasks again. If re-approved, I wish to continue my work largely where I left off, in the realm of non-free content. Thanks to all. ^demon 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

I am declining to answer the traditional questions at this time and encourage the community to ask me fresh questions. If anyone wishes to view my answers to my successful RFA's questions, you may view them here. Thanks.

Questions from Avruch

1. Why did you resign your sysop rights, and why did you decline to reacquire them in the standard way?

A.I resigned my sysop rights for multiple reasons. First and foremost, I was entirely too busy and unable to dedicate myself in the fashion I formerly did. Additionally, at the time, I felt myself becoming more and more distant to the community, and saw my participation here coming slowly to an end. I declined to reaquire them in the standard methods to avoid such a decision being "on a whim," if you will. However, I have thought long and hard since that event, and I wish to slowly begin re-participating in the meta-aspects of the English Misplaced Pages, and I believe my regaining sysop permissions is an extension of that.


2. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR?

A.Personally, I think that it is a great idea for those who wish to involve themselves. I've long stated that adminship needs to be easier-to-lose than it is to help discourage poor behavior. As it stands, the only official way to lose your sysop rights is A) Drag out a long ArbCom case or B) Do something really dramatic that requires an immediate removal. If people are willing to put their actions up to scrutiny via a method that avoids either of these situations, more power to them.

Optional question by User:Keeper76

3. (edit conflict)I have no problem with you foregoing the traditional Q1-Q3, however, would you mind providing a couple of diffs that show exactly why your bit was resigned, under what circumstances, etc? I'm afraid I just don't know, and I'm mildly embarassed to say I'm just to lazy to dig myself. Thanks in advance

A.


Multi-part Questions from Mike R

4. Why did you decide to run for ArbCom in December 2007? Why did you decide to withdraw your candidacy? Why did you delete the pages related to your candidacy?

A. At the time, I was leaving the English Misplaced Pages and had no intentions of returning. See Q1 for a more extensive explanation. If you'll also notice, I cleaned out a large portion of my userspace at the time as well.


5. Do you still agree with the first two of these observations you made in September, after having resigned your admin bit temporarily as "an experiment"? Is it still your mission to fix those problems? How will you do this?

A. Yes, wholeheartedly. On point 1, I intend to avoid the Wikidrama (humorous photo, made it earlier today , I think it lightens the mood a bit around the petty fights) that occurs so frequently around the English Misplaced Pages. A great example was the rollback hubbub. I avoided it at the time, and I would avoid it again, if the situation re-arose. As far as #2 goes, I still stand by the fact that many administrators wield their position as though it's some sort of badge. While my choice of words at the time (declaring blanket statements such as all administrators) might have not been the best, the sentiment is nonetheless the same.

6. I wish to get back to editing, and keep it simple.—Sounds like a lot more fun than adminship. Why are you here? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Was a great admin before, and will be again. Experienced with images. Acalamari 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. What Acalamari said ;). Qst (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. east.718 at 20:30, February 15, 2008
  4. Of course. Mr.Z-man 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Why not give them back? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    That's exactly what we're asking. See questions above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't clear. I mean, I see no reasons not to give them back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - definitely.   jj137 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support and welcome back. My only reservation that because the user left adminship in good standing and is eligible to reclaim it by simple request to a bureaucrat, this RfA is an unnecessary expediture of community time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I am pleased the ^demon is applying again, and even more pleased that he is doing it in the democratic way, through the voting process. Sadly, too many admins take their rights for granted. Danny (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Might as well. DS (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Largely because of the answer to Q5. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Quite experienced, no past significant issues with use of tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Sure. Gary King (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support per Malleus. Newyorkbrad, and all the rest. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm. if you feel anger while editing or reading other people's edits, the simple expedient is to turn of the computer and do anything else a while. Most of the things you complain about in the link in Q5 is due to people becoming overwrought. It is best when editing to adopt a sense of dispassionate interest or disinterested passion. If you can do that, you can avoid unnecessary drama and reduce the likelihood of abusing the tools. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Why wouldn't I say yes when I see that you've collected 12 other votes? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - <sarcasm> despite the fact that I'm just another elitist bastard. </sarcasm> Speaking deliberately, I think that there is a role for an agitator in the community - and while I think that sometimes ^demon reacts before he considers all the consequences, I know that he has the best interests of the community at heart and will often say the things that need to be said by someone, however unpopular they are. - Philippe | Talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - ^demon certainly wasn't the worst admin we had when he left, he's done some fantastic work with his tools. I do see some legitimate concerns in the oppose section, and I encourage ^demon to read these carefully before he takes any administrative action should this RfA succeed. All in all - the positves far outweight the negatives of ^demon regaining the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Ditto ^demon's already demonstrated ability to do the job well, which is the primary selection criterion. WilyD 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strongly. Spebi 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support - Excellent, Welcome back...--Cometstyles 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. I was disappointed in several of ^demon's actions before his resignation (specifically the alma mater category situation), but I don't see anything that cannot be corrected or that would prevent him from using the tools responsibly. - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - ^demon was and will be an excellent admin. Keilana| 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support and the moral of the story is never use RfA for reconfirmation, since the community can be relied upon only to be predictably petty and vindictive. You never abused the tools, so you should get them back, and we should not waste our time discussing it.--Doc 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    I know what you mean. The worst thing about this encyclopedia is this blasted community. Whose horrible idea was it to trust these seething, miserable vessels of spite with important decisions? Clearly, the fact that this character's first RfA ran nearly unopposed and that this one seems doomed to failure is a testament to the capricious whim of the unruly mob and has little if anything to do with the way the candidate conducted himself as an admin and editor between now and then.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    That's not the point I'm making. The point is that when people come back for reconfirmation, there are always lots of people seeking to settle scores or pick up on small imperfections rather than simply ask if there's evidence of a probability of abuse of tools that would outweigh any probability of good work that would be done. The RfA community (a nasty subset of the real one) is petty at such times. My failure to trust its excuse for judgement is based on plenty of observed evidence. (And then they wonder why sane admins run a mile from recall nonsense. Who needs to "kick me" sign on their back?) --Doc 02:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    That's not really true. I've seen less controversial candidates breeze through reconfirmation attempts with overwhelming support. Two of the more recent ones were this one and this one. Your threshold for unsuitability for adminship appears to be the potential for wanton "abuse of the tools;" the fact that others hold candidates to higher standards than that does not make them bad people. You seem to have it in for the RfA voters, but they are a diverse bunch, and your harsh generalizations do not do them justice. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    The "net effect" is my problem.--Doc 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - not least because of your answer to Q5. Addhoc (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Deserves a second chance. --Siva1979 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Seen this user as a good user, deserves the mop. And the incivility concerns in the oppose section dates back to last October and November. NHRHS2010 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. The number of toes stepped on seems proportionate to the number of administrative actions taken here. Certainly there are some things that could have been handled better, but the standard here is not perfection (or shouldn't be, until RoboAdmin 1.0 is out of beta-testing). He did good work; controversial decisions are not the same as abuse of the tools. MastCell  04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oh yeah To paraphrase MastCell, the number of toes, how big those toes are, and the sensitivity of those toes are all proportionate to the number of admin actions... Gosh I hate this reconfirmation stuff but it's worth it for this guy. I do worry a little that you might not enjoy it very much - you didn't seem to, last time around? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. I still trust ^demon with the mop, which is what really matters. Regarding the opposition over "drama", ^demon has specifically stated his intent to avoid such entanglements and I see no reason at all not to take him at his word. Regarding complaints about supporting Veropedia over Misplaced Pages, such complaints are (in my own view) patent nonsense unconvincing. The Vero' crew improves articles on Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's own rules and common standards, so I fail to see how there's anything resembling a conflict of interest or a deprecation of Misplaced Pages. On the related free image thing, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on free content and there's even a Foundation-level policy related to that. (Plus, ^demon has been consistently clear on his fair use position, long before Veropedia was around.) Thus, the opposition provided seems entirely unconvincing to me. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support, user did well with the tools in the past. As for the "drama" concerns, Misplaced Pages is more or less nothing but. Not going to single this user out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Ultimately, an asset to the project. El_C 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - Seems like we should have more admins with his sentiments. PaddyM (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. I remember ^demon as a good admin, and I'd like to see him help out again. SlimVirgin 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support Natch Spartaz 09:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Per Acalamari. Rudget. 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support Jmlk17 10:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support Trustworthy and honest. Nick (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Has been a very good admin; I have had several positive interactions in the past, and no negative ones. If I were in doubt, I would be swayed by the support votes of such serious and sound editors as Newyorkbrad and Riana. --Anthony.bradbury 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Everything I see ^demon do or say something, he seems pissed off at something. I dunno why that is, but he says he wants to continue the work he was doing before. I believe that's what caused him to quit in the first place. Also when he requested desysopping, he asked for it to be impossible to be an admin on any WMF project again. But here we are. I think you'd be better off as a normal editor for your own sake, at least for a few more months. Majorly (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Way to much "OMG drama" and previous wholly negative interaction. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Pedro. Nousernamesleft 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. Sorry ^demon- I do like you, I think you're a nice guy, but it's what Majorly said- you always seem so angry. I think you're also a bit unpredictable- silly little things you do occasionally. For instance, blocking yourself. It made me laugh at the time, but I think you're a time-bomb. However, this is only a weak oppose, because, for the most part, you made a great admin. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Per Pedro. I've also witnessed similar attitude. Wisdom89 (T / ) 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose A drama machine with consistently poor judgment: nominating RFA for deletion (as a tactic to force a reform discussion, when he didn't feel like using the talk page), speedy deleting Mzoli's (which ended up being a massive embarrassment for the project and could have easily been avoided with a little politeness and patience), deleting the Wikipedians by alma mater categories (700 of them!) against a strong consensus (his delete closure was never carried out, because it was swiftly and overwhelming overturned at DRV .) Pointless incivility "Oh come off it Anthere. Not a single one of your proposed theories as to why this is bad makes any sense to any thinking person." The rudeness of the post is especially stunning in light of the thoughtfulness and openness to discussion of Anthere's previous post. Supports Veropedia's content policies over Misplaced Pages's. Edit warring at WP:WBNOE. I didn't even look through his contributions, these are just incidents I remembered off the top of my head, and knew where to find quickly. --JayHenry (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    If I may reply to the Veropedia diff, I would like to say in my defense that I have long been a vocal opponent of our fairuse policy and a good number of my own edits are doing just that, removing fairuse images. ^demon 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough and struck that part. Although the Foundation allows some fair use (and it was a board member of the Foundation that said the removal was inappropriate in this case), I won't oppose for an opinion. The rest stands, and I'd genuinely like to hear your response to that. I'd also love to know why, in three years, you've virtually never bothered to do any article work. --JayHenry (t) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Weak Oppose per Pedro and J Milburn. Normally I'd be all for re-sysopping, but your actions and attitude have shaken my confidence. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Weak, Weak Oppose I'm not really against the user, but rudeness does prevent me from supporting. Spencer 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Erratic behavior, doesn't seem to believe in the project.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Edit conflict Oppose. TBH, I have no idea why you're here, per Majorly. Plus, constantly annoyed admins can be hard to work with, sorry. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Majorly. Too much drama. Sorry. Mønobi 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, per Majorly. --Agüeybaná 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Per Majorly, Pedro, and this. I think this user's userpage sums it up. Tiptoety 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose He declines to answer the questions everyone else seems happy to, and I decline to support him. Nick mallory (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    To begin with, the questions are optional: he does not have to answer them. Secondly, as ^demon said himself, the answers to the first three questions are on his second RfA, and they are still perfectly valid answers; therefore, he has answered the questions. Thirdly, he invited the community to ask fresh questions, which he has been taking the time to answer. The only reason he's left some questions blank is because, at this time, he has not been online, as evidenced by his contributions. This RfA may be worth looking at too. Acalamari 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! That's totally changed my mind!! No, wait, it hasn't. He's free to answer the questions, or not, and I'm free to draw my own conclusions from that. It seems symptomatic of a person who thinks the established norms which apply to everyone else don't, for some reason, apply to him. This contempt for consensus is why I don't think he should be an admin. Admins are supposed to solve problems, not create them. If he can't be bothered to jump through the same hoops as everyone else who reapplies here then there's something wrong. Please feel free to argue the toss about this some more of course, and see where that gets you. Nick mallory (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Why the hell should he answer them again? Are you really such a process wonk that you want to see him copy and paste the text from his last RfA to this one? John Reaves 12:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Regretful Oppose It pains me to say so, but the incidents that JayHenry brings up are disconcerting enough to make me honestly feel you are untrustworthy. Sorry, but the fact that even many of your supporters call you an "agitator" and recognize the legitimacy of some of the oppose claims doesn't exactly stem the tide either. What we need are admins that dutifully and courteously act in the best interest of the project and, most importantly, can reliably enact a consensus (even one that defies their own personal feelings). Diffs provided here strongly suggest you have a hard time doing this. VanTucky 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Protest oppose against the general trend of reconfirmation RFAs and community infighting instead of encyclopaedia writing. Also per Majorly. User:Krator (t c) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Overly bureaucratic, non fun-loving. Users who go through reconfirmation RfAs unnecessarily are not fit to have admin tools. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    This RfA obviously was necessary, otherwise you'd have had no chance to oppose. Majorly (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Has a tendency to lash out at people and make a bad situation worse... The Mzoli's meats AfD is still burned into my head, although I see now it was longer ago than I thought. Needs more time, I think. Grandmasterka 03:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Regretful Oppose, ^demon gets himself involved in a lot of unpopular work that nevertheless needs to be done, and I thank him(?) enthusiastically for that. However, my observations of him indicate that he used to do it in a rather dour and humourless fashion. I really don't think this was necessary, and I don't see any evidence that you've changed in that regard. Some of User:Majoreditor's diffs above also indicate that occasionally you can be reckless with the tools, not something I really want to see in an admin. Lankiveil 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
  20. Oppose. Assuming Good Faith, the question still is, Is this another "test"? -- Iterator12n 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. User had shown a total disregard for community consensus and abused the admin tools when they had them. Apparently not strong enough to handle criticism and seems volatile at times. Not suited to regaining the position. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. I don't believe ^demon currently has the temperament to be an effective administrator. Ral315 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Protest neutral. This is a pointless exercise. ^demon, you should have asked at the 'crat noticeboard and avoid this drama. If you're so confident not to answer the standard questions, why not just ask a 'crat? I don't see the point of this RfA, and frankly, I think this is unnecessarily disruptive. The candidate is obviously trusted, IMO, as he was long-tenured sysop without any major controversy, he's a Veropedia programmer, and he did a bunch of OTRS and media requests before. Maxim(talk) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    "The candidate is obviously trusted ..." -- 10 people opposed within 2 hours of your saying that. This is not so obvious. - Revolving Bugbear 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    It would be interesting (albeit ugly) to see--as a gauge of community trust, if nothing else--a few of these "pointless exercises" for some of our current admins. WP:AMR, though hardly a panacea, doesn't strike me as an altogether terrible idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - It would have been one thing if the candidate had not burned bridges and just asked for the bit back. As User:Maxim points out, candidate would contribute to the project immediately at a very high level of experience, competence, and expertise. Not to sound snarky in this proceeding, but I believe candidate has discovered a third official way of losing sysop rights: C) resigning the bit, and then misjudging community approval during a re-run for adminship. I'm inclined to suggest the candidate withdraw right away, and come back to this process in three months with a degree more regard for this sort of proceeding, which is a measure of trust and confidence. BusterD (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I thought ^demon was a good admin. However, I find it odd that although he "revok right to ever obtain any usergroup on any Wikimedia project beyond that of 'user'.", here he is. I think you were a good administrator, but you seemed so strongly opposed to ever become an admin again, I'm a bit worried. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Good work, but a little too much drama and rudeness. I'm thinking some time later would be better. bibliomaniac15 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'm sorry, I just can't support here. GlassCobra 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Great answers and plenty of experience, but I think in his prior admin work ^demon tended to push his own views over others far too aggressively. The Category:Wikipedians by alma mater business (see the CfD) is one of the more extreme examples. I don't want to oppose for a variety of reasons, but foremost because I think editors who go through scrutiny tend to use the tools more responsibly. — xDanielx /C\ 03:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Great guy, but I just can't support. Sorry. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)