Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2

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.

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Final (41/29/4) ended 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk

I accept!
First a little history, I was admin from sometime in 2004 (can't track down when exactly) May 2004 to May 2005 when I was temp. de-sysopped pending an explanation of my actions, and then today from 22:27 to 22:29, it occured to me that it might be useful to have sysop powers on enwiki again in case something comes up like what came up today.
When I edit Wikipedia I mostly edit on the Icelandic Wikipedia where I'm the largest contributor (by edits, but probably not by content), I also do a lot of developing on the MediaWiki software mostly doing maintenance tasks on already existing code (bugfixes, applying patches), some of the things that I can call mine are the Exif metadata feature (which everyone seems to hate;=(), the license selector on Special:Upload, newuserlog and numerous extensions.

Support

  1. Support, obviously, as the nominator of Ævar. --
    Talk Contribs
    16:50, 8 October 2005 (CDT)
  2. Support. If someone has direct access to the database, it means that we have already placed more trust in him than we place in admins. I don't see why he can't be trusted with tools much less powerful than the ones he already has. As for the image deletion problem, everyone is allowed to have a bad day. Titoxd(?!?) 22:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't decided what I think yet, but we didn't place the developer trust in him, we have no say at all in that. An admin can have a bad day: I could head off right now and, say, delete 97 images — an irreversible action short of reuploading them. This sounds like I'm campaigning, but I don't mean it to. -Splashtalk 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing your vote, but I just felt like I'd add my opinion here. When someone has developer access, they're trusted not to do certain things; for example, not to go around performing administrative duties on wikis they don't have sysop access on. The reason they shouldn't do this is that the community hasn't shown its trust in their ability to do these things, which are quite different from the duties of a developer. The ability to write code is quite different from the ability to determine consensus, or write articles in an NPOV fashion, for example, and one could quite easily have one but not the other; the purpose of an RfA is to determine the community's faith in the user to perform the latter two duties correctly. Thus, I wouldn't find it particularly surprising for a user with developer access to fail an RfA, despite still being trustworth in other ways. Kate.
  3. Support. Great guy. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Argh...titoxd took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!!! (add about 15 more exclaimation marks ;)). Anyways... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Ævar has been persistently helpful whenever I've encountered him, the old image-deletion thing appears done and dusted (and I thought he'd been readminned afterwards... hmm.) and I'm sure he's sensible enough to discuss anything similar in future after what happened last time. (Would be happier supporting if he didn't transclude his .sig, though)
    talk | 23:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support, My extremely high standards are less now, before this user would of had to have like 5,000 edits, but close enough anyway. And edit counts don't really matter, just seems like a good user, so I support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Private Butcher (talk • contribs)
  7. Yeh. The image thing was a long time ago, and, as someone else says, everyone has a bad day... but (wags finger) don't do it again!  :) Grutness...wha? 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support; the issue which led to his desysopping was grossly overblown, and Ævar remains thoroughly trustworthy. — Dan | Talk 23:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per User:Rdsmith4. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Thanks for all the hard work on the development side (in addition to your en:wiki work). --Duk 02:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support
    Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support. Contributors from small countries need a lot more representation, and I've seen enough of Ævar to know that he's definitely adminship material. David Cannon
  14. Support I've known AEB for a long time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. This is the first case where the RfA cliché #1 is actually true. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Forgive and forget --Rogerd 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support There clearly are issues and Ævar needs to be clear on which hat he's wearing at any one time. Given that he's prepared to keep that in mind, let's try again. Dlyons493 Talk 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -
    Talk | Contribs) 17:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. S'port, see comment section. --Bjarki 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. x 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Martin 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support I am concerned about the self-sysopping, but I'm sure it was done in good faith. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, I think a second chance is reasonable here. JYolkowski // talk 20:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No reason to deny the mop and broom to a developer. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, those comments about sysop-ing himself and mass deleting images are silly. Yub, plain silly. However the prick deserved deopping because he himself is silly. Of course that is a silly argument and the sillyness of this is far to great for me to comprehend. So by all means give him sysop status. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 23:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support -- ElBenevolente 00:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Shanes 01:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. I am feel bad that I am opposing the votes of such heavyweights. For example, such as Kate, who created Kate's tool and offers solid logic, but anyone is entitled to a few mistakes (and his actions may not have been inappropriate?? -his explanations seem reasonable). Additionally, a person who has developer privileges is trusted to a higher level than is an admin. Editors are making too much of a "big deal" out of these details, I think: Denying Ævar admin status would be like telling a general that he doesn't have basic security clearance to be on base. Obviously, a general does have earned trust to do the most basic of things, exposing this logic as flawed. Therefore, I strongly support.--GordonWatts 01:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I know Ævar as reasonable and willing to help person. --
    Monkbel 16:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. Support Trustworthy on the whole, unlikely to repeat past actions, and others have already pointed out the incongruity of a developer not having admin status. -- Curps 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you (or someone else) please explain why the ability to write and implement computer code automatically translates to the ability to properly perform administrative tasks — a role in which this particular developer has failed in the past? —
    Lifeisunfair 02:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Database access. This is a bit like telling a chef in a restaurant that he can't occasionally act as a waiter, because after all anyone who carries food on a tray might slip some poison into it on the way to the table. -- Curps 08:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to degrade waiters in any way, but you seem to be implying that the position of "developer" is a higher rank than that of "sysop" (on a linear scale). You also seem to suggest that because someone technically can perform in a role (disregarding my use of the word "properly"), the only logical course of action is to sanction such participation. I strongly disagree with all of this. With your "poison" analogy, do you mean that Ævar already has the ability to damage Wikipedia (just as a chef already has access to the food), so we'd might as well let him loose and hope for the best? If so, you're ignoring the concept of good faith. The opposition to Ævar's adminship is based not upon a belief that he's malicious, but upon a belief that he lacks the ability to consistently employ proper judgement in the capacity of administrator — a position for which technical expertise is not a sufficient qualification. In other words, we trust that Ævar has good intentions (and probably won't use his lock pick to enter the janitors' closet again, and certainly not on a regular basis), but we don't trust him enough to hand him the keys and encourage him to start mopping the place. —
    Lifeisunfair 14:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Support. A developer without admin rights is, well, wrong. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this has been said so many times I'm going to say something about it. Aevar is a developer. He can already do admin things, as he has done in the past and did again over the weekend. This RfA does not need to happen for him to have admin rights. This RfA is not about the admin buttons, or rights. That has already been granted. This RfA is about the other part of being an admin: does the community trust his judgement, his interactions, his behaviour, his general demeanour? I personally do not, and I do not think that, at present, I can endorse his judgement and interactions. I do not think that his general behvaiour lately fits with what I expect from an admin. That is entirely separate from thinking he is a good developer. It is no way incongruous for someone to be a dev, but not an admin. -Splashtalk 14:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Still hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oops, bugger. Your admin bit should have been switched straight back on IMO - David Gerard 15:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, let's not be churlish about this :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good, friendly user who deserves adminship. Erwin
  38. Support sometimes a bit too quick on the draw, but i'd trust him to look out for the best interests of wiki.  ALKIVAR™ # 10:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Guettarda 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 'Support, proved himself reliable in good faith with his development work, was out-of-touch and didn't know how Wikipedia was supposed to work, now he does. silsor 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, this user deserves a second chance. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Per my comments above and below. I couldn't find a document saying what devs should and shouldn't do, I suppose it lurks in devdom somewhere. But Kate said it above. I'm deeply unhappy that you sysopped yourself today for no good reason in a completely non-emergency situation. It feels like having realised that being an admin is fun, thought you'd do the process retrospectively. That doesn't show the good judgement I'd like, I'm afraid. And there seems to be a little bit of immodesty, too, in your comment below, although you wouldn't be the only admin with that problem. (Minor point, but devs of all people shouldn't be transcluding signatures.) -Splashtalk 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation at the time was that three users who should not have been created had been created due to a bug in the software, and in the time that I could find someone else and explain to hir why
    sie should permanently block three users that didn't appear to have done anything wrong (due to them taking over someone elses edit history) more of those users could have been created, there wasn't any immitiate danger from them making edits other than invalid entries in the database, but rather than let that happen I'd sysop myself and block them for the above reasons. I could also have just manually inserted an entry into the ipblocks table but that would have been a larger query, and a larger query is a bigger possibility for mistake. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There's still no reason why you had to sysop yourself without asking anyone, and that's what I dislike. There are 600 admins, many of them technically competent and available on IRC, and a whole bunch of developers. You could even have got yourself a Bureaucrat or a Steward to re-op you. There was no need to dispose of RfA, only to realise a few hours later that you'd really better fill in the gap; a decision that evidently occured on IRC since it's not on anyone's talk page. -Splashtalk 00:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose From what I've seen of Ævar, he is a great developer, but I feel I must agree with Splash. The sysopping thing really bothered me, especially since you said that you couldn't wait for an admin to do it. That doesn't make any sense to me, you could just have contacted any one admin who was active at the time and had them do it. It wouldn't have taken long, and sysopping yourself is just way out of line. Also, I'm afraid, the image deletion is just way to much for me to be able to support (and it wasn't that long ago, it was in may for crying out loud). You don't need to be an admin to contribute either content or code gkhan 23:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My impression of Avar is that he often acts on impulse, without considering the consequences of his actions, which is not a desirable trait in an administrator. Regardless of his motives for these image deletions, he did (as I understand it) delete several images which were being used in articles, creating a significant amount of work for other people who had to restore these images from archives, or find replacements. His mass deletion of anon talk pages seems somewhat strange; I could understand a proposal to delete, or perhaps blank, old anonymous users' talk pages, but wholesale deletion of them seems somewhat excessive--particularly since Avar only touched pages which he himself had edited. Furthermore, I felt Avar's block of VeryVerily for violation of the 3RR was heavy handed and unnecessary, as well as out of line, since the 3RR blocking policy did not exist at that time. Lastly, he removed the discussion of this issue on his talk page by "archiving" (deleting) the page. I don't think the deletion of one's own user talk pages as a form of archival is appropriate for an administrator. Kate.
  4. I found all the business leading up to de-sysopping to be uncomfortably mysterious and inexplicable, despite attempted explanations. Andre (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, for the excellent reasons cited above (the mass deletion of images, the mass deletion of anonymous users' talk pages, the deletion of his own talk page, the self-sysopping, and the overall pattern of poor judgement). I see no reason why someone with such a spotty record should be trusted to effectively function as an admin (which, as Kate noted, is not comparable to being a developer). —
    Lifeisunfair 03:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Oppose. Aevar has abused his position and should not be honored for it. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I don't know Ævar personally, but a few actions strike me as unworthy of adminship. First, obviously, his actions in the past. But also, I wonder about why he felt the need to bypass
    WP:VIP
    , or gone on IRC and requested a block- before I was an admin, I was able to get blocks within about a minute by simply asking someone in #wikipedia for a block. While I certainly appreciate Ævar's work on Mediawiki, I see no reason why Ævar has gained community trust within this project.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral315 (talk • contribs) 09:18, October 9, 2005
  8. Oppose The above users make good points, and I echo them with one addition. I believe that deleting one's own user talk page seriously undermines the transparency of the Wikipedia process. You could simply blank it, and "purge" it into the page history. With adminship, one is often dealing with users who do not understand the entire Wikipedia process due to their newness, stubbornness, intent to vandalize, etc. In answer to the image questions, you say that you'll go through the proper channels before deletion. But Ævar has shown to us quite recently by temporarily re-sysopping himself that he does not intend to constantly follow procedure. Actions speak louder than words, and while I respect his contributions on the Mediawiki and Icelandic side of things, but I'm afraid that his trustworthiness on en is yet to be determined by his actions. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 18:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Reluctantly oppose. He has many good contributions, and I don't want to discourage him, but I also must weigh the comments above and below showing this might be a bit hasty. Most specifically, recently using developer powers to delete his user pages, including all history. This has since been restored, but that action troubles me enough to oppose this nomination at this time. Jonathunder 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose — the above users make good points. In addition, you haven't answered my question completely. If you deleted your user and talk pages to "archive" them, why didn't you explain so at the time? Why are telling that to us now? In addition, you haven't clarified exactly why you deleted your comments from IP address talk pages. You write "Furthermore I removed some old welcome messages of mine to anonymous like
    S 00:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Oppose — When I tried to compromise on a controversial edit, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason spurned my attempt at compromise. This is not the kind of behavior I expect from someone who is going to be an admin. Samboy 01:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem like a reasonable protector of the environment based on your user page, and therefore you have gained my respect, but I must say, Samboy, that he made a valid point: The page is about feces, and anyone who gets there is responsible for viewing an image -even if it was an accident: The lesson learned for a "wrong click" far outweighs the problems associated with a repulsive image. Yes, we all make mistakes, and even if this were a mistake (which I don't think it is), I would oppose a broad generalization of a user based on one or two questionable edits. One must look at the broad view; Now, if you can show me a negative pattern of behaviour, such as we find in Calton's case (a user who has angered three registered users and one anon for constant reverting), then I would reconsider my vote. It is your move, and my ear eagerly awaits any feedback you might speak to it: Your view is valued and important.--GordonWatts 02:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the point I should have made is that I don't feel that an admin should be making controversial edits. I feel that an admin should only step in when it is clear that two sides are not able to compromise on an issue. In this particular case, I was frustrated because I felt that other editors, including Bjarmason, were not willing to compromise. To be fair, he has only reverted the image a couple of other times on this page. The problem is that an admin who has an interest in controversial pages may be less likely to have the objectivity that an admin needs. I also remember him contributing to the
    Childlove movement discussions, andother extremely controversial article. Thanks a lot for your kind words; your contributions are important also. Samboy 06:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Thanks a lot for your kind words" You're welcome. "your contributions are important also." Thank you. "I feel that an admin should only step in when it is clear that two sides are not able to compromise on an issue." That makes sense, but in your next sentence, you admit that "other editors, including Bjarmason, were not willing to compromise," which leads me to believe that he it was OK for him to step in. Nonetheless, you make a good point, when you say that "The problem is that an admin who has an interest in controversial pages may be less likely to have the objectivity that an admin needs." If this is the case, I would find that a problem. In fact, I was warned not to use admin powers on the
    Terri Schiavo page if I became an admin. I'm honest, and I would not have anyway, I hope people understand, but if Ævar has used admin powers where he has actively edited, I might reconsider my "support." To be clear, I can't monitor every page, so I'll simply take your word that you think he did this, and not criticize you for voting your conscience.--GordonWatts 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose. After being neutral for a while (see my comments in that section), I've decided to change my vote to oppose. There's no single item that bothers me enough to do this, but the combination of things all adds up to a pattern in my mind of I'm above the rules. I'm willing to say the image removal was all just an honest mistake, and the re-sysop-ing was probably completely harmless and done in good faith. I still don't understand why he removed stuff from other user's talk pages, but there's probably no major harm done there. The one that really gets me is deleting his own talk page. Again, by itself, that probably wouldn't have convinced me, but it all adds up to a bad pattern. --RoySmith 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Pretty much per Kate's response to Tito's vote. Adminship should be granted to anyone trustworthy, and developing and being an En admin are different. Actively giving reasons not to deserve that trust as has been done shouldn't be rewarded with adminship. Please keep up the development work, but giving yourself admin powers when not needed is over the top. - Taxman Talk 12:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. It might be a language barrier: I don't understand his mixture of Icelandic and English in his responses, and I'm not sure he understands peoples' concerns above when he responds to questions about deleting his pages by saying he "achived" them. It contributes to his difficulty on this Wikipedia, I think. CDThieme 15:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Ævar's remark was immediately followed by a winking emoticon leads me to believe that he precisely understood the disparity between deleting and archiving. (The comment "it's my way of archiving it;=)" reads differently than "it's my way of archiving it.") As far as I'm concerned, Ævar's failure to address my explicit question regarding this matter — "Do you honestly believe that such an action is appropriate, despite the fact that it eliminates access to records of discussions (some of which include criticisms of your behavior)?" — removes any possible ambiguity. (Note that the question was posted over a day ago, subsequent to which Ævar has edited this page twice. He also has ignored Shimgray's question, which immediately precedes mine.) —
    Lifeisunfair 16:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    He has also had a message from Shimgray regarding that question on his talk page, which he has neither responded to nor acted on. Such intransigence is not a feature I like in potential admins. -Splashtalk 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: for a number of reasons noted above. A developer is not a superset of an admin, or vice versa. He might make a fantastic developer yet not be a good admin, or vice versa. Exhibited behavior both here on this RfA and elsewhere is not encouraging. --Durin 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. The three problematic actions taken together indicate that, unfortunately, the user should not be an admin. -DDerby-(talk) 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Developer ~>= Admin. Once promoted, I'm constantly trying to get them to
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  18. Oppose, reasons stated by others. Everyking 06:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose The opposition is persuasive. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, reluctantly. I like Ævar as a person, but he seems to be prone to acting rashly at times. IceKarmaॐ 22:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose--Borisblue 22:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Samboy. freestylefrappe 23:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, not enough quality edits (as I said once before). Charles Matthews 08:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I agree with most of the opposition reasons above. I believe that a pattern of poor administrative decisions has been shown. Carbonite | Talk 15:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Someone who thinks that deleting a talk page is a valid way of 'archiving' it should not have access to a delete button. --Aquillion 02:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, for all the reasons above but mainly his self-resysopping. --fvw* 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. For the most part, I'm totally baffled by what happened with his de-sysoping, even after reading through the old logs, but I'd want to see evidence of good behavior in the recent past. Re-sysopping himself is definitely not a good sign of that. Given his disregard for other processes in the past and GDFL concerns with images, I would expect more caution from him. I'd recommend that he reapply after a few months of good behavior. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You noted a lack of "good behavior in the recent past," and I share your concern. I'm especially bothered by Ævar's comments on this page (and lack thereof). If he can't even take his nomination seriously, what does that tell us? —
    Lifeisunfair 22:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Oppose. I'm especially concerned about the talk-page thing; the dubious precedent of deletion of talk page comments is getting to be pretty well-established: the use of admin, or indeed, developer privs to do so really ought to be very strongly discouraged. Alai 05:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per Splash. This action really bothered me, I try to review all the actions of a RfA candidate, and rarely vote oppose. Being a developer is a serious responsibility, if we can't trust that one won't give permissions w/o prior approval, then I definately can't trust them as a sysop. Even though sysops have little power, it's not a power to be abused, there is always an alternative. ∞Who?¿? 08:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral (for now) (changing my vote, see the Oppose section). I'm a little concerned about a few edits made to anon user talk pages. For example [1]. While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I think it's important to be unflaggingly polite; this note sounds a bit sarcastic to me. Also, in [2], [3], [4], [5], etc, he removed welcome messages (albeit, his own) from anon user talk pages. And in [6], did the same thing from a named user talk page. I'm curious why he did that. To be fair, I looked at a large number of his edits to user talk pages, and the vast majority of them seem perfectly reasonable, polite, etc. The few I cited just stood out as being a bit strange. --RoySmith 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And, I forgot to mention, the self-sysop-ing really does bother me. It is always troubling when people take advantage of powers they have that other people don't, even for seemingly innocent reasons. If this RfA goes down, will he just sysop himself again whenever it's convenient? --RoySmith 13:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I say wait a few weeks/months and see what happens. From what little i've seen and I know of this situation, it seems like we're too close to it to make a truly objective decision here. However, this vote is just a cursory one from looking at this page and some of the links from this page regarding the situation, I readily admit that I'm open to hearing more from either side of the dispute. Karmafist 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Neutral. (I'm not going to go through and strikethrough or edit comments because I simply don't have time, but the main issue I raised has been answered almost to my satisfaction, enough so that I don't feel comfortable having my name continue to reflect opposition.) Originally I honestly came here with intent to vote Support or not vote at all. But I decided to read through the entire discussion. I found many things that made me want to support and several things that made me want to oppose, or at least vote neutral. But in the end I saw something that I felt I really must speak out about. Ævar, you state about deleting your user talk page that "when it's large and all the discussions on it are old, it's my way of archiving it." Ævar, I recognize we may have a language barrier and I do not wish to put you unfairly on the spot, but do you know the exact definition of the word "archive"? Archive does not mean "get rid of." It means something more akin to "put in storage, out of the way, but still accessible for retrieval if necessary." Deleting a page absolutely does not in any way archive it. Moving it archives it. Copying it elsewhere archives it. I'll even accept that blanking it archives it, because it is still accessible in the page history. But you absolutely just cannot call deleting a page "archiving" it. It is important for everything that has transpired on your talk page to be accessible to any interested lookers. That is a very important and cherished Wikipedia tradition. You just cannot glibly say "I was archiving it" without doing severe injustice to the meaning of the word and, mor importantly, your credibility on Wikipedia. Jdavidb (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a couple of other comments.
    • What Durin said about edit summaries is very important to me. It's enough that without the issue of the talk page deletions I still could not vote to support you but would have to either vote neutral, comment, or abstain entirely. You should always use an edit summary unless you have a very good reason not to, and let me add that you should make sure you use a descriptive and accurate edit summary and that means saying more than just the automatic summaries supplied during section editing.
    • Unlike many folks here, I am actually impressed by the discipline implied by self-sysopping and de-self-sysopping today. I still lack the proper context to have a complete perspective on this: I do not understand why it was so important, and I haven't yet read about the past history of your de-sysopping. But my first take on the subject was, "Wow; if he is that well-behaved, and already has that power, why isn't he an administrator?" Jdavidb (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deleting a page absolutely does not in any way archive it. Moving it archives it..." This is a good point, but I have a question: Is it not true that it can be "undeleted?" If so, then it was truly archived. If, however, it is deleted an unable to be restored, then you complaint would be valid, and before I vote any way at all, I would seek an explanation from Ævar. This is an issue of discipline not unlike that you mentioned above, and it reflects the level of care a user has, as well as concern for others' feelings. I await feedback here too.--GordonWatts 04:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already been undeleted, and I've merged everything that's ever been written on my current user talk page to it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your answer at face value and trust that you are correct: I'm sure you would not trick me: Your answer is good, thus I continue my support for your nomination.--GordonWatts 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But you haven't explained why you felt that it was appropriate to delete these discussions in the first place. The fact that the damage has been reversed doesn't mean that we should pretend that it never occurred. —
    Lifeisunfair 04:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, Gordon, deleting a page is not tantamount to "archiving." It's more like "burying at a garbage dump, where it's accessible only to sanitation engineers." The fact that it was possible for someone with special privileges (a sanitation engineer in my analogy) to recover the content doesn't change the fact that it was discarded. —
    Lifeisunfair 04:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "...more like "burying at a garbage dump, where it's accessible only to sanitation engineers." The fact that it was possible for someone with special privileges (a sanitation engineer in my analogy..." Good analogy,
    Lifeisunfair, and I admit this is a worse action than I had thought, but, in the overall scheme of things, I don't consider the responsibilities of an admin that much higher than a regular editor, since both are expected to be very responsible and mature, so I'll still support him for admin. If his action is that bad, he should be up for RfC or something, but, barring that, he gets my support. Just my opinion.--GordonWatts 15:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    In terms of authority, an admin and an ordinary editor are equals. From a technical standpoint, however, the former is significantly more powerful. Therefore, only editors who are widely trusted by the community are worthy of sysop status. Having abused his powers several times in the not-too-distant past (and once again in the past week) — actions that he refuses to fully explain — Ævar has not earned this level of trust (IMHO). —
    Lifeisunfair 16:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Neutral I am torn between your contributions and the reason why you were de-sysoped. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Same Reason as Zzyzx11 --JAranda | watz sup 22:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Awsome user —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Your usage of edit summaries over your last 500 edits is 61%. You used to be much higher. Please go back to using edit summaries as much as you can. --Durin 22:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this necessary? My understanding is that permanent removal of admin status can be done only by Jimbo, the Arbcomm, or at the request of the relevant admin. Unless one of those circumstances pertains, doesn't Ævar automatically get his admin status back once the temporary circumstance which motivated its removal has expired? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good point, I felt that it was fair to request adminship in this way to see if people actually wanted me as admin, rather than play that card. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for replying. The reason I asked is that I didn't want someone to claim later that this vote as a de-facto endorsement of the principle that bureaucrats can permanently desysop someone. To forestall that, it would be helpful if you explicitly said that yo u consider your continued desysophood (after the image-del matter was resolved) to be voluntary. I appreciate that's almost what you said in your comment preceding this, but IMO it's best not to leave some future policy lawyer a chink of doubt. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This all happened before my time. As I read the diffs here (which I read before) you were desysopped for flagrantly deleting a large number of images and various other removals. You say you want to be a sysop again so you can delete images. Mmmmmmmm. You evidently have the power to re-sysop yourself at will and presumably could act as a sysop irrespective of this RfA. You have not until now done so. Why not? You re-sysopped yourself today, presumably entirely on your own authority, for the purpose of a few (needed) indefinite username blocks. You don't appear to have checked with anyone, even IRC, where you could easily have found a an admin or 30. You're going to have to help me out, here. And what does your comment above mine mean? -Splashtalk 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Using words like "crap" and "suck" in edit summaries like here is I think not a good idea. No big deal, but you know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this matter there is only one question that actually matters: What will further advance the development of Wikipedia, having Ævar as an administrator or not? Let us not forget it for one second that the purpose of this project is to build an encyclopedia, the community, its regulation creep and fancy procedures are but the means to reach that end. These rules are there for a reason however and of course they should be respected and user who do not seem able to respect them and continually disrupt Wikipedia ought not to have access to admin-tools and in severe cases be banned. Such actions are not meant as punishment but to prevent future damage, but I'm having the feeling that some people here are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Ævar should not be made an admin as an "punishment" for his actions in the past, that is the wrong way of approaching this, the only relevant question is whether he is likely to damage Wikipedia in the future using admin-tools. My answer to that is no for the following reasons:
    • (1) His controversial actions in the past did not result in any actual "damage" to the project and there is no reason to assume he will do such damage in the future. Even if you are of the opinion that his actions have somehow damaged Wikipedia I ask you to weigh that perceived damage against all the positive janitorial work that he has surely carried out in English Wikipedia using admin-tools (not to mention the developer work and the work on the Icelandic Wikipedia), you will find that his contribution to Wikipedia is overwhelmingly if note completely positive.
    • (2) He has explained his controversial actions and I see no reason why we shouldn't assume good-faith. He sysopped himself for whole two minutes in order to tackle a technical issue, I frankly don't see why that is a big deal. He has recognized that he was out of line over the mass-deleting of images and apologized for that. The only thing that really bugged me was the deletion of his own talk page, that page has now been restored with every comment ever made there. Going through that page reveals nothing that Ævar ought to be ashamed for and his motives for deleting were hardly sinister although it was definitely a silly action on his part.--Bjarki 17:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points, except I think that one of those actions would have been more than forgivable, two who knows, but three establishes a pattern. De facto, adminship is harder to revoke than developer rights. - Taxman Talk 17:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking purely for myself, I have no desire to see Ævar "punished." He's a fine developer, and I look forward to benefiting from his continued contributions to the MediaWiki software. You say that "his controversial actions in the past did not result in any actual 'damage' to the project," but I beg to differ. He deliberately bypassed the proper channels by deleting numerous images, and he did so while many of them were in use in articles. (He didn't even bother to remove them.) As a result, several individuals were forced to divert time and effort from other tasks to repair the damage that Ævar caused. You say that "there is no reason to assume he will do such damage in the future," and I simply cannot agree. If Ævar truly had learned his lesson, he wouldn't have once again bypassed the proper channels by sysopping himself. He continues to demonstrate a proclivity for violating important rules, and I see no reason not to assume that this would be carried over to various administrative functions (just as it has in the past). You ask that we weigh Ævar's misdeeds against his positive contributions to the project, and I simply reject that argument. If we can't hold sysops to a higher standard than "more good than harm," something is very wrong. You say that "he has explained his controversial actions," but he certainly hasn't done so to my satisfaction. I'm still waiting for him to answer my question from this very page (which he has deliberately ignored). You point out that Ævar's talk page history has been restored, but you neglect to mention that this was performed by
        Lifeisunfair 02:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Ironically, mostly deleting images, I move a lot of images to the commons and mark them with {{NowCommons[This]}} for someone else to clean up, I could do that myself now.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A Nothing major, mainly small fixes here and there.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Minor disagreements about content here and there, but nothing major, one edit war I really felt like taking part in was the recent exclamation mark edit war over at Berwick-upon-Tweed, but I resisted the temptation;)
4. {question by WikiFanatic} Ævar, you have previously been de-sysoped due to mass image deletion. How do you plan to persuade voters that you you have changed since your mass image deletion and de-sysopping?
A. First of all read this where I stated that I was out of line, rest assured that I'll go through the proper channels before doing anything like that again.
5. (question by
S ) Reading Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, it says that your actions have never been fully explained. If you don't mind, can you clarify why you performed your actions? Also, it says that this question
has never been answered. Can you answer it now, and why didn't you respond to it back then? Thanks.
A. I've actually deleted my user [talk] page a lot in the past, my user page because I'm never happy with it so I frequently think it sucks, nuke it, and start again, and my user talk page when it's large and all the discussions on it are old, it's my way of archiving it;=) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. {question by Shimgray} Ævar, this is a contentious nomination, and a lot of the objections have focused on the self-sysoping yesterday - regardless of this result, you'll still have the power to do that. If the RFA comes out against you, would you consider that to be a consensus request not to sysop yourself again on en.wiki? {question added on 9 October 2005 at 13:01 (UTC)}
7. {question by
Lifeisunfair
} You stated above that the deletion of your talk page is your "way of archiving it." Do you honestly believe that such an action is appropriate, despite the fact that it eliminates access to records of discussions (some of which include criticisms of your behavior)? {question added on 9 October 2005 at 15:37 (UTC)}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ævar_Arnfjörð_Bjarmason_2&oldid=1086093777"