Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dusti 4

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dusti

Dusti (talk · contribs) – I have been sitting on the sidelines for quite some time and I have to say, I'm tired of being a bystander and want to jump in and get my hands dirty. After being on Wikipedia for several years, I can still admit that I don't know everything and I've still not seen every inch and corner of Wikipedia. I have, however, seen many areas that could use my help and I'd like for the community to allow me to be of help there. With over 10,000 edits, most of which are anti-vandalism edits - I've had my fair share of training with users. My last RFA failed miserably because of an run-in with a (at that time unknown) sockpuppet, and lack of work in AFD. I can now say, with confidence, my level of skill in those areas has risen significantly, and I am now ready for the extra bits, with your blessing of course. I will ask, for my sanity as well as others, that disputes don't happen here. This is a simple support or oppose RFA. I hate fighting and bickering when this can be simple. Thank you for your input, views, and time. Dusti^*poke* 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination

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: Most of the areas that I plan to work in are the areas that I'm already working in,

WP:AFD

, and so many others. There's always work for someone to get into, and there's always more areas that can use an extra set of hands. Areas that I stumble into that I'm not familiar with won't see me using administrator tools to work, unless I'm absolutely certain that I know what I'm doing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm not an artist or a content creator. I'm more of Wiki gnome who likes to clean up instead of creating the artwork. I pride myself in the content that I have added, and the other users that I have helped to build this encyclopedia. The areas I mentioned above (

WP:ANI

, etc.) are some of my best contributions, as well as anti-vandal work in NPP and RC patrol.

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: Conflicts are unavoidable in any social setting, let alone a content building project. Most of the minor conflicts that I've been involved with are simply about insisting on discussion, users unsure about why they were warned, and other project building stuff. When I was initially starting out on en.wiki I found

snow keeps

and withdraws.

Additional question from 28bytes

4. You recently initiated a successful recall petition against an administrator for unblocking an editor against consensus. Do you think a "one strike and you're out" policy on admin mistakes is healthy for Wikipedia?

A: That honestly depends on the issue itself. Humans are apt to make mistakes, it's inevitable. If that individual has made a mistake that is unethical, illegal, or damaging to the community, it very well could be a "you're out" situation. That particular incident was one, in my opinion. Complete disregard for community consensus, combined with the acknowledgment of the disregard and refusal to revert the decision shows that s/he really didn't care about the mistake or what he did. Administrators are held by higher standards and if the trust factor isn't there then what's the point of being granted extra rights that carry a certain level of trust with them?

Additional question from Worm That Turned

5. On a similar point to 28bytes above, would you be open to recall? Assuming the answer is yes, would you be using a similar method of recall to the one you initiated or a different one?

A: I would be open to recall, as being a Sysop is a trusted position, not a permanent right. As far as criteria, I've not put much thought into it, however, I'm sure it would be similar - and I would allow general community discussion and input and not just limit the recall to the voice of Admins.

Additional question from ErikHaugen

6. A common admin task is to weigh consensus at a discussion before using an admin tool. However, sometimes local consensus can conflict with the broader consensus reflected in policies and guidelines. For an extreme example, consider an AfD where the nominator points out there are no sources and the subject does not meet the GNG, but all the other 20 participants !vote to keep saying "But I like the subject" and no sources are provided. To you, where is the line? How would you weigh a discussion's consensus against guidelines when they conflict?

A: The broader scope of the project is to ensure that the information we put is correct, and is needs to be verified by sources, regardless if someone likes it or not. In the particular instance you pointed out above, if there aren't sources and the content doesn't meet GNG, I would

invoke IAR

and delete the article giving a detailed explanation in the AFD as to why I did it. Deleting something only removes it from the general public's eyes. If someone was interested in the topic and wanted to continue to work on it in their userspace, I would happy move it to their userspace until it was sourced and could be included in the Main Space.

General comments

• Links for Dusti: Dusti (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dusti can be found here.

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

Discussion

I would like to make a statement here, if I may. Please, if you are able to, disregard the fact that I don't have a ton of DYK's, GAC's, or FA's under my belt. Not every individual here on Wikipedia is meant to be a content contributor. That doesn't mean that I'm not familiar with content building or the related policies. They're a click away for reference if needed. I interact with other users, utilize message boards when needed, and am competent enough to take appropriate action when necessary and am wanting the chance to show that to the community. I will not argue with anyone if they oppose this or make bold statements, nor will I badger you, and I respectfully ask other editors to refrain from doing so too. Everyone is entitled to their respectful opinion and shouldn't be censored or hushed. I also ask that this RFA run it's full course, even if it

Looking over the previous three RFAs, I'm concerned that it's

pointy to ask for SNOW exclusion. tedder (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think one can ask for a SNOW exclusion. It literally is not a logical request. Swarm ^X 12:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the rationale of

SNOW is the right action. However, another part of the rationale is to spare the time of the couple of hundred regular readers here who could be fighting vandals, or building an encyclopedia instead of reading a RFA which is going nowhere. (I'm not saying we have reached that point yet, I'm speaking generically). If this RFA is closed, it isn't because your wishes were irrelevant, it is because there are other considerations as well.--SPhilbrickT 13:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Plus the fact that its not useful to to start or continue what seem to be a new trend for using RfA as an editor review. Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats posted on talk. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 07:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

1. Given that your previous RFA failed largely for temperament issues, the preemptively defensive post after the optional questions is an interesting choice. It suggests to me there may still be perspective issues. Furthermore, you already have an editor review up, and you know RFA isn't the same thing as an editor review; your from-the-jump desire to run this thing a full week even if its purpose has been served suggests a lack of interest in community consensus.
   Townlake (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I respect your position, however, I'm not seeing a connection between asking for the RFA to run its full course and lack of interest in community consensus. Asking for the full time to run, in my opinion, shows a greater interest in community correlation and views. I simply would like to see everyone's opinions rather than having this cut short. Dusti^*poke* 05:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   From my perspective, No harm can come from letting the RfA run. It should not be considered a universally held view, that continuing the RfA process in the face of mounting opposition reflects a thing. Otherwise shall I repeat the things I found important. I am saddened that your decision to place the preemptive statement, will likely draw ire. Those inclined to interpret only its negative appearance will cast aspersions on your intent. While I do respect your stated reason, I regretfully must admit I believe that you have entered this RfA against odds, for having done so. My76Strat (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually agree with Townlake here. Once the community has achieved consensus that the RFA is going to fail, holding it open is no longer using the RfA for purpose. 7 days of criticism, however constructive, will often be seen as pile-on and will instigate drama - taking people away from our primary goal here, the encyclopedia. I do appreciate that feedback is helpful but running the full seven days after

   WP:SNOW has taken effect is not. Worm^TT 09:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'm with Townlake and Worm here - we need to also think about potential future candidates who are following current RfAs to get some feel for it before they take the jump themselves. We've just had an RfA close in which the candidate declined to close it early even though it appeared to have little chance of success (although it was around 50/50), and it turned into a bit of a bloodbath - and while I do admire the desire to see things through to the end, that must have been horribly off-putting to potential recruits. So I think you should be open to the possibility of early closure and see how things go, rather than deciding up-front that you won't consider it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

   "No harm can come from letting the RfA run" was a misstatement. What I intended to say is, there are many reasons. I disagree in stating the action does relate to "lack of interest in community consensus". To me, "lack of interest" did not come to mind, "lack of confidence" did. Another may have seen poor "judgment", and another AGF. To actually be a "lack of interest" implies it was considered and then disregarded. It is more likely this was not considered, or intended. I think questions like that are poorly framed, If the colleagues before me agree, this act is considered "lack of interest in community consensus" I yield to consensus, with a dissenting opinion. My76Strat (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   At least yours was running about 50% - but this is at 0/14 so far, and if it doesn't improve fairly soon it should definitely be a SNOW close. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with everything said less the original label. I think this is a clear case for SNOW. It should be advanced. If it advances with the candidates cooperation, there never was "lack of anything for consensus". If they reject cooperation, here begins the suggestion. My76Strat (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'll admit, I'm a little predisposed to oppose here because of the sloppily formatted and premature (in my opinion) recall petition you initiated. But I figured the fair thing to do would be to look at your recent contribs before deciding, and they don't really fill me with confidence. It appears that you don't notify article creators when you PROD or CSD their creations... even though you use Twinkle and Twinkle does this automatically if you let it. That makes it difficult for a non-admin to tell what proportion of your CSDs are upheld. Despite that, I do see some obviously declined ones, such as this article, which makes a very clear assertion of importance for the subject. I'm open to reconsidering this oppose, but this is where I have to land for now. 28bytes (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually have a CSD and PROD log (for this exact reason). Please note that PROD's can be redirected or updated, making the PROD reason no longer applicable. User:Dusti/CSDlog and User:Dusti/PRODlog. Dusti^*poke* 05:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, I will take a look at those logs. 28bytes (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I've struck the bit about not notifying users; my apologies for misreading that, I see you do notify them. 28bytes (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose a cursory look at some of your deletion nominations leaves me a little concerned but, taken in isolation, these would not normally lead me to oppose your candidacy. Of greater concern to me was the recall petition you initiated against a former administrator. Like others, I believe that action was premature and not wisely conceived on your part and led to the project losing a capable sysop over what I feel was a minor issue. I therefore question your judgement in administrative matters and I feel that promoting you to sysop at this time is not in the best interests of the project. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Concerns with experience, maturity, and temperament. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 06:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Mostly over drama concerns, and more widely out of a lack of content contributions. I don't mean just creating articles, but overall distribution of edits. The previous issues discussed on the talk page, which are entirely new to me, aren't confidence inspiring, but on the other hand I don't see anything to indicate the editor was at any fault. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Too many recent misuses of rollback (and thus an inadequate understanding of what constitutes vandalism). (E.g., [1] [2] [3] [4]) The most egregious example is this series of rollbacks (and escalating vandalism warnings) of a user who appeared to be going around removing broken links from articles [5] [6] [7] [8]; while that may not be the ideal way of dealing with dead links, the user was obviously doing it in good faith (he even provided edit summaries), and he should have received an explanation of our policy on broken links, not a level 4 vandalism warning ([9]). We don't need another bitey admin. SheepNotGoats (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per the misuses of rollback. Solid vandalism work is the most basic measure of competency there is, if you can't do it properly I can't consider supporting. Sorry. Swarm ^X 11:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per SheepNotGoats. I don't think you're ready for the mop at this time, I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per Lovetinkle and Swarm. Apparent poor understanding of key policies and serious questions regarding judgment and temperament. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per Townlake and Boing. Kudpung (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - It's hard for me to support a candidate who can't even correctly create and transclude their own RfA page.
    communicate 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Oppose. I hate to seem like a pile on oppose, especially when my question hasn't yet been answered. But, I've been looking through your recent work. I took
    the game but an IP removing unsourced trivia from an article (with an edit summary) didn't seem "unconstructive" to me, I'd expect to see a more helpful edit summary there. Following it with this, how can you cite something not being there - the onus was on you as the person who wants to include the information. I share other editors concerns regarding your opinion against the former administrator, along with the concerns regarding the other rollbacks you have made. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Per all the above (although I don't grade off for not knowing expectations at RFA. Still, this is your fourth one ...) - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Swarm and Roving Alan above. Mentoring might help your cause, and I emphasize the word might.--Hokeman (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Per all of the above. This your fourth try and you are still making rookie mistakes on a regular basis. It is extremely important for an administrator to be able to recognize what is and is not vandalism. And your call for an exemption to WP:SNOW shows a level of arrogance we don't need in an admin either.
    talk) 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. oppose I am highly disturbed by the nature of what sven posted about below and on the talk page. Also the face that you could not do the fairly simple technical things to get your 4th RFA up and running casts a shadow over this. I would like to see at least one DYK/GA/B-class article that anyone running for adminship to have under their belt. There is more to life then smacking vandals. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Per Sven.
    Mono (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Dusti is a member of the off-wiki group TechEssentials. Several other members of that group, all also Wikipedians, were heavily involved in the
   Wha? 06:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Context for the above statement is on the talk page of this RFA.

   Wha? 07:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. This is a totally neutral placement, a statement that, I am observing and likely will gather enough information to set appropriate regards, upon this RfA My76Strat (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Upon a fair assessment of the nomination statement, I reiterate that you have damaged your own ability. In stating you "want to jump in" you leave no method to assume this as a well thought decision. In stating your desire that "disputes don't happen", and your disdain for "fighting and bickering" you inadvertently imply that you expect these things. Your anticipation of these things show disregard to the AGF each participant deserves. The simple placement of these negative seeds, almost ensure the will grow. And you have asked they be watered by giving them prominent view. And of course the statement to preempt the SNOW close speaks even louder to your anticipations. By discussing "I will not argue with anyone" and "nor will I badger you" skips AGF once again. I may not oppose you outright, but I feel a strain on my ability to support. Being sufficient on these alone. My76Strat (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. From the opening statement: "I hate fighting and bickering when this can be simple." Unfortunately this is often the lot of admins, particularly in anti-vandal work. Dusti also has rather limited content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral at the moment, pending answer to question. Worm^TT 09:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose, after reviewing last 3 months. Enough to oppose in the hour before filing. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (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.