Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elockid

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

Final (90/10/7); Closed by Rlevse at 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you NSD for the nomination. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an active vandal fighter, I plan to start out at

clerk (trainee) as well as an active reporter reporting socks. SPI backlogs often, so I'd like to help out. Other administrative work I'd be involved in is dealing with socks in general that don't have any recent cases in SPI with puppeteer's like Nangparbat

.

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

A: As NSD said, maintaining geography related articles. Most of work I do is keeping Wikipedia up to date statistically (facts, figures and all those interesting numbers) on geography related articles, demographics, cities, urban studies, etc. An example where I keep articles up to date is

List of countries by population and List of cities by GDP

where I've been a major contributor to both updating, maintaining, and finding new sources.

Additional optional question from Mike Cline

5. Elockid, if Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one):

a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs.

b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals.

c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion.

d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP.

A:If I could only choose one, I would choose b, the Vandalism department. This is the area where I have plenty experience in and where I have more knowledge on what to look for. Some sockpuppeteer vandals like JarlaxleArtemis fits in this category also, so it goes along with what I've already been doing, helping to stop abusive and disruptive sockpuppets.

6. Given that you've created only one article in WP (a list) other than redirects please address the following:

a. What examples of your content creation do you feel best reflects your understanding of WP policies and guidelines?

A: Content creation wise with edits such as Asian American and Manila. Generally, when adding content to articles, I like to cite

verifiable

sources as well as sources that have credibility is a good. No tabloids or Wikipedia mirrors. In geography related articles adding government sources such as the CIA or a census/statistical bureau or organizations such as the UN are sources I try to add when adding new information to articles.

b. Do you believe you are qualified to evaluate new articles relative to their compliance with WP policies and guidelines and identify those articles that should be improved and mentor their editors on how to improve them even though you've really not created any new articles yourself?

A: I believe I'm qualified to evaluate new articles. An example I can come up with is if a user writes a new article about their city or school. People sometimes have a tendency to be patriotic towards their city or school and add POV language like "best", "awesome", "greatest", etc. Directing the user(s) towards the problems in POV and explain to them that Wikipedia tries to maintain NPOV is something I would do. If the sources are not that great, I'd give them tips on what sources not to use like forums, blogs, open wikis or Wikipedia mirrors and tell them some better sources that fit within the policies for reliability and verifiability. If the new article doesn't look notable, I would ask them to direct me to a place where notability can be found (it still would have to be reliable and verifiable though). Again, if not, show them what sources to use. With new BLPs, it would have to be very well sourced and from reliable sources. If it doesn't meet the criteria for BLPs and sources, then removing potentially slanderous content or put the article up for deletion is my best bet. I'd discuss with the editor of the importance of BLPs as continuing to break this policy has to potential for Wikipedia to be sued. This also applies to newly created articles where there is a clear copyright violation.

7. Why haven't you created any new articles on subjects you are passionate about?

A: Unfortunately, many of the subjects that I'm passionate and that I can think of at the moment has already been created.

Questions from  fetchcomms☛

8. When, if ever, should a user be blocked after making only one edit?

A: Persistent vandal sockpuppets. If I see someone page move with an edit summary like for justice and the epic lulz or write some hagger nonsense, then a block is probably in order.

Strike out for better explanation. Persistent vandal sockpuppets or new accounts that are obviously a blocked and/or banned user especially those listed on

assume of good faith

.

9. User X vandalizes a page 3 times and is warned each time. User Y reports him to AIV but by then he has already stopped vandalizing for almost ten minutes. Do you still block him and why?

A: Yes, if it's evident that the edits User X has been doing are vandalism, I would block per being a

VOA

. If it's clear that their intent is solely to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia or just vandalize it, I don't see much reason why not to block them. They've shown that they are not here to help the project but to hurt it.

Clarification: There's been some requests for me clarify this question my response up. I'd look into the vandalism, hence me saying if it's evident that the edits User X has been doing are vandalism. User X I'm presuming to be a registered account (this is why I indicated WP:VOA). After 3 warnings, blockable behavior would include spamming inappropriate sexual references or parts (this includes image vandalism), 4chan/JarlaxleArtemis/wannabe JarxaxleArtemis vandalism with variants of the following: HAGGER, XAVIER, or KNIFRE, or in general, edits that are generally considered extremely vulgar or severe vandalism. So the account making this would be blocked for being a VOA as I said previously, they've shown that they are not here to help the project but to hurt it. I don't really think IPs are considered accounts because they are not registered, so they wouldn't be VOAs. But IPs blocked because of whatever I listed above would have a blocking summary of "vandalism", not "vandalism-only account" because IPs are not registered. It depends really on the severity of the vandalism though.

10. What is a cool down block and when should it be used?

A: A cool down block is a type of block issued to person when they are angry. They should never be used as they don't help out the situation and sometimes it further infuriates the enraged person. Blocking them just because they are mad is against blocking policy as blocks are used as a means to stop disruption and vandalism. In other words, stop the disruption or vandalism that's currently active. If they haven't done anything that caused disruption, a block would them be inappropriate because they haven't done anything that should warrant a block.

Additional optional question from ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

11. Hi Elockid, I want to see how closely you follow policy while blocking. Our policy on

company and group names

specifically says that "accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." There is more or less no other qualifying statement in our policy on usernames. My name, Wifione, is a company name. Will you block me? If yes, I believe you're following policy. If no, justify how do you plan going against policy.

A: I missed this question. Sorry for the late response. No because you haven't shown any

Conflict of interest

between you and the company. You haven't been advertising the company through ads such is in your user page, promoting it by spamming links, etc. You also seem like a constructive editor, so I don't see a reason to block.

12. Hi Elockid, I am giving some more questions in order for me to see how well you possess the maturity in blocking users. Consider this situation, a new user is repeatedly using moderately uncivil communication with a wide variety of editors on a talk page. He is warned repeatedly for usage of that kind of uncivil communication, and more than a handful of times by administrators - yet, he doesn't step back. You are the admin here deciding on whether to block the user. Will you or won't you? Please give a summary reason too which you will mention on the blocking template, if you do decide to block the user.

A: Uncivil communication can be considered

assume good faith, so, pointing them to relevant areas with regards to their communication such as Etiquette

is a good place to start.

A Blocking IPs indefinitely is almost never done per blocking policy (IPs are reassigned frequently and an innocent user might get affected) let alone entire ranges and public or educational ranges indefinitely where there is a much higher chance of innocent users being blocked since these types of ranges are shared. I'd have to go to

WP:ANI for this one or ask the blocking administrator where if any have they gotten written administrative consent from the university to indefinitely block the university range or help direct me if there was any community consensus in blocking such a range for an indefinite time period. I wouldn't decline the request for the following reason. Not everybody in the university or rather a school is a vandal. Here is an example with an IP I talked to, 118.210.174.200 (talk · contribs), clearly showing that not everyone in a school vandalizes from the conversation we had. I'm willing to assume good faith

on this one. I would keep an eye just in case though and perform administrative action if necessary.

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

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

It's standard practice (and an all-around good idea) to answer Q1-3 prior to transcluding the RfA. If I were you, I'd answer those ASAP - especially since I personally think you have a good shot at this.

Answered. I didn't know that NSD already transcluded this on the main page. Hopefully everything is all set now. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing stats posted on talk. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For Q8, a page move can not be someone's first edit; as moving a page requires a user to be
  autoconfirmed (4 days tenure and ten edits.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Beat-the-nom Support - I've seen him around and he possesses a good amount of
   clue. Airplaneman ✈ 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Support as nom.
   NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Looks OK.On review of the discussion, upping to strong support. Clearly a positive. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Which is to say editor is experienced in the area(s) for which the tools are requested. Talk page reveals a courteous and knowledgeable user who is able to discuss issues reasonably and adjust his behavior accordingly. Shows common sense. Little likelihood of abusing the tools and thus giving the tools will benefit the project. Dlohcierekim 17:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment On "first edit should not be a reason for a block." It should if the"user" is clearly someone evading a block. I recently had someone come to my talk page to announce they had evaded the block and that blocking was an exercise in arrogance or some such. So yes, I blocked for that one edit. Test questions are fine, but the candidate's real life actions show a low likelihood of tool misuse/abuse. Dlohcierekim 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Wikipedia could use more editors like this one. Will make a good admin. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Everything looks great.
   Tan | 39 16:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support per nom :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support: I don't see why not. Everything looks in order. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support: No concerns (
   CSD criteria before working that area if he/she decides to, as I can see little evidence of work in that area. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support - We need more vandal-fightin' admins, and I like the cut of Elockid's jib. Think that's a very good plan for growth after tools are (hopefully) granted. Best wishes on this Rfa! Jusdafax 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Why not? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Looks good. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support All we need is one more admin that is like Elockid, than the "drought" will rebound! Buggie111 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No apparent issues. Ray^Talk 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support yes. like nom. — JoJo • Talk • 18:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Trusted and experienced user. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Can't find a valid reason to oppose. ThemFromSpace 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. I remember being impressed by your SPI work a little while ago. I can't quite remember what messed up the last RfA, but I think that you are ready for the bit now. ceranthor 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a past RfA? NW (Talk) 19:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find 8 edites to RFA's. 6 tor this one, 1 for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SpacemanSpiff, and 1 for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vicenarian. Dlohcierekim 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I must have confused you with someone else... much apologies! ceranthor 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support. An experienced and knowledgeable editor who will make a great admin. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. No problems here. -- œ^™ 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Elockid does valuable work well at WP:SPI and is level headed, and so should make a very good admin. His/her responses to the above question indicate that they'll take a cautious approach to using the admin tools. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I'm usually a little uncomfortable supporting candidates with thin content contribution records. But the limited content work that this candidate has undertaken shows that he understands content fundamentals such as
    Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support. Seems willing and able - best of luck to you. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - All around solid candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support No concerns with you.
    talk) 01:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support Would like to see more content creation/heavy content work like DYK, GA, FA, etc. as well as more AfD involvement, but overall as good user who will only do more fine work at SPI.  fetchcomms☛ 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Hardwording and knowledgeable editor. I'm sure will make a very good admin. -- Marek.69 ^talk
28. Support Nom seems knowledgeable and on top of the many issues vital to the project.
    talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support Certainly not "a one trick pony" but a specialist in AIV and SPI. High number of edits and clean block log far outweigh any issues of short tenure.
    talk) 05:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support No blocks, over 10,000 edits and rollback rights, I don't see anything wrong here. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support A cool calm, friendly user. Excellent traits for an administrator.
    talk) 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Looks a fine editor and a dedicated vandal-fighter. I'd like to see more content added, but that's not a strict (from me) for using Admin tools. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support No problems here – a good candidate. Aiken ♫ 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - No blocks, has rollback rights, been here 11 months, will make a fine admin. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Easter!} at 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support No real concerns in my mind. SPI and AIV are both easier places to be with a mop than without. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support- why not? Reyk _YO! 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Seems entirely fine. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - good edits from everything I've seen, and competent contributions to relevant admin areas. Sensible question answers, and nothing brought up in the oppose section to date gives me any real concerns. Looks fine to me! ~ mazca ^talk 22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, a decent candidate, from what I have read here and seen previously they would not be a problematic admin and would help the project, thus they have my support. --Taelus (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Wiki-gnomes make great admins IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, effective editor in their areas of interest, will be a net positive. —SpacemanSpiff 00:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support- a heady, dedicated vandal-fighter --> has the "right stuff" for the job--Hokeman (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Opposes are, at best, unpersuasive.
    talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support well balanced approach. would make a great admin.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Fully qualified candidate, and per Tim Song. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Weak Support. Not full support due to initial first block q answer, but more than a neutral because he was able to accept criticism and not be stubborn about it and that I can't find another reason not to support. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Alright BejinhanTalk 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support A candidate who knows their own strengths and seems to understand vandalism criteria/actions pretty well. Experience looks good, esp a lot of work in SPI - we certainly need people there. Answers to questions are fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I think there are many examples applicable to Q8 as well that can be listed. Some words for the candidtae (feedback from myself) The only danger i see with it is if someone edits like a LTA file without realizing and they get pegged as a sock and blocked only after one edit, I would say it has to be very clear that they are that person. I think in some gray areas where there is some doubt caution and a an SPI should be done but I trust your judgement to make that call. Good luckOttawa4ever (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support worth a trial with the tools, more than likely a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support TNXMan 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Does a good job at SPI, and SPI would definitely benefit from him having admin tools. --Deskana (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. More positives than negatives, by far. --Alan (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Can't see any problems with giving you the mop. -- BigDom 18:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - I am concerned about a lack of content creation (only 1 article created) and the relatively short tenure. But the "best" reasons for oppose that is mentioned below are vague concerns over being too vandalism happy, and an apparently now wrong assertion that an IP's edits weren't vandalism. That second case, on further inspection appears to validate Elockid's sophisticated understanding of what vandalism patrolling is like in practice, not in theory. This is exactly why we need more vandalism patrolling admins that know what vandalism looks like. Opposing for that reason, in my estimation, reflects a certain idealism that while understandable, is ultimately counterproductive to the encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. On Question 6, as Wikipedia becomes more and more comprehensive, we can only get more admin candidates with no experience in article creation, yet who merely update existing ones. All core topics are now covered, and it takes an insider who is possibly not admin material to be the first to create an article on a new topic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - Decent contributions, solid policy knowledge, and frankly having another admin helping at
    WP:SPI will be very helpful. -- Atama頭 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Good answers to questions, solid track record, nothing jumps out as a concern. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Good vandal fighter. Good answers to questions. Unable to see why not. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Elockid has done great work fighting vandalism. I've only had one direct interaction with Elockid, but I had a very positive impression of him. He has a genuine concern for the integrity of this project. Wikipedia would benefit by providing him access to the admin tools. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Will make good use of the tools. I'm afraid I also find the opposition unconvincing given the context of the candidates contributions so far. I also agree with Jclemens (currently in neutral) that the answers to the questions show conviction which is also not a bad thing.Pedro :  Chat  06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - it looks like the potential positives outweigh the potential negatives here, so I will support this motion. Cocytus [»talk«] 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - There's no doubt that I can trust this candidate with the tools. Shows good composure. I am concerned at the real lack of article space contributions and article creation. This will be a handicap when venturing into PRODs and AfDs.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - One of the most valuable sock fighters I've come across. Comes across as someone who understands policy/tools well and shows a level of equanimity in dealing with other editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Elockid may not have a particularly long tenure on Wikipedia, but the anti-vandalism work he's done is solid. We will also benefit from giving the tools to SPI clerks like the candidate. I also want to say that I'm very impressed by Wikipedia:Abuse response/79.0.0.0 - 79.63.255.255; that's some excellent work by the candidate, and it shows the kind of dedication to upholding our policies that I like to see in a potential admin. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - no major issues or problems; fully meets
    Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Support.
    Peter
    19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. Good work seen in the past. No problem with him getting the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - Good candidate who looks like they will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support- Looks like he knows what hes doing :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Have fun with the tools! :)
    NYer 02:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
73. Support Ive looked through this user's contributions, and i cant see any reason why this user should not obtain the mop. Dwayne was here! ^talk 04:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Seems like a pretty cool guy.
    Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 05:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. Support. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Opposes nowhere near worrying enough to justify joining them.  f o x  12:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Strong Support: I really like his style. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Elockid. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support- more vandal-fighting admins is only a good thing. Won't break the wiki. Content creation seriously isn't that big an issue now that this 'pedia has so many articles.
    (Kay) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
81. Support. Longer experience would have been a plus (although content creation issues are not a concern for me), but I very much like the idea of admins who take care of vandals and socks so the rest of us don't have to, and this user clearly gets it, clearly has clue. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support I've seen the good work you do at SPI and I think it's vital to have more admins that know how to handle sockpuppets. To clarify, not how to manipulate them, but how to beat them up. Valley2city^‽ 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support – We need more admins at
    SPI, and nothing worries me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
84. Support - First act as admin should be to block WifiOne for violating
    clipman 10:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Take a walk Jubileeclipman :):) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

85. Weak Support Alright, hit me! :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Respect for being open to feedback and reconsideration :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose block of Wifione (even though he suggested it and I advocated it) --

    clipman 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

    ]

86. Strong Support. He's smart, has a helpful disposition, is vigorous against vandalism, has a good temperament, and the general judgment is that he's experienced enough. Good luck, Elockid. SamEV (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - I think he is ready for adminship. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 10:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - Eusebeus (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Last-minute support before this gets closed. The opposes seem to be more focused on proving that the candidate lacks the experience and maturity to do the job, but I find the answers to the questions to be thoughtful and indicative of good judgment.--~TPW 14:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support based upon contribs and answers -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak oppose - Seems knowledgeable and has specific work that they want to do with the tools (always a huge plus at RfA). Unfortunately does not meet my minimum criteria as he has been here less than a year and, as another user said, is a little light in content creation. He seems well suited for anti-vandalism work, but for the reasons stated I cannot support. I would like to see a better rounded candidate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose We're writing an encyclopedia and although (like any other class of freely-accessible online self-expression) it gets mucked about with, some users seem to see it more as a variant MMPORPG. Vandal-fighting becomes for some a preference to the point of exclusivity, rather than an integreted part of involvement and contribution. Article creation, expansion, alteration, citation and inclusion or deletion: the core of what we're here to do just doesn't hold the same appeal, instead being almost like some incidental 'product' to protect and 'fight' for. But from it the necessary for RfA will somehow be extracted. Elockid's Lists and Stats are basic gnoming: regrouping existing info or adding easily available, condensed sources. But its not the time taken or effort expended that matters, its that lack of substantive contribution is because Elockid just doesn't seem interested. Such work also enables and develops the most valuable experience in communicating with other editors across the resultant range of issues, policies, and rules - communication beyond the usual circle of similarly interested/involved contemporaries and the hence beyond their usual focus and preferences. Elockid has done valuable work in his particular area but as far as preparedness and suitability for adminship goes, there is a substantive and, IMHO, fundamental lot part missing. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I've struck "lot" in the final sentence as I can see it would cause confusion. I used it in the colloquial British meaning of some or several (as in "Come here, you lot" - calling my kids) rather than meaning a substantial amount. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose|A strong affinity towards blocking users would be counter-productive. The very first edit of a user should not be the reason for being blocked.--
   42 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Are you supporting or opposing? You're currently sitting in both columns. --

   Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I left a note on his talk page requesting the duplicate (whichever that is) be removed ASAP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, my bad. Have corrected it.--

   42 14:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for greater detail and the instructions in the infobox with regards to question 8. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The response about blocking after one edit could have been worded better, but the candidate's example refers to the first edit by a username, not by a user, and there's a difference.--~TPW 13:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose As a spot check, I looked into his interactions with an IP editor. The candidate seemed too quick to assume and assert vandalism in this case. He does not seem to have sufficient offsetting strengths for admin status yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually no. This is sneaky vandalism and I check my sources before marking them as vandalism. Deliberately changing data to false numbers/introduction of deliberate factual errors. This is a typical user that when they don't like something about their country or city, they change the information to make it look like it's better than it really is. A more extreme example of this you can see Wikipedia:Abuse response/79.0.0.0 - 79.63.255.255 of which the user has already been blocked 15 times for deliberately introducing wrong statistics. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that Elockid's actions in this particular case were completely justified. This was pretty clear "sneaky number change vandalism" - note that, as well as not giving any indication of where the numbers came from, the numbers inserted were actually different on two of the separate occasions - see first edit by IP and, a few days later, another edit that Elockid issued the first warning for. The first edit could legitimately be thought of as an unsourced but potentially correct edit - the second one really starts to look like unambiguous number-increase vandalism due to the subtly different values. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I am really impressed with the way Elockid dealt with "sneaky number change vandalism". I remain confused why some opposes say the candidate seems "too quick" to assume and assert vandalism. Quick is good unless he was mistaken. Does quick mean he was negligent? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Ret.Prof. Reading the diffs that form the basis for this oppose makes me more confident in my support of this candidate. --

   Mkativerata (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Oppose Using SPI clerking as a backdoor to the admin bit. Severe lack of content contributions. Overly block happy. -
   talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   What happened to

   WP:AGF? (Referring to "Using SPI clerking as a backdoor to the admin bit" - I do not question the other parts of the oppose) There is a strong possibility that they enjoy working in this area. I personally would not waste hours of my free time contributing to areas here that I do not enjoy. Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Agree...I don't create many articles because that's not my particular forte, nor is it my particular brand of enjoyment on Wikipedia. Are NFA editors expected to work solely in areas they don't like? If so, there would be a lot fewer NFAs...and a lot fewer admins. --Alan (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no idea what a NFA is. No one is required to do things they don't like. I think admins should have at least some content contributions; that doesn't mean good or featured articles. Clerks at SPI can do their job without being an admin, otherwise they shouldn't be handing out clerkships to non-admins. By clerking at SPI as a non-admin, then coming to RfA and saying you need the bit to do your job at SPI is trying to get the bit through the backdoor. I didn't assume bad faith (alternatively, I didn't not assume good faith). What I did was look at the evidence presented to me and come to a conclusion. -

   talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't see anywhere that Elockid said that he can't "do his job" as an SPI clerk without the tools. All I've seen him say is that he wants the tools to help the backlog at SPI, and there is often a backlog there. Much of that is probably a lack of CUs (see here) but more admins to enforce CU findings will also help. I just think you've either misread or assumed something that isn't true. -- Atama頭 00:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   More often than not, there are more SPI cases which need a regular admin to make the call and issue blocks if needed; that's not to say there have been some recent backlogs of SPI cases needing a CheckUser to look at. Will more CheckUsers necessarily ensure the lack of backlogs at SPI? I'm skeptical, and that's for a couple of reasons. First, people tend to treat SPI like "sock puppet day-care" in which they drop off their socks in the morning and leave them. Second, is that many still believe in the still-misguided principle that CheckUser is the be-all and end-all when it comes to determining sock puppetry – that a CheckUser can simply "wave a wand" and make socks go away (hence the term "CheckUser is not magical pixie dust"). I've always been calling for regular admins to patrol through the SPI cases that don't need CheckUser and handle them, but most of the community seem to believe that only admin SPI clerks are the only ones to handle SPI cases. Anyways, now I'm droning, so I'll leave it at that. –MuZemike 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Does he need the tools to be an SPI clerk? No. Will the tools benefit him and the project overall if an extra SPI clerk has them? Yes. I don't see the problem, and I don't think I ever will. --Deskana (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Come off it? I was simply going to ignore this until I saw your stupid edit summary. I think I'm entitled to make my own opinions. And frankly, I don't care what you do or don't see as a problem. I see it as a problem, so I am opposing. No one else seems to think it's a problem. You don't see me badgering their supports do you? -

   talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   This is a

   WP:AIV, but had never reported a vandal. There is no backdoor entering going on here. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @ Spitfire-- well said. It also may be there are others who have disagreed with certain reasonings more obliquely or not in the discussion so as not to give the appearance of harassing the opposition. Dlohcierekim 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Weak Oppose. Concerned about longevity (here for less then a year) and unvaried content creation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • Strong Oppose I suspected the user has a very narrow understanding of policies and guidelines, especially as the user is extremely focused on specialist areas (one being sockpuppet tracking; and his work is credible enough and highly appreciated by me in that area). Although the user's contributions are great in that area, for me, knowledge of user blocking policies is imperative for a user to be given administrative powers. And in this case, as the user has evidently refused to answer a question (optional surely) that I had placed to check his application of policy and user blocking understanding (and this despite Elockid being active on all the past days on the project), I am given to strongly suspect his maturity with respect to addressing issues in the future. If the user has not checked the RfA over the past few days, then I find that also reason enough to suspect his motivations of becoming an administrator. I do realise that being an administrator is no big deal - but the RfA is. And as much as I can say that I strongly support the kid's presence on the Wikipedia, I can say as strongly that I do not feel he has the exhaustive knowledge, maturity and experience to be an administrator. I strongly oppose this nomination. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Elockid has answered some of your questions and he will answer some more of them at a later time. He says he won't block you.

   NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I didn't refuse to answer your question. I just didn't notice it due to all the other responses and the huge blocks of text before that. I came to notice it after you came and left me a message in my talk page. You could have just sent me a memo after the first day asking why I haven't answered your question even though you know that I was active and I would have gladly answered it as I have done so. I would also appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to me as "kid" as I'm at age of majority. It's a nickname and there are highly respected administrators here such as Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) where "kid" is present in their name but have shown high levels of maturity and good judgment. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • Elockid, allow me to provide you a few points to ponder >

   • In general, a user using a name alluding to being a kid would be perceived as a kid by me, in the same way as a user using a name alluding to being a girl (say, Elocgirl) would be perceived as a girl, unless they specify otherwise on their user page. I do understand that it has sounded disparaging to you that I used part of your name to address you (namely, calling you "the kid"; believe me, I would have called NerdyScienceDude as simply 'Dude', unless he specified). My apologies are offered without any issues irrespective of that.
   • You do write that you didn't answer my question because you just didn't notice it due to all the other responses and the huge blocks of text before that. Are you seriously giving this reasoning?
   • You further write > "I came to notice it after you came and left me a message in my talk page. You could have just sent me a memo after the first day asking why I haven't answered your question" Elockid???
   • Think many times before you write responses. As an admin - which I think you will become easily - you will be required to grasp amazing amount of text (ANI? Been there?) and think appropriately before you write responses to editors who might have pointed out your mistakes.
     • Now comes the good news. I really don't mind the shadows and grey areas in your experience, maturity and even ability to grasp written text in RfAs (which I think is pretty incidental to your final performance as an admin - don't do to ANI what you did out here). I believe - with better confidence - that you have answered the questions well. And despite my initial apprehensions, objectively, I think you'll gain experience in both your actions and most importantly responses as time passes. I am moving my vote to support. Best ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for your concerns and good comments. It will ultimately help me on how I edit in the future. I can see where you're coming from with regards to my name. It's totally understandable. I'm here to learn and like everyone else, is subject to criticism. I'll have to study the comments, fix the problems and try to avoid them in the future in order to become a better editor. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. A preference for the status quo, in the face of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary, indicates a likelihood Elockid will take the easy way out, failing to use any kind of thought process in decisions when a simple "I was just following policy" will excuse any errors. Şłџğģő 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not the easy way out. At SPI, when presented with technical data, you have to take it into account. You just can't just take in behavioral data while technical evidence says otherwise. We wouldn't need CUs if the technical aspect isn't needed. Meatpuppetry could be the better explanation. Same behavior vandals or see the histories at User talk:NuclearWarfare's talk page or User talk:Avraham's talk page that at glance look to be same editor. But the technical aspect shows otherwise. This is 4chan/Jarlaxle, but the point is to show that behavioral evidence alone is not enough to block someone when strong technical evidence says otherwise. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You just can't just take in behavioral data while technical evidence says otherwise. I agree. My issue was that you don't seem to think the vice-versa is true, and that just sits wrong with me. Şłџğģő 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Ugh no. Crafty (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you care to elaborate for the benefit of the people who commented and especially the candidate? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Ugh, troll. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose regretfully, for now, because of inadequate general experience, especially in writing articles, which is needed in judging how to help new users. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. You're a great editor well on your way to becoming an administrator, but I do not think the time is right. Your answers to some of the questions show a limited knowledge of policy and limited scope. I would expect broader horizons in an admin candidate and a sound knowledge of the blocking policy for someone who wants to work at AIV, yet your answers to blocking-related questions show that knowledge to be quite shaky. I think you lack a little hands-on experience that is gained by spending more time in the less trafficked areas of Wikipedia and that 3-6 months of editing in a variety of areas. While it seems likely this RfA will pass, I hope you take this on board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The user seems knowledgeable, but they have not significantly contributed to audited content^(note); while lists are great, they aren't articles. I also could find very little in the way of AfD contributions; the only one I found in the last 4 months was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population. I'd like to see more contributions in that area. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral leaning support. Per David Fuchs, the content contributions seem light. On the other hand, the non-pansy answers about blocking are quite positive and show more backbone that most RfA candidates give. I'll be watching this and may switch later in the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral -- while I'd like to support, Q9 worries me. It seems to jump straight to "assume bad faith", but maybe I'm just not reading what he wrote properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I'd like to see a clarification of Q9, as, like SoV, I'm a little concerned about a block after three warnings / VOA, especially if it's an IP. 4 warnings is the standard practice, unless it's an extreme BLP violation, HAGGER etc. GedUK  14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Active administrator hides. NW (Talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. I am not concerned about lack of content creation as the qualities we ask of an admin can be found in other Wiki activities - we like to see commitment, impartiality, calmness, patience, knowledge of Wikipedia, understanding of human nature, the ability not to be deceived or misled, resilience, intelligence, flexibility, good judgement, and the ability to successfully research and find what is needed. I found that Elockid showed evidence of some of these qualities in dealings with other users - I liked what I saw at
   Filipino people - the user appears quite level headed, dealing calmly and sensibly with other users, usually checking facts and data carefully. Though there is also evidence that Elockid may not always do the checks needed, and can make possibility incorrect assumptions. This edit makes an accusation that doesn't appear accurate, and the edit itself appears to be a good faith if clumsy attempt to insert information rather than straight vandalism - there appears to be some sources that say there are over 1 million illegal immigrants in Italy. I'm reluctant to support when a person has less than 12 months experience - I like to see a user encounter a range of situations, displaying knowledge of Wikipedia and coolness under stress; and also reducing the possibility of the account being a sleeper troll - so I expect a bit more of users who have a short history, and when I turn up material which gives me pause for thought I hesitate. I do think that there is much positive in this candidate, so I am not opposing, but giving that example of poor judgement combined with less than 12 months experience, I can't support. SilkTork *^YES! 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Neutral Wobbly answers to Q8 and Q9 and the lack of content creation prevent my support at this time.
   talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Neutral – while Elockid certainly has the ability as far as stopping vandalism and disruption are concerned (he's an ably competent SPI clerk IMO), I do echo David Fuchs' and a couple of others' concerns about experience level and lack of mainspace content building. I don't think my !vote will matter at this point, however, as Elockid will likely pass, barring any "WTF discovery" or something. –MuZemike 16:17, 8 April 2010 (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.