Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 12 June 2008

Ali'i

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/8/8); Scheduled to end 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali'i (talk · contribs) - Aloha! I am Ali'i and I would like to go through a Request for adminship, and am self-nominating because I am power-hungry. Well, only sort of. I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances. I never once thought I wanted to be an administrator, and think the stratification between users is generally abhorrent. I am a true believer in the fact that adminship is not that important. If this passes, great. If not, great. I'm not really bothered one way or another.

However, other people may see this differently. Lately on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship and Jimbo's talk page there has been discussion about it being a bigger deal than before. I am hoping to show that it is still not that big of a deal. I am not trying to be disruptive, as I am going through a regular process.

• For stat counters: I have roughly 3,600 edits (not sure how many deleted contributions I have made... probably not THAT many). I'm sure an administrator can get those numbers for you.
• For XfDers: I do not really participate in deletion discussions too often. An occasional Miscellany for deletion, but to be honest I can't remember the last article for deletion I commented on. (Apparently it was April 4th, but before that... it was the 22nd of October)
• For featured articlers: I can't say that I've written a complete featured article, nor contributed a piece of featured media.
• For edit summaryers: No, my usage isn't perfect, but neither is it truly relevant, in my opinion. I try.

Now to where I (probably) shoot myself in the foot:

I am not going to answer any questions that do not directly pertain to contributions I have made. I don't really play in hypotheticals, nor do I feel opposition made because of a failure to answer optional questions holds much water.

Yes, I have had a few problems and run-ins in the past, but I'll try and be open and up-front about them so you don't have to go digging:

1. I have had some run ins with Orangemarlin over a couple of issues, specifically one episode on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ article. I tried to correct some direct quotations, was reverted, and fell into a small revert war. (It was back on April 13th if you want more information.) Since then, however, I have apologized to Orangemarlin for my part in our dispute, and I think we have generally put things behind us.
2. On September 21, 2007, I told FeloniousMonk that he made a "fucking terrible call" by blocking Ferrylodge. Other less-than-pleasantries were exchanged between Odd nature, and maybe a few others regarding this. I was a (non-party) participant in the Ferrylodge arbitration that followed.
3. Probably a few more, but these are the two that stand out in my mind currently, and where I honestly expect to get good faith opposes.

As I said, I vow never to use my administrator tools in any area I have a conflict in, and can't ever see myself using the block button (except maybe following discussion on Requests for comments/usernames where I try and contribute), the full protect button, or the deletion button. I don't participate much in deletion discussions, and I don't think getting the tools will change any of that. And if I screw up, I'll be happy to relinquish my tools, because they don't really mean that much to me (which is why I won't be fighting much in the oppose section).

So to end on a more positive note, I do help the encyclopedia. That's the point. I have tried to do image work that no one else seems to really want to do. I am proud of many of my contributions. Any time you see a "-1" in my edit summaries, that is where I removed material that could not be sourced, or, and more likely, added a source to a Biography of a Living Person (Shameless Plug/Desperate Plea) that was tagged with {{fact}} or some other template requiring references. I tried to build Wildlife of Brazil, almost completely built List of United States Representatives from Hawaii, helped some other US politics and Hawaiʻi-related articles, and have tried to work in other areas to combat a systematic bias. I have tried to revert vandalism when I see it, and help discussion between editors butting heads. I have tried to "get around". Really anything you need to see is located in my contribs (or maybe the wikidashboard). Well, I guess I'm ready for the beat down which is associated with a request for adminship. Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much). Have at it. --Ali'i 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: None, to be honest.

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

A: See nomination.

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: See nomination.

Additional optional question from PouponOnToast:

4. You are currently engaging in a series of extended dispute resolutions regarding a group of editors who have edited articles on Intelligent Design. You have been openly critical of omnibus RFC's in that process. Why? What alternative do you think would work? Why? What have you done to resolve the dispute?

A. I'll actually answer this one since it's based on something I've actually (sort of) said. I am not necessarily critical of all omnibus requests for comments, just that one in particular. I don't have have better answer to what should be done, but I know as it currently stands, it's not going to do much help. For other editor's information, the request for comment in question is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design‎. --Ali'i 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases:

5. Have any of your contributions been made while under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

A. While I enjoy a libation every now and then, I can't say that I've ever edited while drinking. (Sorry?) --Ali'i 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dusti please do not remove this question

6. What is the difference between a block and a ban? What is a cooldown block and when should it be used? These questions are to show your knowledge of admin related tasks.

A. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. --Ali'i 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

7. You say you won't use the tools except in all but the most grievous of circumstances. Could you describe one of these circumstances, or perhaps explain why a simple report to WP:AN/I wouldn't work just as well?

A. Good question... a hypothetical... but still one I should probably answer. And hopefully put to rest some concerns of others here as well... hopefully you don't mind my using your question as a launching point. This is a serious request for adminship, and not some exercise in soapboxing/point-making. Some situations I can see me using the tools: Perhaps blocking a name following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. Maybe if there was a user putting phalluses all over the place, I'd block them too. If personal info was being inserted into a page I was editing, I would delete the versions with the info so it could be oversighted. But I don't ever see myself getting to the point where I disregard the incidents noticeboard. For those such as Dusti saying they don't know how I view/understand things, I can only assume they haven't actually looked at my noticeboard contibutions, nor my username request for comment edits, etc. I do understand policy, but I don't feel it necessary to copy-paste from various policy pages to somehow "prove" that I do. Would this request be going smoother if I did that? Perhaps. But that's not me. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Ali'i's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Ali'i: Ali'i (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• For some reason, your deleted contributions are being counted. I think its probably the apostrophe :) Rudget (Help?) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm starting to wonder about this user, no admin work and one of my questions pertaining to adminship work was removed. Dusti 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the candidate indicated above that those sort of questions wouldn't be answered. That Ali'i doesn't want to help out at particular noticeboards or do other regularized admin work isn't necessarily a problem. It doesn't mean that he won't ever do admin work - just none planned at the moment. The question in this process is generally whether we trust someone enough to give them the tools, and how often they will actually use them is sort of irrelevant to that question. Avruch * 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wasn't the one who removed the questions. Although at this point I can't see myself answering them. I see they've been re-added though, so hopefully that assuages anything on that point. --Ali'i 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but knowledge in admin related areas is desired. How can you completley trust someone with the tools if they don't know how to use them or how to appropriatley use them? By answering the question, it shows knowledge/understanding in the area. Dusti 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, when you think about it, there's really only restrictions in the real world against buying guns. Pretty much everyone is allowed to buy tools, so long as they don't ask the clerk to show them "where I might find hammers, so that I can bludgeon that man outside your store". :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear this is more a policy discussion rather than an RFA. Support and you're saying RFA is no big deal, oppose and you're saying it is...--Phoenix-wiki 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm opposing, somewhat under the premise that being an admin is no big deal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree, I feel this more of a discussion over can we trust Ali'i with the tools and does he/she know how/why/when to use them. How much knowledge do you have of the policy and can you make decisions that follow policy? Granted I agree with NBD, but you have to be cautious when handing out the tools, and I'm not so sure that Ali'i is ready for the tools quite yet, due to lack of participation in admin related areas, and the answer to my question abve. As far as your last statement, then everyone should support every RFA. Dusti 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope, many peope think adminship is a big deal, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're the only opposer so far I feel has really taken into account the candidate, leaving out all the RFA stuff.--Phoenix-wiki 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I just think that RFA should be about the canidate and his/her strenghts and weaknesses, not about everything else. I don't make a criteria sheet for RFA, I think "Ok, if he/she were the only admin avaliable, would I be able to trust him/her to do the right thing correctly?" Dusti 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Consistently performs well, shows great judgement particularly in the areas I've seen him. Rudget (Help?) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would, however, ask the candidate to down the humour in the nomination statement, otherwise he runs the risk of being opposed. Rudget (Help?) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   If I'm opposed, I'm opposed. I'm not going to cry over it. And who says I am even trying to be funny? :-) --Ali'i 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   well this edit summary had me doubting the seriousness of this effort. Dlohcierekim 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Delete User obviously has an excess of humor. (Where'd I leave that trout). Dlohcierekim 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. No big deal, and I like your honesty in the nomination. --Kbdank71 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This should clear up Malleus Fatuorum's question Hiberniantears (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support (switched from Neutral), but I strongly urge the candidate that, however not-a-big-deal he believes the tools to be, his use of them can indeed end up being a very, very big deal. Tread lightly. Having the tools isn't as important as having the trust of the community, and I think Ali'i has that trust, so I can't not support his request. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Yup. Seen you around, always pleasant and civil and informed. Good at mediating issues between editors. Won't abuse the tools, and you say directly that you'll give them up if you do. That shows that you trust the community, which means I for one trust you right back. You answer to Optional question number 6 was the perfect answer by the way. Shows you know where to get help when you need an answer. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Seen him around for a while. Does good work editwise. Seems helpful, polite and friendly. Has a deft touch, more or less. Gets the wiki way. Unlikely to blow up the wiki. Adminship is no big deal. No compelling reason to oppose. ==> Support ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Trust him. Admire his honesty, although not so much the pointyness... But in real life, sorry, in real editing, his actions seem near flawless. When he would use the tools, I'm sure it would be only good calls. Merzul (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Changing this to a wholehearted support based on the excellent answer to Q7. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Why not? He seems trustworthy and generally a sane person who wouldn't make awful calls. Agree with Keeper76 and Lar. --Tombomp (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Per OrangeMarlin. Ability to bridge gap is key. Will support or oppse. Reviewing users contributions to recent dispute resolution now. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I believe he really cares about the project and won't abuse the position. BradV 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - no trason not to. Sceptre 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak support per the answer to Q7. It is weak because, while the candidate has vehemently denied this, I can't help but get the feeling that they are requesting the tools as some kind of validation of their efforts. xenocidic (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I suggest you wait a little and get a few more conrtibutions under your belt. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Plus, you can find your total contribution number (including deleted ones) in my prefs.

   Actually definite oppose! No admin work?!? What the? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Stewie, based on your first oppose note, I garnered you may not have checked this candidate. Your second note kind of confirms that. He has 3,600 edits ranging back to 2006, actively editing since the beginning of 07. If you wouldn't mind, could you clarify "wait a little and get a few more conrtibutions under your belt"? Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose. I remain open to changing my mind if the point behind applying for tools that there is no intention to use is clearly and persuasively explained though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I’ve read the nom statement, not once but twice, then reviewed the contrib history, and have to oppose this one. Even with assuming good faith, right away I have to question such an essay put within a nom statement. It simply, in my opinion, does not belong in an RfA, although an RfA is most certainly the place where you can the most people to read it. Right away, bells go off when we have a candidate 1.) Needing to tell us that they don’t care whether or not they pass, 2.) Already making statements about the lack of weight in certain types of opposes, and 3.) Various vows about where they will and won’t use the tools. If I support, it is for a candidate’s judgment, meaning I don’t need them to make vows to me. As for the optional questions… just a few days ago I was defending Tan’s right to not answer certain kinds… but to make a flat out statement that you don’t want to answer them and the answers shouldn’t have weight? I disagree with that. The main reason I am opposing is not because of major worries in contrib history. I reviewed, it seems alright, candidate is certainly willing to get hands dirty and wants to help improve the encyclopedia. However, in the spirit of No Big Deal, this oppose is obvious to me. Candidate doesn’t need to use the tools, but to nominate themselves and then proceed to make a POINTy statement which basically says they don’t need to be an admin? To me, this is the opposite of no big deal. This is bringing an essay to perhaps the biggest stage on[REDACTED] to have people read it and discuss it and the candidate. My final point: this very nomination makes me worry that candidate may wield their status as an admin to help make certain points about Misplaced Pages, not to use any of the technical tools, which is really the point of +sysop. I encourage fervent discourse to improve the project, which it appears the candidate is involved in, but I'm not going to help give someone the admin label just because of that. Abuse of tools? No. But possibly an abuse of the perceived status bump, and I can’t support that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Why have you put POINT in big capital letters? It's impossible to diiscuss anything without making points...you mean "Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point", yet there is no disruption.--Phoenix-wiki 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I felt the nom statement was making a point about RfAs in general, not this candidate. I guess disruptive might be a strong word here, but otherwise I think my oppose made my stance clear. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it is making a point about RFAs general.--Phoenix-wiki 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose This isn't based on the refusal to answer optional questions, but for not showing at least a small understanding of admin related tasks and issues. Seems like a great editor, but before I'm willing to trust someone with the tools, I have to know that you can use it correctly and know how/why to use them. Dusti 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Isn't going to use them. Naerii - Talk 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Ironically, if Ali'i gave me a reason why he would use the admin tools, for example to answer requests at WP:RFPP (which is generally a low-stress page that doesn't get backlogged), I would have no problem with it. He's been a user in good standing for more than a year, and his move log shows sufficient familiarity with MoS and site policies. However, if Ali'i simply wants to make a point about how receiving admin tools should be no big deal, I'm not interested in supporting such a statement. Adminship is a user access level. If you need the access level, ask. If you don't need it, don't ask. If you're not sure whether you need it, think about it for a while, and then ask. I hope that makes things clear from my end. Again, I'm not really opposed to granting Ali'i the tools, but I need a reason to do that, and I have none. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose I basically trust this editor, I like their focus on product, and I have no problem with the fact that they don't want to do any admin work. But admins can cause a lot of trouble if they want to, and if we hand out mops just as a way of saying "good job", then sooner or later, someone's going to screw things up. This is an example of how the lack of other RfA-like processes screws up the RfA process: if this editor had a better way to get community-wide acknowledgement of accomplishments, and gain some form of stature, they would probably be doing that, since they don't really want to be an admin. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Adminship is not a reward or a trophy. If there was a way to get the tools, and have no one even know I'm an admin, please point me to that way, because as it stands, I don't want to draw attention to myself. I am not interested in some false "status". If I wanted compliments or acknowledgement, I would have done an editor review. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, I don't follow. In answer to the question, "What admin work do you intend to take part in?", you said, "None, to be honest." If you didn't intend this as a vote on your trustworthiness, then why are we here? I am not against community-wide votes along the lines of, "Yeah, he seems like one of us", and it would be nice if that happened at WP:ER or anywhere other than WP:RfA, but at the moment, there's no other place where this kind of process happens, which I think causes problems. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose on the non answers to the questions, also, because user states they don't intend to use them. — Ѕandahl 18:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose Matthew (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Opposing for removing clearly unconstructive talk? I can think of a few reasons to oppose, but that isn't one of them. xenocidic (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   There was a concern raised on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I saw that it added nothing to the encyclopedia, was inflaming the situation, and removed it. --Ali'i 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Opppose the attitude and spirit are well and fine, but proper answers are meant to give an idea whether/how a candidate wants to be useful and how conscious he/she is about understanding what the tools are, what/when they can be used for and what/when they shouldn't be used for. Vishnava _talk 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

ZOMG Shenanigans! (Strong Neutral), switched to support. Thus, the moral dilemma. On the one hand, Ali'i is an outstanding editor and a voice of reason in most situations where he is a participant. I think the candidate's decision making would not be a risk to the tools, and the candidate is highly unlikely to abuse them. An excellent candidate, earnest in his desire to see the project improved, and whom I would be happy to support.... except that he is clearly (and, to his credit, openly) seeking adminship to prove a point. While not disruptive, in itself, I can't approve of such shenanigans. I reserve the right to switch over to Support, should I be satisfied that the candidate is serious in seeking adminship - and, you know what? I might switch over anyway. But the candidate's statement and answers to the questions above, though open and honest, tweaked me a little. I want to give this some thought. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards oppose, but will wait answers for above, just not sure about this one. Dusti 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) switched to oppose

1. Neutral Although I agree that adminship is, in effect, no big deal, I would like to see this user have some experience with it. No experience indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. For example, when I first started getting involved in CSD, I made a few mistakes which I learnt from with more experience. I'm neutral because I know this user doesn't mean to exercise the tools; but, if they are there, I would like to see at least a passing understanding of the policies (shown through experience). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral This is a strange RfA, and I am just going to sit back and watch for a while. Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Same as Keepscases. Juliancolton 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do you guys want popcorn? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Thinking The candidate is very nice in discussions, but I'm not sure I trust them with the tools. Something does not feel right about this RfA. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Leaning to oppose based on the answer to question #5--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral I usually come here with one of three solid opinions: Support Strongly, Oppose Strongly, or I don't give a crap (so I don't vote). In this case, I give a crap, but I don't know where I stand. If the candidate had come here 6 months ago, I would have jumped all over it in oppose. Recently, however, I've seen some real strong maturity and a willingness to foster compromise. I do not like his recent involvement with various RfC's and the such, but right now, those things are like a gigantic The Blob engulfing lots of people in drama. I'm going to watch the rationalizations of the supports and opposes, and eventually change my vote. I'm specifically interested in SheffieldSteel's "feelings". I wonder what's going on there. My only other concern is wishing the candidate had spent more time building articles, but that may just be picky.OrangeMarlin 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Meh What's the (lowercase) point in giving the sysop bit to someone who probably won't abuse them but probably won't use them constructively? If this is only to (in)validate the premise that adminship is "no big deal", it's missing the mark, I think. — Scientizzle 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)