Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Aitias[edit]

(66/27/6) - final Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to present Aitias as a candidate for adminship.

Aitias has been registered with Wikipedia since early December 2007. Since then, he has made over 30,000 edits, with over 17,000 in the mainspace and over 1,000 to the Wikipedia-space.

For the most part, Aitias is a vandal-fighter, and he’s easily one of the best and most experienced vandal-fighters I know, and it was because of this that I granted him rollback rights, which he has been excellent with. He has made over 600 reports to AIV and over 50 reports to RFPP, and whenever I have reviewed those reports, they have always been correct. He has good knowledge of the block and protection policies, and his deleted contributions reveal that he has good knowledge of the CSD criteria as well. In addition to his vandal-fighting, he has also demonstrated knowledge of article-writing by creating several articles, and the list can be seen at User talk:Aitias/about.

This is also Aitias’ second request for adminship. He was nominated by Trusilver back in early February, but at the time it was reckoned he was a bit too new. Now, I think he’s easily experienced enough to be an admin. In fact, after his last RfA, I discussed with him to see if he was interested in some coaching (see User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/Aitias), and his answers there showed that he didn’t really need to go through it at all.

Finally, in my interactions with Aitias, I’ve found him to be a good communicator: he’s always civil, responds in a kind manner whenever problems are posted on his talk page, doesn’t bite newcomers, and listens to advice: I’ve seen the way he responds to other people, and I’m always impressed. In addition, he has E-mail enabled if people need to contact him privately. In all, I think Aitias is a good Wikipedian, and will make a great administrator. Wikipedia will benefit from Aitias being a sysop. Acalamari 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and would like to thank Acalamari. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly I would use the unlimited administrative-rollback and block vandals myself, which I had to report to AIV so far (I did more than 650 AIV-reports). When I patrol the newpages I would delete pages myself, which fit in the Criteria for speedy deletion. Till now I had to request speedy deletion first (I did more than 1,000 speedy deletion requests). I would try to have a look at the Candidates for speedy deletion and the Requests for page protection as well. Besides I could protect pages myself without requesting the protection first. Finally I would have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, too.
Q follow-up In patrolling Newpages, When would you delete the pages yourself, and when would you tag them for other admins to check & delete? DGG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would just delete the page myself if it's clearly appropriate to make the deletion, e. g. in the case of blatant vandalism. If it isn't that clear I think it's better to just tag the page for speedy deletion (like I do it now) and leave the deletion to another admin, or even make an attempt to improve the page instead of deleting or tagging it. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Mainly I patrol the Recentchanges and revert vandalism, “warn” vandals at their talk pages, request speedy deletion and page protection. I also like participating in the Featured picture candidates. I have written some articles (Günter Hirsch, Klaus Tolksdorf, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, Noli turbare circulos meos!, Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes!, In vino veritas, Nihil admirari, Favete linguis!, Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas., Barba non facit philosophum., Et facere et pati fortia Romanum est.) and translated some articles from the German Wikipedia (Sardonism, Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?, Manus manum lavat, Contra principia negantem disputari non potest, Apage, Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus) as well.
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: So far, I had no really serious conflicts. Some time before I was a bit angry because of this warning left at my talk page - In this case I left Orangemike a message and said frankly, that I think, what he did was not really nice. This “problem” was solved, when Orangemike apologized at my talkpage. If I would have any similiar problems (I don't think that this was a real conflict) or even a “real” conflict in the future, I would try to solve it by saying frankly what the problem is (for me). At all I think it's important not to inflame conflicts, but calmly discuss them.

Optional Question by Zginder

4. What do you consider the most important policy on Wikipedia and Why?
A: In my opinion Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility are very important. I think always beeing civil and calm is one of the most important things in Wikipedia. If you adhere to this policy/policies it will never happen, that you inflame a conflict. And normally, if you're civil, your dialogue partner will be civil as well. Because of that working in Wikipedia won't cause stress or something like that as easily as it would, when you aren't civil. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod

5. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?
  • A: I'm not quite sure what you mean. I learned a lot of things, e. g. the Wiki-syntax or about the topics I wrote articles... —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Jirgrfdsfg9764 requested that you:
  • 6a. Need to block a certain user?
  • A: I would ask him for justifying the block according to the Blocking policy or I would search myself for a reason to justify a block according to the policy. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?
  • A: I would ask him for justifying the protection according to the Protection policy and I would point out that protections are not a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question by Keeper

7. In February of this year, you ran your first RfA, where it was decided that you did not have enough experience to be an adminstrator. What experience, specifically, have you had in the last 3 months to gain the additional experience necessary, outside of AIV reports (which I agree are absolutely superb...)
A: An important point is that I could improve my knowledge about the Criteria for speedy deletion during my coaching. I did some more RFPP work as well. Finally I gained a lot of mainspace experience since my last RfA. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question by Trees Rock

8 How can we trust you as a Admin on Wikipedia?
A: First of all I would like to say, that it's a bit hard to answer such a question, as an answer may quickly sound like self praise. But, let me try: As Acalamari said, I have some knowledge of the policies, which are related to the places I would like to work as an admin. I didn't abuse the rollback rights as well and I hope that it can be seen from my contributions and my behaviour that I would never cause damage for the project and so not abuse the tools as an admin. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q: Why do you believe you would make a good admin?
Q: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
Q: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
Q: A user emails you that another user (with a nym rather than a name) stated in a reverted edit on her user page that she intends to commit suicide. You check the edit, and it's there - she wrote it, then immediately reverted it. Then there are no more edits after that from her, period. What would you do?

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Seen you around and I believe that you definitely deserve the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No doubts. · AndonicO Engage. 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. As I said before, clear need for the tools. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Great user who I would trust with the tools. RedThunder 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support-User obviously knows Wikipedia's policies and tools very well, and would be a great help if he had admin tools to better patrol Wikipedia and prevent Vandalism.--SRX 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - User wants to work at WP:AIV (and rightly so) and WP:RFPP. Go right ahead. You'll make good use of the tools as far as I can see. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hesitant support, with over 600 AIV reports it is obvious that the user needs the tools, yet I find his contributions to other admin related areas lacking. I noticed that Aitias does not communicate with other editors very often, his typical comments to RFA and FPA are along the lines of "Support yep."[1] or "Oppose per above."[2] and in his last 500 edits to namespace talk: and user talk: I was hard pressed to find some edits that were not reverts or auto generated messages. However there is no reason to belive that he would abuse the tools. - Icewedge (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewedge, those very same concerns swirled about in my brain as well - but you make a great point. Trust. Will they abuse the tools? Not with what they want to do most likely. I believe this is a Huggle user from what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), and I personally despise that tool. However, that won't dissuade me, and hopefully it won't turn off other users. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional support upon good answers to optional questions. Good vandal fighter, would benefit from experience elsewhere to WP:AIV but this is no reason to oppose. See oppose. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (EDIT CONFLICT)[reply]
    Boldly indented to stop bot duplicate alert and distortion of percentages. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good editor. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I was unaware that this editor was not already a sysop. Very good and skilled vandal fighter Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support -- I joked with this user when he first joined Wikipedia that I looked forward to his future tenure as an administrator. I was not mistaken in my intuition; from our first meeting, I knew that this user would be an admin eventually. His professional manner then conveyed a seriousness not found in many Wikipedians, and the vigor with which he fought vandalism was most impressive. Today, as he was then, Aitias is highly qualified, dedicated, and certainly ready for the mop. --SharkfaceT/C 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Great guy, good edits, will do well. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not likely to abuse/misuse the tools. Article buiding is important, but one can have knowledge of the tools without it. The time this user spends mopping up will give someone else more time to build. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I'm always running into him on RC patrol (and I hope he's running into me as well. Bwahahaha!!!1!) Also, a quick glance through his talk page and contribs turned up no major issues. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per response to my question. Zginder 2008-05-17T02:18Z (UTC)
  17. Despite what some may say, you can never have too many vandal fighting admins. Wizardman 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yep. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. WP:WTHN. Valtoras (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Edit count (beyond a basic level) and mainspace work are utterly irrelevant to whether someone will make a good admin or not. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good interactions with user at WP:FPC. SpencerT♦C 12:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I could not not support this fine editor ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. A great user who would not abuse the tools; much the opposite. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support would work effectively at AIV and RFPP and per this. Opposition concerns aren't really resonating with me, the editor knows the workings of AIV sufficiently to block when necessary. EJF (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I wasn't expecting to write a long support rationale in addition to my nomination statement, but there we go. Anyway, I don’t find any of the concerns raised in the oppose section convincing: in the past, we’ve had vandal-fighters nominated for adminship, they’ve been successful, and have gone onto be great admins. The communication issues are understandable, but in my dealings with Aitias, as I said in my statement, I’ve found him to be reasonable when talking to him. It should be noted that people who focus heavily on reverting vandalism will have a lot of templated talk-page messages in their editing histories, and the fact he’s notifying people when he’s reverted their vandalism or nominated their page for speedy deletion is a good thing. I should also remind people that there are other prolific vandal-fighters like Aitias who are admins: DerHexer (who is also a steward), KnowledgeOfSelf, Alex.muller, Persian Poet Gal, and Can’t sleep, clown will eat me, just to name a few: these people are heavy vandal-fighters, and they are all highly respected users, with use of the tools that has been excellent; I think Aitias will be the same, and therefore standby my nomination and support. Finally, Aitias is experienced in the areas he says he wants to work in: if he ever decides to branch out, he can take it slow, and talk to more experienced admins. This was another reason why the new admin school was set up. Acalamari 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Some very good points from a user that I have a great deal of respect for, Acalamari. Support --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I took a while deciding this one. I have looked through your contributions, deleted contributions, user talk page history among other things. I have found that you are a strong vandal fighter that goes out of the way to be friendly in many cases. You have e-mail enabled, and good summary usage which is excellent. You clearly have good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CSD, as all the tagging I have had a chance to look at in your deleted contributions was correct. In addition the requests at WP:RFPP I have seen are generally appropriate. I have seen you at WP:AIV - and I have generally got the impression you make good reports and do not misuse this noticeboard. Lack of any article content contributions do stick out for me, but I do not consider it necessary for adminship, and I think you will do well in the admin areas you intend to work in without them. Your communication with other users does not concern me - you have received a few heated comments on your talk page, as you likely will as an admin, and you seem to have responded to these well. Answers to the questions are sufficient. Weighing it all up, I have decided to Support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yea I'll be supporting. MBisanz talk 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support This editor is an asset to Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: I actually went through the previous RfA looking for my support comment so I could link to it from here. Turns out, I apparently forgot to comment last time... which means this should be made worth twice as much ;). There's no reason not to support Aitias — the fact that they could be accused of not being trustworthy enough for a couple of buttons is beyond me –Alex.Muller 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support; NBD, gives him easy tools to vandalwhack. Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No problems here. I have interacted with Aitias, and I find him to be a courteous, level-headed person. J.delanoygabsadds 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Problems here :) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support : No major concerns. Good vandal figher.WoW , 600 AIV edits ( But i am too lazy to go and see what you have reported.But I believe you). I have no reason to think now that he will abuse the tools. Suggestion is to improve the contributions to develop articles (other than page reversions), Work on Wikiprojects, interaction with other Users (I see very less talk page utilization of others) etc. Initially , Make sure you ask others for opinions as I see you r having no experience in conflict situations till now. Best of luck -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Not thrilled about lack of mainspace but is clearly stating using self for a specialist role and in this I guess will be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: No issue with specialist admins. Net positive to the project to let Aitias be more effective at vandal fighting. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Actions are no different to those that administrators do when they get the bit. Rudget (Help?) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - a great vandal fighter who could really use the block button, and I'm sure he'll use it wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - looks good to me.   jj137 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I agree that there are certain aspects of the candidate's qualifications which do need improvement (most importantly article building) but I still feel that granting Aitias the mop would be a net positive to Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. The lack of article writing does not concern me as much as it appears to concern others below. Aitias appears to be a genuinely good vandal-fighter. There is no requirement that all users here have to write articles. If we can have enough administrators that can fight the vandals off, those of us that do write articles have a much easier job. I think giving Aitias the administrator tools would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, and anything that is helpful and a positive for the encyclopedia should be supported. I would note that Aitias should go slow with the tools and use them cautiously. Also, if he intends to send me thank you spam, you can discount this support. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Neutral to Support per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I'm currently on vacation, but at the risk of attracting the ire of my wife I had to log in to throw my support here. This editor is by far one of the most competent vandal-fighters that I have ever seen. I, of course, would like to see a little bit more article building out of him but it in no way affects the fact that he is an obvious net-positive. Trusilver 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have processed many of his reports to AIV and CSD and mostly found him to be accurate and quick to report. I see no major problems here. -- Alexf42 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - he has a Huggling problem and needs to see a doctor as soon as possible but apart from that, his contributions in the past 5½ months has been impressive as well..no doubt he is here to stay, and I'll be more than happy to support him if he stays and is willing to see a doctor for his problem which i had once.. (its really really bad O_O ) ...--Cometstyles 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I've seen Aitias vandal-fighting. He does it well, and with 600+ AIV reports, he could surely use the blocking tool. I read the answer to Q2, and I am mystified by the opposition based on lack of article writing. His article writing is more than enough to meet my minimum standard for adminship. It seems people are opposing for disproportionate vandal-fighting compared to article writing. I understand why that bothers some people, but it doesn't bother me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Its not very often around RfA that a good vandal fighter also comes to us as a good contributor. Judging by the user's contributions listed above, I'm confident that he understands both sides of the coin. There is no reason to mistrust with the answers above, so unqualified support. MrPrada (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support -- I can't see a reason to distrust this user. Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 11:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Weak Support I do agree that more actual article work would be nice. But coming from the guy who had the princely total of two DYK's and some minor copy editing when I passsed RFA that would be a bit hypocritical to oppose on! You dilligence in respect of WP:AIV reporting will, I trust, be mirrored in other areas of activity. So whilst this is a weak support, as I take on the points noted in opposition below, on balance I believe you will be a net positive with the +sysop bit. Pedro :  Chat  12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Clearly a dedicated and effective vandal patroller, who would make extremely effective use of tools in terms of speedying, reverting and blocking. I don't consider his limited article-building experience to be a problem, he's done enough of it to show he understands what Wikipedia is about - if he generally prefers anti-vandal work who are we to judge? He appears trustworthy and would make good use of the tools. ~ mazca talk 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per [WP:AGF]] and I see no warning signs that the tools will be abused. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --Raboe001 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --ST ○ 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support--Historiograf (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support ---jha- (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspicious that in the space of two and a half hours four German Wikipedians come here to support. RMHED (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at their contributions, there is nothing suspicious that I can tell. Besides, AGF. On almost every RFA, there are blocks of editors that take note of a particular candidate for one reason or another and then drop by to support/oppose. MrPrada (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So nothing at all suspicious about this candidates sudden popularity among German Wikipedians towards the end of this close RFA? RMHED (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a RfA for de.wikipedia, nor is it a steward election, so I'm not sure what, if any, impact that would have, or what exactly you are implying. It could be said that its equally suspicious to cast aspersions on the !votes right before the close of the RfA. I had looked at these myself, seeing as they were in close succession, and all from primarily German editors. I imagine the closing bureaucrats would take that into account as this margin is razor thin. Hopefully Aitias will be promoted, but say that he has done something suspicious, or those four editors have? I just think its the wrong forum. Clearly, Aitias has enough community support to be SysOped and should be, I see no reason why editors who maintain accounts here and also edit the German WikiProject should not also be able to express their opinions. MrPrada (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last of those German editor supporters only created their account to participate in this RFA. It just seems very suspicious to me, almost like they were canvassed possibly, just my opinion. RMHED (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't see any evidence of canvassing here or there, although it is not inappropriate to notify other editors of a pending RfA. Also, that last editor, I believe, is an administrator on the German wikipedia, so I really can't see any bad faith on their part. MrPrada (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we all see what we want to see, you see four German wikipedians who on the spur of the moment rush in to support a great candidate. I see four suspiciously connected supports, with not even one reason why they're supporting between them. RMHED (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3 out of the 4 editors have been editing as early as 2004 and 2005 hence as them as established users and have been editing much before Aitlas started editing hence need to assume WP:AGF.Further the closing bureaucrat will take it into account and make the final call.Further this is not the forum to raise your suspicians if you had evidence it would be fine.This reflacts badly on Aitlas through I respect your concerns and opinion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support This user has enough edits to satisfy my tastes, and I'm not concerned over the opposers' comments. — Wenli (reply here) 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strongest Possible Support Great Vandal fighter further has great commitment and dedication to Wikipedia.Not one out of the opposes even suggests that he will misuse the tools which clearly shows even those opposing trust him.Not even one has questioned his commitment.This clearly shows he will using the tools for the benefit of Wikipedia.Has over 17000 mainspace edits and growing and has the experience in the area where he plans to work as per Question 1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "I see user after user complaining about your inappropriate use of automated tools to shoot first and ask questions later" clearly shows I trust him? "Not questioning his commitment" isn't the same as "not questioning his judgement". — iridescent 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support —YourEyesOnly (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support for those reasons expressed so well by Acalamari. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Great vandal fighter --Caltas (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Has improved since last RfA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. From all my interactions with aitias, I am sure he has the most valuable attribute of any potential admin, which is common sense, and that he would not be afraid to ask for advice if there was something he was unsure of. He also has vast experience in the particular areas in which he intends to use the admin tools, and I trust that he will use his tools in those areas, and not rush into areas where he has less experience. As such, I'm more than happy to support. Will (aka Wimt) 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - No major concerns, not convinced by the oppose argument, can be trusted. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I know a "not enough mainspace work" looks bizarre in relation to someone with 17k mainspace edits - but I can see virtually no substantial creation/writing work, other than writing a couple of stubs. My usual argument applies here; I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected. It's not an opposition to automated tools per se (I once racked up 13,000 edits in a month changing a category name), but opposition to users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. As with Wisdom above, the edit pattern strongly indicates a Huggle user, and I personally loathe that tool and would happily see it banned as I think it encourages a "high score" mentality (flames to the usual place, please...) — I have a feeling that as it catches on we're going to see a lot more of this kind of user coming forward at RFA. I appreciate I'm in a minority here (at the time of writing, 12 editors do trust you and I'm the only one who doesn't) — but while I certainly see no reason not to trust you with the "revert, block, ignore" side of adminship, I see nothing in your talkpage or user talk edits to give me any reason to trust you on the "why did you delete my page?", consensus-building side of adminship. On the contrary, what I do see is user after user complaining about your inappropriate use of automated tools to shoot first and ask questions later. Note to anyone who feels the need to respond to this oppose: please check this discussion first, as it's highly likely someone has already made the point you're going to make. — iridescent 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – I guess someone has to be the first, make that the second (Edit conflict) – I just wish it wasn’t me. First, very impressive edit count! Almost 27,000 in four months. (I didn’t include your first month of editing here at Wikipedia which was only December of 2007, just a little over 4 months ago or May, where you have close to 4,000 edits in just 16 days. Indeed, I am impressed). I have to ask though; did any thought process go into those edits? 15 minutes – 5 minutes – 30 seconds or as your contribution history shows probably less than an average of 15 seconds each? Also, in reviewing your talk page, I noticed that more than a few editors, and again in reviewing the discussions that took place they seemed like rational, well intentioned editors, had less than admiration for your contentions on reverting. Sorry to say, with the extra responsibility that comes along with Administratorship I do not believe you have demonstrated that once you have the availability of the extra buttons that you will take the time to review both sides of the situation but rather, as you state in your own words “…I would delete pages myself” . ShoesssS Talk 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, Iridescent and Shoessss summed up several of my feelings as well. As a whole, the candidate has been an editor for less than six months. While he has over 27,000 edits, a large chunk appear to be vandalism warnings and reports. He's done 655 AIV reports and granted those AIV reports appear to be beautifully formatted and any admin's dream. However, the candidate seems to do little actual editing of late and there is a severe lack of activity in the areas candidate expressed interest in. Indeed, looking back through May's contributions to the article mainspace, I do not see a single actual edit, Everything appears to be extremely rapid fire reverting of vandalism with the rollback tool, averaging 6-7 pages a minute. I'd like to see at least a full year of editing history, with a better balance of editing, being involved in the areas of interest (such as CSD--more steady that apparently random newpage patrol--, XfD, featured picture/article/lists, etc), being active in the discussions in those areas, and slowing down on the reverting to be sure its actual vandalism so as to have less complaints. Collectonian (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I can't support at this time. While the user does great work vandal fighting, he has a complete lack of any track record dealing with controversy or other people. EVERY edit to the talk page was a reversion. Almost every edit to articles are reversions. While I have no problems with specialist admins, I do want to see some sort of community building/evidence that the person can work with others. I don't see that here. I don't see any evidence that he worked with others to refine his understanding of policies and procedures.Balloonman (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Balloonman and irdidescent. Racking up a high edit count with automated tools (or whatever you kids call them these days) alone doesn't make you admin-worthy. You've got to show that you can work with people and content, the two things admins deal with most, and endless reversions don't show it.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Four months is not enough for me to be able to tell if I trust you with the tools, and your lack of communication with other users does not allow me to see that you would make a good admin. asenine say what? 05:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per iridescent and Baloonman. Daniel (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Also oppose per Iridescent and Balloonman. They sum up my feelings well- a demonstration of your ability to communicate is needed. While I'm here though, I have seen you around and do think you're doing a good job. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per vague answers to my questions and per Iridescent and Balloonman. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why were the answers vague? I thought they were fine, and the answers to questions 6a. and 6b. are most likely what I would have done. Acalamari 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found nothing wrong with question 5, however, in 6a I didn't find just saying they would look at the blocking policy a reasonable answer, i'd have expected more detail (if you'd like an example, see Slp1's answer). Same applies to 6b. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...the way I interpreted the answer to 6a was that Aitias would ask the user how the block would be supported by policy (which is the correct thing to do), and/or if the user provided no answer, that Aitias would review the potential blockee's contributions to see if a block would be justified: I didn't read it as though he would look at the blocking policy to see how the block would be warranted. Similar situation with 6b. Acalamari 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per pretty much all of the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I very much appreciate αἰτίας' contributions in fighting vandalism. I have a small number of articles that I watch and defend; this editor does the same on a grand scale, and Wikipedia needs specialized enthusiasts like him. That said, I, like many above, am concerned about this user's lack of experience with article building. I see that this user highlights his creation of a number of articles on Latin phrases. Certainly, these are well-known, yet the phrases themselves seem more appropriate to Wikiquote, and the additional information on them seems better suited to articles on the works from which they come. I am very troubled by the following edit summary and unilateral move, undertaken without reference either to community consensus or to Wikipedia policy. This editor is only a few months out from this sort of hasty decision, and I do not see sufficient evidence (and I speak as a Classicist who fully understands the reasoning behind the attempted move) that this editor is aware of the significance of naming controversies which plague Wikipedia at the moment. I am also concerned by the lack of links to an archive on his talkpage. I realize that all the information is available in the history, but in my experience, it is better to provide easier access to this information. I would like to commend αἰτίας overall, but do not feel I can support at this time. Aramgar (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I Have to agree with User:Shoessss here, the majority of Aitias's edits do not show any thought, I mean there is not much skill or thought process need to determine a edit as vandalism and click the revert button. Like Ballonman I understand candidates do not need to be versatile in every are of the 'pedia, nor do they need much mainspace work, but I still like to see some as it demonstrates the candidates ability to resolve disputes and work well with other users. Tiptoety talk 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Virtually no experience in admin-related areas besides AIV. Mr.Z-man 08:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Only 6-month-contributions. Too early to be admin --Appletrees (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it too early? Luna Santin became an admin at three months, and he's done great, and Maxim became an admin at about 4 months. Acalamari 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed to add "along with aforementioned concerns". Either they might have been exceptionally splendid candidates at those times or the expectancy of the RFA standard has been getting higher than that of the 2003 and 2006 RFAs. (really long time ago). But this case is NOT. --Appletrees (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, Luna Santin's RFA was in September 2006, and Maxim's RFA was in June 2007 (under another name). I think you got the 2003 date from another user, Maximus Rex, who was nominated in 2003. I'm not arguing the point, but the dates should be noted, for the record. Ral315 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are entirely correct: my apologies to Appletrees for any confusion. Acalamari 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I actually supported the first RfA, but my views have changed since then, and I really have to oppose per Balloonman. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per the reasons that Iridescent, Shoesss, and Balloonman brought up. You have absolutely no experience in dealing with controversies with other users on this site, and as either Shoess or Balloonman brought up (can't remember which), you have only been a member for 4 months and all of your edits to articles have been reversions (or most). I would like to see some more creations of articles from you. For these reasons, I cannot support your request at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a contributor since 5 months, not since 4. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose 5 months of Huggle vandalism reversions and little else does not an administrator make IMO. RMHED (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Per Iridescent - lack of article building/substantative edits. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Q4. God forbid that somebody have the gumption to place NPOV above civility. east.718 at 16:34, May 21, 2008
  20. Oppose. Excellent vandal fighter, but little evidence of encyclopedia building gives me no hint of the editor's suitability for the administrative role. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, regretfully. This is an editor who is both very prolific and willing to clean up after vandals. I just am hesitent due to less than 6 months' experience. Next time. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose If the mop were an award for hard work, this editor would deserve it. I am really concerned with the descriptions above of rapid fire reverts and the comment about wanting admin status so that articles can be deleted on site. If the candidate had been through the processes of writing more articles, I'd feel better about the judgment to delete. I suggest taking a new approach for a few months. I try to find diamonds in the rough at AfD or Clean up; most are junk, but there are some that are worthwhile researching to save. Maybe wear the other hat for a few months finding a challenge in creation and inclusion rather than deletion and reversion. Also try spending some time at Third opinion showing the community how you can help resolve disputes. COntact me for your next RfA and I'd be likeley to support. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - A good editor and potential future admin, but he needs more experience. --CreazySuit (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose based on lack of mainspace contributions. Now, I say "contributions" instead of "edits" because you have 17,000 edits there. However, if you take a look at my admin criteria, I'm not impressed by endless clicking using an automated script. Huggle has done wonders for your edit count, but it's going to take communication with other editors, work in the Wikipedia namespace, article contributions (on the article you've edited most, you've only edited it 14 times). Communication is a very important attribute for an admin to have, as others have mentioned. I'm a very big supporter of mainspace work, so I'll have to recommend you do some actual content-building work there, as well. Useight (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Great work on the vandal patrolling. To become an effective admin, though, I believe that there is a need to round out experience in other key areas: writing/editing articles; project work, policy discussion, etc. A single (or even duo-) purpose admin is an oxymoron. Sunray (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - I'd say over 90% of this candidate's time comes from using that awful tool called Huggle. I usually support admins who specialise in vandal-fighting, as this is what I do, but we do branch out in other areas too. You don't need to be an admin to patrol the RC. True, this user is a great patroller, and I have awarded him a barnstar in the past for his efforts, but there's more to adminship than just that. Huggle is an excuse for upping the edit count in a short period of time, while using very little effort. Sorry, Lradrama 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User:Lradrama/Huggle. Lradrama 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Useight. Keepscases (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

#Not entirely sure how I feel about this one yet, but I'm leaning toward oppose. While this user does have quite a few edits, I am concerned with the percentage that appears to be basic reversions, rather than content-driven. I'm going to review the edit count in more detail and likely change my vote over the next couple days. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike vote, see Support above. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, but I'm going to come back and revisit this. I don't mind specialist admins, and AIV always needs help, and the mainspace always needs scrubbers. You obviously know what you're doing in those areas and will be a real asset. I'll come back and visit this, leaning towards support. What would help me greatly is you being able to convince me that, since blocking will likely be your area of admin work, and since blocking tends to be a very touchy area because it deals primarily with contributors not content, that you'll be fine. Right now, your answers above are lacking, your communication style is primarily reversion and templates. I need more convincing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I might agree, but I spent close to an hour reviewing this editor's contributions and I was satisfied with what I saw. I think it would be a shame for him to fail by one or two votes, in my opinion he is certainly deserving of promotion. MrPrada (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, MrPrada, I've been watching this everyday. I am staying neutral though, as I am honestly (and unusually) unable to break into support or oppose. I am so very rarely neutral. Acalamari has put together an outstanding and convincing rationale for adminship, and his statement at support #28 is very good. However, I honestly can't help but agree with balloonman and iridescent as well. I'm afraid I will be staying neutral. There are 24 hours or so left, anything can happen at this point. And Aitias, please understand I mean you no disrespect, as I believe you have the right intentions for Wikipedia and are superb at vandal fighting. Whatever happens, you should hold your head high and keep on keepin' on. RfA sucks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Can this candidate be trusted not to abuse the mop? Most certainly, everything I have reviewed points toward a person committed to maintaining the encyclopedia. Can this candidate be trusted with the mop...? I just do not get any sense that this is an editor who interacts with the community, except as a vandal fighter. I do not see any evidence of the necessary nuances or flexibility in application of (often conflicting) policies generally. Despite the impressive pure statistics I do not think the candidate has been here long enough to pick up fully the ethos of Wikipedia that a sysop is supposed to exemplify. If it wasn't for my belief that this editor is absolutely non-abusive in intent and practice I am afraid I would be opposing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Good contributor, but uses Huggle, and thus should obviously be banned -- Gurchzilla (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Optimistic neutral. I'm having trouble finding something showing how this user would handle him/herself in a conflict. Conflict happens to admins, a lot, as admin actions (deleting, blocking, protecting, or declining to do any of the above) tend to get people worked up. I would support this user given evidence that his/her actions in a heated situation would be calm, rational, and measured. - Revolving Bugbear 13:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral to Support User is a good contributor in cleaning up vandalism, but there is the article writing thing. I'm neutral for now. Antonio Lopez (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral How the heck can a human being do 30,000 edits in six months! I spend half my day here, sometimes even dream I'm out on a date with Wikipedia, and have barely edged over a 1,000 - I clearly don't have the competence to judge this candidate!
    Huggle, that's how. Useight (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: The editor is a solid vandal fighter, and we could use the help. I would like to see more well-cited (with footnotes) articles written. As someone who is responsible for deleting articles, you probably should demonstrate more proficiency with creating them. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aitias_2&oldid=1146792772"