Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096

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.

[edit] Rory096

(10/18/3) ended 02:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC) - Closed by 'crat Linuxbeak early

Rory096 (talk • contribs) – I've observed this user editing all over the place; making both large and small edits, but all productive and all useful. He seems to have been hit with the usual crowd of people assuming he's a sysop and needing his help, so I figure he must be doing something right, and I figure second that he's probably about ready for a mop. His first edit was on 3 January 2006, and since then, he's amassed over ten thousand contributions, which should be enough for the edit counters out there. He's polite, helpful and demonstrates sufficient competence and a bit of whimsy. Rob Church (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good god, how did I miss that? Following a complete re-evaluation of certain contributions (thanks Sean), and watching the user's reaction in discussions about this, I've realised I had the user pegged out all wrong. While he might well make a lot of good contributions, interaction is also a vital component of a collaborative project of this nature. I can no longer state, in good faith, that I'd support this user becoming an administrator. Rob Church (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I nominate him pro forma to allow the RfA to run its course - Richardcavell 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. --Rory096_(block) 21:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

I understand the nominator is expected to support first, and I have no problems doing so. Rationale in the nomination. Rob Church (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Retracting; see the supplement to the nomination for reasons. Rob Church (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1. rory096 is active in #wikipedia and has helped me to fit into the Wikipedia community, as well as inspiring me to fight vandalism. tashi 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I think he'd make a good admin and time is not a good indicator of how good of an administrator he would be. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, always thought Rory was an admin anyway, always a good sign. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Connel MacKenzie 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Will probably make a good admin.—G.He_(Talk!) 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support as per above. I have seen him active on #wikipedia and I feel that his edits have earned him the job. :: Colin Keigher 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. I can't count the number of times I speedy deleted a page that was tagged by Rory. He gets what belongs and what doesn't. He is a very active vandal fighter, and I've seen him around on WP:AIV quite often as well. His recent block from the CVU channels was unwarrented in my opinion. And I don't know why people seem to think that IRC behavior is an indication of how the user is on wikipedia. I act quite stupidly on IRC sometimes (as does a great number of other people) and shouldn't be used against a user on wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. He's well-intentioned, friendly (at least to me), and has contributed a lot. Look at his barnstars- those show that he is a really dedicated user. --Shultz IV 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great user. I thought he was an admin already. DarthVader 23:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support I've encountered the candidate a few times over the past few months and simply don't think he'd misuse admin tools. He's a good faith editor and is clearly dedicated to the project. --W.marsh 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite number of edits, he's only been around 3 months. Try again in 2 months or so. SushiGeek 20:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Blocked too recently for disruption Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Regretfully so. After reviewing the recent incident discussed by Sean Black, I feel Rory needs a bit more time before getting the mop. Johnleemk | Talk 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Jaranda and Johnleemk. Let more than ten days pass since a block for disruption before requesting adminship. Jkelly 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
5. strong oppose rory has not only been blocked for diruption, hes harrased editors on irc, flamed sevral satff members or #vandalism-en-wp and been banned indefently for borderline trolling in there. He has demonstrated to me that he dosent have the patience understanding or qualties needed of an adminstrator Benon 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose - Never assumes good faith, acts very immaturely on IRC. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

   As originally stated, puts too much emphasis on IRC. He acts the same way on the wiki too, from what I see. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Too much recent history of disruptive and incivil conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per recent history. Moe ε 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - civility issues and apparent trolling --Doc ^ask? 22:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Sean Black's evidence of recent odd behavior. Whatever else, now is not the time for the mop. Xoloz 22:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Jaranda. Forgiveable, but too soon and too outrageous. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. History of assuming bad faith and borderline trolling. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per above. A RfA less than two weeks for a block is just too close, even though it wasn't particularly malicious. Lots of odd edit summaries. Also, while Rory's massive amount of edits is impressive, at the same time, I'm a little worried about editors who may spend too much time on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I'm grateful for his work in correcting vandalism; should the rollback proposal pass, Rory should be the first user on the list to receive them. Keep up the good work, be mindful of civility issues, and you'll have my support. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. He may be a good vandal hunter, but he is also a massive loose cannon. I might support in a few months if Rory significantly improves his all-round conduct. Rje 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Sorry, Rory, but the incident documented by Sean Black below is really immature. Also, I suspect that if you ever find out how many admins are "perverts" you might freak out on us. FreplySpang (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Again, a good enough user, but who just hasn't been around long enough to amass the necessary experience. Time isn't just important for others to verify how a user handles problems on Wikipedia; it's fundamental for any user to learn how to go about in the project properly. I am impressed by Rory's enthusiasm, but lots of enthusiasm minus the experience equals all the problems that are earning him all this opposition. I am confident that Rory will find balance. Just give it some more time. But until then, let's not add Administrator tools to the equation. Redux 23:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
17. I've been around him quite a bit on IRC, and he's way too hasty to do things, he overreacts, and I just have a bad feeling he's not administrator material. For example, he kept bugging people to "expand Rai University" for about a week, even though it was obvious no-one was going to do it. And this is the same guy who said just three weeks ago, "I don't know how to write articles" when I asked him to expand it himself. I just don't think he's administrator material. Sorry :/ Esteffect 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Edit to my vote above: I now Strong Oppose because he no longer has the support of his nominator. I think that Rory should withdraw as soon as possible, in my opinion, as this RfA is likely to become a pile-on based on that fact. Esteffect 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose/recommend withdrawal, per many above. Vulcanstar6 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. This candidate generally looks good to me, but I am very concerned by the evidence provided by Sean Black. I'll await the answer to Sean's question before making a final decision. TigerShark 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I know this user is a good vandal fighter, however I am concerned about the Lightdarkness matter. I disagree with Pegasus1138, time is a very important factor. Particularly in determining how other users handle conflict. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Rory096's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Please don't vote until the candidate has accepted, folks. No one who doesn't happen to be on IRC knows of the existence of the RfA yet, most likely. Just cool your jets and wait for him to accept. --W.marsh 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Piroko's (tashi) support was his 17th edit. SushiGeek 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Date and time needs fixing. — FireFox (υ|τ) 21:11, 22 April 2006
  • Fixed. --Rory096_(block) 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I need some help understanding the diffs given by Sean Black below. It is obvious enough that the first comment is inappropriate. It is surprising that anyone thought he needed a 24 hour block for it, and I worry from a haf-understood thread that it may have resulted from IRC behaviour, which make it a doubly bad block. What is the relevance of the "hi" diff? Why did Pschemp block? What were the disruptive edits? -Splash^talk 21:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Splash, I've no prior knowledge of this, but fishing about I found that not only had he made the inappropiate comments in that RfA [1], he'd edit warred with a 'crat to keep them in [2] (see especially his edit summary there, which bounds on a nasty personal attack). Then, he seems to have said something on IRC [3], and then opposed the RfA on the basis of Essjay reverting him [4]. In and of itself, nothing here is a hanging offense, and perhaps the block was harsh (I don't know all the IRC facts), but this is more than enough agro for me to oppose what is in any case a fairly early request for adminship. --Doc ^ask? 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • See below. Sorry for taking so long, I'm an idiot and closed the window right before I submitted while trying to close another window where I was warning a user. --Rory096_(block) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rory096 wishes to get 100 votes one way or the other, so perhaps beauracrats could be kind enough to not end this early. DarthVader 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would help out with various tasks, including candidates for speedy deletion, images with no license info and no source info (I'm the one who tagged CAT:NL with the admin backlog), closing AfDs, blocking serial vandals and open proxies (I've created and am creating open proxy lists to block on Wiktionary). I could also make difficult blocks (because I have no life anyway) and, of course, revert vandalism with admin rollback.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am probably most pleased with the thousands of vandalisms I've reverted, as the biggest fault to a freely editable encyclopaedia is the people who don't want it to succeed and so vandalize articles (and the people who actually use it, but vandalize anyway). Without reversions, very little of Wikipedia would even exist anymore. I am also proud of my contributions to Cannabis (drug), which recently failed its first FAC and starting WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons, which is just starting up, but will help reduce the waste created by duplicate images on Wikimedia servers just so other projects can use them, when we have Commons for the same purpose, without using extra space.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in conflicts, most notable the lightdarkness RfA thing. See below for that. Other conflicts were rather minor, and were often resolved with me rolling back my accidental rollback.

Question from Sean Black

1. Could you perhaps explain this bizarrely incivil and seemingly completely unwarranted comment ^[1] and/or elaborate on your reaction to when confronted ^[2] and when, ultimately blocked ^[3]?

Footnotes

1. ^ Difference between revisions on WIkipedia:Requests for adminship/Lightdarkness.
2. ^ Group of sections of older revision of User talk:Rory096.
3. ^ Log of blocks on Rory096 made by Pschemp (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves).

A: The comment was supposed to be sort of a joke, mostly a request for clarification; I meant it facetiously, not at all maliciously (not to mention I had an entire bottle of Manischewitz in me (don't worry, it was Passover; me editing Wikipedia while drunk is a once a year event. Anyway, I'm not allowed to have Manischewitz anymore since my parents found out that I emptied the entire bottle instead of having a glass (the seder says 4 glasses!)). You see, at first, lightdarkness's answer to a question read:

A: Actually, my arm is kinda sore, but I think that's unrelated.

I thought this was rather... ambiguous, so I left that comment. When Essjay removed it, I thought it was because of the use of the word "fuck," so when I put the comment back, I removed the word (note that Essjay warned me AFTER I replaced the comment). When Essjay warned me, I realized that he just didn't like the content and so did not add it again. I was then blocked about half an hour later. Also, in this edit summary, I did NOT mean that ld was a pervert; I meant that I might not want perverts in general to be admins (similar and less extreme than people who don't want pedophiles to edit). It had already been established that ld was NOT a pervert, from his response to my question.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you dont' want to touch if you like :)

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   A

2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

   A

3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

   A

4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

   A

5. Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?

   A

6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

   A

7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

   A

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   A

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   A

The above 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.