Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amgine

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.

Amgine[edit]

Final: (76/33/7) ended 04:43, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

Amgine (talk · contribs) – Whilst not being the highest edit counter around here, Amgine has brought various excellent edits to our little community and whose expertise (both technical and wikiwise.) and could benefit a lot from the tools. Already a Wikinews sysop and (nominated but refused a lot on Wiktionary) Amgine brings a lot of cross wiki experience that we could really use. Tawker 04:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have been waiting to try to talk Amgine into accepting a nomination and then Tawker just goes and does it! I'm usually not much for co-noms, but I called dibs on this one, darn it.) Amgine has been invaluable at answering requests mailed to Wikimedia, which is mainly how I know him, as well as handling press inquiries and other tasks for the Communications Committee. He has also been involved in cleaning up, rewriting, and sourcing articles that have been the source of complaint, and has experience being a sysop on Wikinews, on Meta, and doing cleanup on many of the smaller projects. And he is one of the most trustworthy and straightforward people I know; I've always found him to be good-humored, knowledgeable, and willing to help. He has been frustrated by not having admin tools for routine things such as viewing deleted pages and deleting revisions, and he's been around for several years, though his main focus has been Wikinews. Amgine is one of the few people trusted to handle some of the more sensitive requests we get mailed to us (living people bios, defamation complaints, and similar issues) and as such I think he should be trusted with adminship here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, without coersion I swear! - Amgine 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nom of course (see, you have a support, now you have to accept) --Tawker 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well, of course. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Meta Support NoSeptember talk 04:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support from a fellow gnome :) - cohesion 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Extremely strong support. Amgine is very experienced on Wikimedia and would be a great admin on enwiki. Jimbo only has 2000 edits, you know. --Rory096 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This is one of those cases where the normal criteria don't apply. We can ask "is the candidate going to abuse the tools" no "is the candidate going to misuse the tools out of incompetence or ignorance" no and "will the project benefit from the user being an admin" definitely yes. So support. JoshuaZ 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - as JoshuaZ says, this is a case where regular criteria don't apply. She handles OTRS requests, IIRC, and part of her "inactivity" is explained by the fact that she asks other admins to fulfill the requests she gets, as I know from my own experience. I don't have any reason to believe that she would misuse admin tools, when she has been given access to something significantly more sensitive and has not betrayed Wikimedia's trust. Remember: Adminship is no big deal. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctant support It appears as though Amgine has many contributions to Wikipedia that are impossible to be reflected in edit count (i.e. way behind the scenes work). I'll have to trust User:Mindspillage on this one (not that I have any reason to doubt her - my goodness why can't they just have one (common) pronoun for both genders???). joturner 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They do :). --Celestianpower háblame 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support JoshuaZ put it perfectly. Rx StrangeLove 05:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; wow, you've been here two days longer than me (two years and a month) and not yet an admin. Obvious support. I think you do great work. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I see no reason to worry about a 'low' edit count. This user seems sensible. - Richardcavell 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. jaco♫plane 05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, very impressed with this user.Joturner, you place way too much emphasis on edit count. — GT 05:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]
    I voted support, didn't I? I don't think someone should be admonished for being curious as to why Amgine only has 33 edits in the one year period between February 2005 and January 2006. joturner 06:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Can't see a reason not to. Support. Computerjoe's talk 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Meets my criteria, as well as being very experienced on wikimedia and wikinews anyway. DarthVader 07:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cabal Support - Already in all the right channels. --Cyde Weys 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Double edit conflict support without reservations. Edit counts are no big deal. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yup, support - seems trustworthy and dedicated. Metamagician3000 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. To be honest, I always thought (s)he was an admin. As far as I'm concerned (s)he is active. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. To modify the cliche, I knew he wasn't an admin but always thought he ought to be. Mackensen (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - good to be able to at last! -- sannse (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, of course. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, silly question, of course I do. Danny 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - having seen him a lot on Wiktionary, I feel confident in saying that he is a reliable, trustworthy and nice individul. Enjoy the mop :). --Celestianpower háblame 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Trustworthy user. I bet he can handle Wikipedia adminship as well. :) — TheKMantalk 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. More candidates like this one, pleaseTM! Support (like I was going to go against Mindspillage's co-nom...) Seriously, if ever there was a candidate that better exemplified why edit-count-itis is a bad thing, I can't think of whom it might be... ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I hope you'll increase your level of activity. Rama's Arrow 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support —Mets501talk 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I've interacted with this user in a number of places and capacities, and am confident in his temperament and competence. In addition, it would be sheer insanity to think that Kat Walsh would endorse a bad candidate. Rob Church (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Blah blah blah yeah.--Sean Black (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support $user is not already an admin? – ABCDe✉ 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Happy to Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Ral315 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom --Primate#101 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, of course. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Joe I 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Connel MacKenzie 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I'm still shocked that Amgine withdrew his admin nomination on en.wiktionary.org after the user GYRE created numerous sockpuppets, and recruited some friends simply to vote against him there. The sockpuppets' votes would not have counted (of course) and none of the "GYRE friends" were regular contributors there. The various flame wars they started were all discredited (e.g. it wasn't a self nomination, the allegations of abuse on wikinews were all false, the allegations of wheel-warring were all false, the allegations of inappropriate deletions were all false.) These same enemies of Amgine (on en.wiktionary) seem to be enemies of all Wikis, opposed to the enormous difference Wikis are making for the entire world. Why they specifically target Amgine remains a mystery to me. Is he that good at exposing their deceit? Perhaps so, if the vandalism resulting from his nomination on en.wiktionary.org is any indication. --Connel MacKenzie 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Correction: The primary opponent was Wiktionary User: Primetime, in addition to GYRE. On en.wiktionary, User:Primetime has since been permanently blocked from the English Wiktionary for massive systematic copyright violations, numerous sockpuppets, tor attacks, and general misconduct. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC) As an unrelated sidenote, the corresponding User:Primetime has now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, as per WP:AN#User:Primetime. --Connel MacKenzie 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without any reservation whatsoever. Amgine is an excellent contributor, with superior understanding of Wikimedia and it's community; to deny adminship to this candidate is simply inexcusable. The work that Amgine does for Wikimedia, especially on OTRS and the press team, is simply extraordinary; granting adminship will only help with the great work already being done. Amgine has my complete, unequivocal, and unconditional support. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Joseph Solis in Australia 10:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - understands the community in its widest sense. --Vamp:Willow 14:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support.- We need more Wikignomes behind the admin scene.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I know this user is trustworthy. pschemp | talk 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Needed for working on living people bios, defamation complaints, and other sensitive issues. It makes no sense to oppose tools to makes this important job easier. FloNight talk 18:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Bjarki 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Have had positive experiences with Amgine. Cross-wiki love, too! GChriss 01:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Amgine's a worthwhile admin at Commons. He's responsible. There's no need to oppose him (except to get him to work more elsewhere!) ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - on reflection, and after discussing this user's activities with Mindspillage, I feel this user would benefit from having administrator tools, so I am changing my "oppose" to a "support". The edit count does not accurately represent the user's work behind the scenes. Edit count is not everything. If I recall correctly, I only had around a thousand edits in total to my name when I was made an admin. - Mark 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support excellent user, both on Wikipedia and on the other Wikimedia projects.  Grue  07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. A great user on Wikinews, Meta, and anywhere else he works --Cspurrier 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support without reservations. FCYTravis 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. This is one of our top wikimedia people. He has already shown time and time again on many many wikis that he is up to the job of being an admin, and in fact can excel and inspire others to greatness. (sorry dude, it's true!) Kim Bruning 18:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support :) sometimes I vote to be not dogmatic. My dogma is not to vote, I hate votes, but I know you will do good :) GerardM 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Amgine is a dedicated vandal-fighter and a big help in OTRS. This is a no-brainer. - jredmond 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - he'll need it. Doubted to vote oppose, as he has lot's of other stuff to do ;) effeietsanders 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - always helpful, always watchful, I trust him, he will use those few extra buttons in a good way --birdy (:> )=| 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Definite support. Trustworthy, dedicated, not enigmatic at all. +sj + 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - a valuable contributor on various Wikimedia projects. Absolutely no reason to expect abuse the buttons. The edit count is a totally meaningless measure in this case. Zocky | picture popups 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Helpful Wikignome. Trust him to use admin powers well. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I have minor concerns based on the wheel war at Wikinews, but based on the candidate's statements on this page and the statements in support of him I'm happy to trust him with admin tools here.-Polotet 08:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Conditional Support. Changed from oppose, see compromise discussion in comments section. Dragons flight 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Great Support If he has Tawker's support, that's good enough for me. the_ed17(talk)Use these! 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Edits are enough for me. There is no need to be involved with wikipolitics before becoming an admin. Article contributions are what matter in my books. Myciconia 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  67. Support Giving him admin powers would help the project. Given who nominated him, I trust that he won't misuse them. RicDod 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support After reading the comments on this AfD, I am confident we should give this to Amgine, in this unusal case. Gwernol 09:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support - the project stands to gain greatly by having Amgine have sysop rights. I don't believe it stands to lose by doing so. Shimgray | talk | 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Don't forget wikinews through :) Brian | (Talk) 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support -- Saravask 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Changed from oppose. The real questions on a RfA are ability and commitment. User has more than demonstrated those quailities. As to the war-wheeling, hopefully that won't recur. If the problem recurs, it can be dealt with. As to power, with about 1,000 admins, 1,000,000+ articles and 1,000,000+, no one can admin can hold "too much". User_talk:Dlohcierekim 16:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I held off on this one for a while, but I think I can support. Low edit count is not an issue, and the issues on WikiNews also seem to be fairly old (two months is plenty of time to reform, and it seems that the actions discussed had taken place ong before then). I just hope I've made the right choice as this RfA is really close. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 00:15 UTC
  74. Support the nom text itself made me see that this user is worthy of the mop. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support in my experience I've found Amgine to be insightful, fair, and reasonable. Even when we disagreed he directed our conversation to productive ends and deeper understanding. His work with Wikimedia has shown dedication and clear judgment. There are at least a half dozen other admins who will perform administrative actions on his behalf with only his assurance that the action is correct... To deny Amgine adminship would simple insert a productivity reducing and error inducing step into the process. To deny Amgine adminship would be a silent agreement that we'd rather our decisions be made by machines and the mindless processes that drive them. --Gmaxwell 06:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "To deny Amgine adminship would be a silent agreement that we'd rather our decisions be made by machines and the mindless processes that drive them"?? Besides being very poetic, you've lost me there. Grandmasterka 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Friends, Romans, Countrymen, we must be on guard against wikipoliticians Myciconia 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Again... What? I don't mean to offend, but wouldn't that be a reason to oppose, rather than support? Clearly this user is involved with the WikiMedia Foundation and is getting some enthusiastic support from that... I am trying to judge based on this user's contributions and actions on this and other wikis (like I do for everyone else) and I remain very unconvinced. Grandmasterka 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Per this, this, and this. —Encephalon 11:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I am shocked by this one; it's not a self-nom! It's okay if one is not "the highest edit counter around here," but this is far too low for my standards. Just over a thousand edits? And about half of those coming during November 2004? No recent active months? Come back in mid- to late-August and I'll most likely support, especially since Tawker, a respected sysop, already has the confidence that you would be a great addition to the admin community. joturner 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns about wheel-warring tipped the reluctant support back to oppose. And yes, too few edits still. joturner 23:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose 'refused a lot on Wiktionary' is not something that instills me with confidence. Cynical 10:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm... I think that's "he has refused", not "he has been refused" - him declining nominations on another project is not a point against him :) -- sannse (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, seems like more of a casual user than a committed one. Only 1100 edits since April 2004 is a real shocker. Royboycrashfan 16:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to neutral.[reply]
  3. Oppose -- I'm kind of embarassed to have voted before finding out about this RfAr on Wikinews. I'm no longer so sure that this user should be trusted with admin privileges here. Wikipedia is a much larger wiki than Wikinews and if the user isn't patient enough there to settle that disagreement without issuing what looks to be an unwarranted one-month block, he will have trouble here. — GT 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Contributions to en: seem a little light, regardless of work done on another project (this isn't meta: ). Only a small handful of project edits in the last year. — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per GT and reading the RfAr on Wikinews. I don't think Wikipedia needs people who wheel-war. --Elkman - (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose for wheelwarring although the recommendations from Mindspillage and Tawker alleviate this somewhat, but not enough.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - not enough mainspace edits abakharev 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose same reasons as Blnguyen. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose The blocking incident at Wikinews is bad news. Sorry.--MONGO 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I don't suffer from editcountitis, but having only 300 edits in the past year does not show to me that there could be significant benefit from making Amgine an administrator, unless it's part of an official Wikimedia Foundation role, in which case RfA could probably be bypassed anyway. - Mark 05:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. In addition to the Wikinews RfAR cited by GT, there's another in which she was found to have "deleted templates out of process". That was closed in March and is still too recent for me to vote support. Kimchi.sg 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Reluctantly oppose. I'm not keen on supporting editors for the mop who don't contribute much content and I need reassurance that I'm not just empowering another rogue, given that a couple I've supported have misused their powers almost as soon as they received them. Grace Note 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm not sure why you need administrative tools on Wikipedia just because you have them on WikiNews... plus, number of contributions is a bit fluffy and other editors raise some concerns. _-M o P-_ 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The experience at wikinews looks attractive, but the wheel-warring there combined with the lack of experience here makes me cautious. Bucketsofg✐ 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Sorry, but the activity level here on en: for me does not warrant the granting of admin status, and the answers to Q1 also do not convince me that it is needed. The link to the RfAr provided above by GT also give me cause to doubt this candidates suitability to have additional powers here. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose Quite low edit count on en.wiki + evidence of wheel-warring on another project = no confidence in this candidate yet. First, editor must establish a solid reputation on en-wiki by gaining experience as any other editor would. Participation in other wikis doesn't aid one's resume when one wheel-wars on those other wikis. Xoloz 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    #Oppose. I do not support admin rights on en.wiki for people that only infrequently contribute here even if they have established themselves through excellence and experience elsewhere. The trust shown by nominators and others does carry considerable weight with me, but not enough to counter the fact that here Amgine has only ~300 edits in the last year and many appear to be unmarked minor edits. If he wants/needs admin privledges here, then he should take some time to get involved with this community and I expect he could very rapidly earn them to my satisfaction. Dragons flight 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to conditional support, pursuant to the discussion in the comments section. Dragons flight 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Cactus man and Dragon flight. Joelito (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to lack of experience with this project and the incident with WikiNews. Silensor 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Unfortunate oppose -- this user has not contributed much at all to enwiki in the past year, and there are now questions about possible abuse of power. Start contributing here a lot more and let things cool off for a few months and I might support then. Grandmasterka 19:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to Strong oppose. This user has not contributed much to this project recently from what I can see, and the support votes and comments below are not helping to convince me. I am trying to judge based on what this user has done here and on other related wikis, like I do for everyone else. Grandmasterka 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. After looking through concerns raised per above, sorry but oppose. - Mailer Diablo 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. The WikiNews situation was a serious error of judgement. This, combined with the somewhat limited experience on this project, makes me question how Amgine would handle adminship. I may well support in the future if Agmine shows a greater commitment to this project and displays better judgement. Rje 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I would add that I do understand that the reasons behind this request are somewhat exceptional. However, I feel it is inappropriate to revise my criteria based on a candidate's real-world activities, be they with the Foundation or otherwise. If the work of the Foundation would benefit from Amgine, or any user, being made an Admin, I would have no problem with the Board granting that user Sysop rights (this process is not a vote). Rje 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Needs time to straighten out their performance.—thames 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose. Needs more experience. --Andy123(talk) 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Wheel warring raises doubts, as well as the WikiNews incident. --Knucmo2 13:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - per User:Rje and User:Dragons flight. Edit count way to low. Seems very contentious. May already have too much power. Dlohcierekim 14:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Am changing to support. Per User:Polotet.
  24. Oppose with all due respect plus a hamburger - Amgine is an administrator on Wikinews, where he has attracted plenty of controversy and negative attention. I really don't want that to happen to him on Wikipedia where it'd be tons more stressful for him. Considering the respect I have for Amgine, I don't want Wikipedia administrative status to ruin him. He already has the stressful job of being Amgine on Wikinews. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Wheel-warring is bad... if you got in an RFAr at Wikinews, what makes you think you would be able to behave in an acceptable manner at Wikipedia as an administrator? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    see below. Apparently it's ye olde userbox story again. Kim Bruning 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a reason for supporting? I've voted support for people before who have become polarized shortly afterwards in this situtation - the last thing I want is another person here who we know is already polarized. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah , I'm in support because I trust Amgine to Do The Right Thing, no matter how tricky the situation is. He apparently was brave and chose to get involved with userboxes on wikinews, even thought userboxes are known to be controversial. I believe he feels rather responsible for that wiki. :-) There's an entire universe outside of userboxes however. If having the admin bit set on wikipedia would help Amgine do useful stuff, I say set his admin bit.
    Some people are advocating giving the WP:OFFICE more power, and assigning Amgine to office, rather than making him an admin. I'd like to suggest we learn to look after ourselves instead. And having Amgine help with that would be good. :-) Kim Bruning 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a decent argument. I still disagree, but thanks for making it anyways :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Oppose. Sorry, but no way. Nowhere near enough WP edits, and we definitely don't need any more admins going around speedying userboxes willy-nilly. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he will do that on wikipedia. Certainly not if we ask him not to :-) Err... should we though? Kim Bruning 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd violate WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose: not ready yet. Thumbelina 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Normally I wouldn't like considering issues from other projects, but the wheel warring is troubling. Kotepho 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Very few mainspace edits, and a troubling edit history; for example, strong supporter of indefinitely banned User:CheeseDreams. Jayjg (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the same side in an edit dispute doesn't make you "strong supporter" of all others who take the same stance. Guilt by association has no place in any democratic process! Myciconia 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    WP:NOT a democracy. Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Precisely! If it was, we wouldn't be taking quality of votes into account! Guilt by association and other propogandish methods are exactly what wikipedia must avoid in its decision making! Myciconia 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  30. Oppose, wheel-warring and mainspace edit count too low. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:38, 8 May 2006
  32. Oppose. Changed from neutral because of low mainspace edits and support for the banned user CheeseDreams. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per above arguments.--cj | talk 10:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Looks not very experienced to my standard, but I do not oppose.--Jusjih 14:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per above. Can't support, can't oppose. Royboycrashfan 19:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Valued contributor, but there is no excuse for wheel warring. In addition to the page GT linked, the relevant logs can be seen here. On the plus side I did have to page through thousands of open proxy blocks to find that, but according to Ral315's summary Amgine's block was for a month over a one hour block. That's innapropriate, but the repeated blocks are inexcusable. For the record the one hour block did appear innapropriate, but that doesn't mean a one month block in response and repeated reblocking is the way to handle it. 24 hours is long enough to build consensus on whether it needs to be longer or stand at all. If you can't get consensus for the block, maybe it shouldn't be placed. Support. A trusted admin on other projects with good edits here should be trusted with admin rights here too. Would be admin worthy with half the en.wiki edits—a perfect example of where edit count does not help show the more intangible qualities. - Taxman Talk 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC) - Taxman Talk 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral—call me a fence-sitter, but I can't decide either way on this one. I respect the answer to my question below but, with apologies, I believe this user needs more time to consider the consequences of actions before they're made. Yet, the tools are there, and I believe this user to be very good admin material. If there was a little more history showing that the lesson has been learned... RadioKirk talk to me 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - if they had more experience I'd consider supporting. Nephron  T|C 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Blocking war between admins on Wikinews, while entertaining, is not conducive to the overall goals. Would probably support in 6 months if the blcoking war is over by then.--Tbeatty 06:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) change to Neutral as long as tools are used only to help with WP:OFFICE tasks.--Tbeatty 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now; inclining towards oppose. I'd normally support because Amgine gets a good write-up from Danny and other respected users like Mindspillage and Kim, which would normally be enough for me, but there are so few edits to articles: 350 or so in total, and only 176 since February. It isn't really possible with so few contributions to know how the community interacts, and admins should be making an active contribution to the encyclopedia and not only administering. FloNight says that Amgine's help with living bios would be invaluable, and heavens knows we need the help, but without having actively written some, does Amgine really know how the content policies interact? I'm not saying he doesn't because I have no idea; I'm just wondering how he could, because knowing how things fit together in practise, not just in theory, takes a bit of experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. If he needs adminship to help with official tasks, the Foundation can award adminship by decree. Otherwise, he has to undergo the same process as everyone else, and be judged in the same way. He doesn't have enough involvement here, on the English Wikipedia, for that judging to take place. I'm too meek to oppose, however, but I lean that way. --kingboyk 08:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See Amgine's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • For the edit counters, I feel compelled to mention that he has also answered as of this writing 379 messages via m:OTRS. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice several people opposing because of his low number of edits, and I suppose that all I can do is ask you to please read my nomination again. Amgine does have use for the admin tools (I've been frustrated by his not having them, in working with him, and he'd've probably asked long ago if not for lack of desire to get dragged into Wikipedia politics) and enough experience on the project to use them, and I don't believe his edit count is a fair measure of that. Had he sometime a month ago made a run of 500 vandalism reversions or disambiguation fixes to boost the count would you feel differently?
    • As for his activities on WN, I am satisfied by his rationale for his actions, and I say this as someone who has come down hard on such things; I am also under the impression that he has no desire to use his admin tools in this manner on this project. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been suggested I comment regarding use of deletion and blocking privileges on Wikipedia. I frankly don't want 'em, and would happily make a vow not to use those privileges save in the extremely unlikely circumstance of being the only admin available to the community. Due to the work I do for the Foundation I'm in regular need of the ability to view deleted content, to manage protects and unprotects, and I would foresee these as my primary (hopefully only) use of admin privileges as I said in my responses to the sysop chores question below. <grin> But I also don't want to campaign for adminship, or fight for it (sorry Tawker, Mindspillage!) so whatever the community decides is great in my opinion.
      • If anyone wants to ask me questions directly, I'm readily available in IRC. - Amgine 16:28, 3 May 2006
I don't normally comment here, but this RfA (and the one for Silsor below) really surprise me. Amgine i someone whome the Wikimeda Foundation trusts with some of the greatest responsibilities it has--responsibilities people voting no may not even be aware of--like dealing with the general public (through OTRS) and the media (through the communications committee). It is precisely because he deals with these things that others felt he should be given Admin status. Therefore, I am really not quite sure what all the votes of no-confidence are saying. Disturbing. Danny 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More comments... I'm torn on whether or not to keep commenting here. But, well, I don't nominate anyone I do not strongly believe should be given the rights, and whose qualifications I'm not willing to stand up for.
As for "not enough experience"—not enough experience doing what? His contribution history here indicates familiarity with the project. Certainly familiarity enough to know how the tools (most of which he has no desire to use) are properly used. Some have commented about most of his experience being on "other projects". This isn't entirely true. Many of the problems he deals with are problems on this wiki—simply that many of them do not require making more edits to handle. (Sending an email after looking into a situation, to the person complaining, to an admin who took a questionable action, to a writer who used a dubious source, does not boost one's edit count, and nor does fact-checking, unless the facts are found to be in need of correction. But it is on-project work.) This isn't a request for more power or status, or a desire to get involved in en.wikipedia politics. It was simply becoming a recurrent theme that to check deleted revisions of pages or edit certain protected pages Amgine would have to ask an admin's help, and it seems silly for him to have to do so when those of us he is asking would trust him perfectly well to do it himself.
It is my opinion that Amgine's actions on Wikinews with userboxes, for which he was brought to arbitration (here, it would have merited an RfC, and at that early stage not a particularly spectacular one), may have nipped their problem in the bud, while we are still fighting it here. As for the "wheel war", he states his explanation in the questions below; I'll let that stand on its own for you to judge, and please look at it for yourself. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note that Amgine already has admin access on several projects, so he's more than proven that he won't simply "blow up the wiki". Beware of the logical fallacy of only looking at peoples' mistakes. People who have been around a while also make the occaisional mistake. If people stay around long enough, they'll have made a lot of mistakes, duh. You have to balance that off against what they've done right.

On balance, it turns out that Amgine has helped build at least one entire wiki up off the ground! If he can't make admin here on en.wikipedia, then the requests for adminship process is severely broken, and a review would need to be called for. Kim Bruning 18:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Instead of Amgine actively editing here for 2 or 3 months and then asking for admin again, I suggest that he be given admin tools with the understanding that he will use them in a limited way in the beginning. Over the course of 60 days, with the assistance of a couple of active admin, Amgine will acclimate himself to Wikipedia en and gain full use of tools. --FloNight talk 18:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Names of admin that will assist Amgine with learning the ropes.
    • ROTFL! Yeah riiiiiiight. If it comes to it, then sure, I'll volunteer. Though frankly, who would be the mentor, and who the student? I would be listening to him half the time, at least, I'm sure. ;-) Kim Bruning 18:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List specific limitation of admin tools and steps to expand them over 60 days.

Comment I commend FloNight for trying to come up with a compromise but I don't get why it wouldn't be a bit of a putoff to Amgine. The Foundation board could have just given Amgine this power by fiat, but instead decided to let the community speak. I'm not clear what all this opposition is about, and I'm a process wonk. He has been doing vital and sensitive work for some time now, (much more sensitive than we trust the average admin with) so why do we want to not make his work easier? Focusing on editcounts? C'mon you guys, think about this a bit more! Took some tough/controversial decisions? OK, that's a reason to support, not oppose... turns out not to be perfect? So who is? No change in my strong support. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a trial period. He would be an admin that agrees to use his tools in a limited way in the beginning. I gave him my strong support. It doesn't seem to me that the community is going to reach consensus to give Amgine admin tools now unless something like this is done. FloNight talk 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Great idea FloNight! I happily agree to any limitations the community might suggest, sight unseen. - Amgine 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towards compromise. I am prepared to withdraw my objection if it is accepted that Amgine's sysop status is limited to OTRS and similar external matters only. From my point of view, Amgine has not been sufficiently involved in enwiki matters to trust his ability to mediate local disputes or to consistently follow local policies regarding blocking and deletion, etc. It is on these grounds that I am uncomfortable making him an admin here. However, if it can be agreed that the Amgine's sysop powers will only be used in the resolution of the externally arising matters on which he works, and not in connection which any disputes or controversial actions internal to enwiki, then I am prepared to grant him sysop access. Specifically, I believe such restrictions would amount to him almost never issuing a block, and almost never deleting content except in cases of obvious copyright violation or defamation, etc. If at some point Amgine does wish to become involved with the internal administration of this Wikipedia, I would ask that he be made to repeat at RFA and ask the community again whether he should be trusted with the full role of an administrator. Lastly, if this deal (or something like it) is ultimately accepted, I would ask that Amgine make clear his special status on his userpage. Dragons flight 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vouch for Amgines ability to mediate local disputes at the least. You have my word. Kim Bruning 00:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight, I would be very happy to agree to your suggested restrictions. <sticks tongue out at mindspillage> - Amgine 00:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe that Dragons Flight's proposition is a good idea, it is somewhat reminiscent of the limited adminship given to users during the Board elections and should be to the mutual satisfaction of all sides. As was the case then, however, I do not believe it is the place of the en.Wikipedia community to vote on the activities of the Wikimedia Foundation, or work done in its name. If there is an RfA, and that RfA has to be treated like a vote, I would consider moving my "vote" to Neutral in order to aid the caveated sysopising of Amgine. Rje 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine, could you be as specific as possible about which admin tools you will likely use and how often as you do OTRS and similar external matters. FloNight talk 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure FloNight. The admin tool I am most likely to use is the view deleted revisions; it is not at all surprising but we often get e-mails about "why was my article on XXX deleted", or "XXX was deleted out of process." Another tool which I may need to use is page protection, or unprotection, or to edit a protected page. Again, this is usually in response to requests, often on issues of defamation/libel but also in cases of potential endangerment, and legal issues for the Foundation. Due to these duties, I don't think I will have the option of the more usual admin tasks of RC/Vandal patrol (which I used to love doing, btw).
I work on OTRS pretty much every day, and I'm on press call 24/7. I am usually involved with at least one press inquiry or interview every day, ranging from "can we use this image" to the Senate IP addresses story to actually conducting interviews of Wikimedia people for journalists. - Amgine 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit breakdown:
Username Amgine
Total edits 1173
Distinct pages edited 538
Average edits/page 2.180
First edit 2004-04-02 21:44:15
(main) 352
Talk 243
User 91
User talk 192
Image 15
Image talk 2
Template 9
Template talk 9
Help 1
Category 1
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 177
Wikipedia talk 80

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'm mostly a wikignome, and much of my current activity is implementing corrections from OTRS or when I am asked to examine an article's bias. As an admin I would try to expand this, and add monitoring of unwatched pages, as well as representing en.WP's interests in my other positions within Wikimedia Foundation (Meta, Communications Committee)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I still like Champion of the Seas, although it was a long time ago and now needs to be verified. My rewrite of Anchor is another, which fundamentally changed the direction of that article.
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: On Wikipedia I was involved in the initial conflicts regarding the historicity of Jesus/Cheesedreams. Due to the events which transpired I moved my contributions to en.Wikinews rather than be in conflict with community members, eventually becoming an admin there, and then on Meta. As an admin with more than a year's history, I have been involved in a number of conflicts both as mediator and as participant.
Question from User:RadioKirk: Since both knowledge and patience can be vital tools for administration, your User talk page at Wikinews has left me wondering about the latter. Can you address?
A: I'm not sure which part of the talk page you'd like me to address, but likely the blocking of User:Mrmiscellanious which resulted in the third wheel war on Wikinews. The admin inappropriately blocked a fellow admin after bringing the conflict to the admin alert page and receiving no support from other admins for blocking someone with whom he was in conflict. Due to the circumstances (admin was provocateur, currently in RfAr for abuse of admin privileges/personal attacks, had been warned not to violate blocking policy, there was expressed consensus opposing the action before blocking, and then abused admin privs) I blocked for maximum period under Wikinews disruption policy - 30 days.
The block was reduced to 2 weeks, then lifted entirely. I reinstated for 2 weeks. (Wikinews policy limits reverts of admin actions to 3RR.) I was in turn blocked for two weeks by a third admin for site disruption. Although the block was lifted (on both of us), I am respecting the block and not editing. - Amgine 20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Question from xaosflux:It appears that you contribute much more on other projects, and this is a major reason for support listed by others. Normally I wouldn't bring another wiki's business to an en:RFA, but do you have any comment on a recent Wikinews Arbcom Case where you were found to be deleting "dozens" of pages out of process?
A: Not really, other than I think I could have made a better case against me had the Arbcom let me [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amgine (talk • contribs) [2]
Note that the pages were actually userboxen, where nobody blinks if someone deletes them here (unless a wheel war starts over them a la Guanaco, MarkSweep, et. al.) --Rory096 22:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody blinks? Apparently their users blinked, as did ours during The Great Userbox War. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question from Myciconia

I've already given my support, and this is completly optional: How would you respond to a committed non-admin user who is blatently breaking basic wikipedia policy to achieve a certain goal? How about an administrator who is on first-name basis with Mr. Wales? An anon user? What factors would influence your approach, and when (if at all) is ignoring the rules acceptable?
A: Argh! the terrible circumstantials! <grin> Thanks for the questions, Myciconia, I'll try to come up with some good answers.
  • Committed contributor and Admin on first-name basis are the same, as they always are. I tend to be hide-bound to the community's expressed opinions, first and foremost, and this includes a project's missions and goals as well as the policies and guidelines. I have in the past reverted admins who are on a first-name basis with Mr Wales when they acted in opposition to the community's policies and guidelines. On en.Wikipedia I have promised not to use blocking or deletion privileges, so my response to such circumstances would be first to discuss the behaviour, second to alert others, third to request admin intervention. It is extremely unlikely that a situation could escalate to these levels (we're talking about committed contributors here), but were the circumstance to continue I would request Steward intervention at that point.
  • An anon user would be handled in the same way, except I would use admin privs to temporarily block if it escalated and unable to find another admin, probably a one-hour block since I can't imagine being unable to find another admin to intervene over a full hour.
  • Factors influencing my approach: Again, I'm extremely attached to the idea of following the community's will as expressed in the hierarchy of: The mission of the project, and the policies and guidelines. I'm also a student of the ArbCom, and have spent many hours studying some of their decisions and traditions (to be honest, in part for the establishment of the en.Wikinews ArbCom whose policy I wrote.)
  • When is ignoring the rules acceptable... when following the rules will cause more harm than not following the rules. When the rules, due to complexity or contradiction or overgrowth (written policy should be pruned regularly, because interventions should only be made to address an existing problem and then only so much as necessary to address that problem) cause paralysis or interfere with accomplishing the mission of the project.
A few very tough question! I hope I still like my answers in the morning. - Amgine 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well its morning, and I think they are great! You will be a great admin. Myciconia 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amgine&oldid=1089732680"