Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vassyana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rumiton (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 29 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vassyana

Voice your opinion (61/10/3); Scheduled to end 09:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana (talk · contribs)

Vassyana has also been hard at work working on some of our religion topics. see Eastern_religion. He has also brough Taoic_religion to good article status. He has also participated in good article reviews at Talk:Lingbao_School, Talk:1976_Tehran_UFO_incident, and others if you care to dig through his contribs history. This indicates a knowledge of how to write a good encyclopedia.

Vassyana is also taken an active role in mediation. He is an active mediator for the mediation cabal As a mediator he has negotiated a stable version for Techniques_of_Knowledge#Descriptions. You may see some of his work at Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#Example_merge and Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#Criticism. Also see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06_Steven_Alan_Hassan for another example.

He has experience on Wikipedia with serveral areas, and I believe he will make an excellent admin. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Vassyana 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will generally continue my focus on dispute resolution. The sysop bit would give me a few extra tools to use towards that end, such as page protection and preventing editors from disrupting the wiki. I would keep an eye on places like arbitration enforcement that seem to need more sysop attention. I intend to help with the CSD and PROD backlogs as needed. I will watch XfD discussions, with an eye towards making sure "overdue" cases are closed out. In general, I will help out with other admin backlogs as I feel comfortable, based on my knowledge and experience.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my contributions to Taoic religion and Eastern religion are very good. They cover some basic overview material and fit in the scheme of general encyclopedia articles. It is important that basic and general topics possess quality articles. Taoic religion is a good article, and I feel Eastern religion is well on its way to the same achievement. My assistance in mediation, providing reviews and giving outside opinions are also important contributions. By helping editors move past conflicts and build better articles, Wikipedia is improved.
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: I have been in a number of conflicts, because of my willingness to dive into controversial articles, though I cannot recall anything but brief and minor conflicts to which I have been a party. There have been times in the past when I've been quick to revert, though I have not violated 3RR. Despite the non-violation, it is not helpful to the cause of building an encyclopedia, instead tending to escalate the situation. I am sure I have let a snarky comment out on rare occasion, when I should have been more civil, though I cannot recall any particular incident. I have learned through experience and the example of better editors that pressing discussion, refusing bait and building well-referenced material more often leads to the desired result. It is often better to walk away from a particular article and work on the endless other tasks Wikipedia offers, than to be drawn into an edit war.
Optional question from Seed 2.0
4. I have looked through the list of your contributions and I like that your comments tend to be to the point, yet always civil and polite. You have indicated that you would like to help close XfD discussions and clear the CSD and PROD backlogs. If you don't mind, could you please answer these two questions?
  • Could you provide some specific examples of when you found not having admin tools frustrating or inconvenient and how you would have used them?
  • To be honest, I cannot say I've found the lack of tools frustrating or inconvenient. There are probably plenty of tools and pages available to me as a regular user I have yet to use. While they would be convenient, and allow me to help with some additional tasks, the lack of mop and bucket is not an impediment to my activity on Wikipedia. If you would like some examples of how I would use the tools available, I would be happy to answer any further questions. Vassyana 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be necessary. You have my support. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine you are about to close an AfD. Three established users have expressed that they feel the subject of the article under discussion is not notable. The nomination read "doesn't meet WP:N". Shortly before the debate is scheduled to close, a new editor registers his disapproval and provides a non-trivial source that may establish the notability of the subject. What do you do? --Seed 2.0 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would notify the other editors of potential new evidence showing notability. I would ask the new user if s/he would provide additional sources. I would probably extend the AfD by a couple days to allow discussion of the new source and time for the new user to provide multiple non-trivial references. A bit of extra discussion generally won't hurt. Vassyana 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of the debate. I believe that some people want to make the standard too broad, and others too narrow and natural dialectic will work out the difference between them. ArbCom cases reveal some fairly clear guidelines of what is right out (here and here). I strongly agree with banning sites that engage in stalking, privacy invasion and similar forms of harassment. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Proabivouac (talk · contribs)
6. Vassyana, while I don't for one moment doubt your good faith, I am nonetheless distressed at the overall thrust of your comments to this thread:WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV Is there anything you would add to this for our purposes here?Proabivouac 08:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly believe in the premise of WP:BLP and removing libel or other information that would be harmful to the project. I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm. Poorly-referenced negative information can already be removed instantly upon coming upon it. In fact, policy demands that we remove such information immediately. My objections in that discussion are based in my objection to sysops taking action outside of policy, outside of process, without on-wiki discussion and against consensus when there are remaining avenues to resolution. My objection is not founded in a slavish devotion to process, but rather a belief that such actions are against the spirit of Wikipedia and disruptive to the project. I believe my responses on ANI and my proposed compromise on WT:BLP elaborate my position.[1][2] If you have further questions or would like further clarification, I would be happy to respond. Vassyana 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly-referenced negative information may also be - and often is - restored immediately, regardless of policy. At that point, process is what - edit-warring? filing an RfC? AfD? None of which solve the immediate problem that we are hosting potentially libelous attacks against living people. I hold that, where there is a conflict between BLP concerns and process, the former must, at least in the short term, trump the latter, even if and when this requires "out of process" deletions and oversights. If there is something that, upon discussion, we feel confident should be restored, then we can restore it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are saying the opposite.Proabivouac 09:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not saying the opposite. If such information is being restored, the page can be edit protected. There is a wide amount of discretion in enforcing BLP, including such edits not counting towards a 3RR violation. If the entire article is nothing but poorly sourced claims, by all means delete it immediately per BLP. Such immediate and unilateral action is specifically sanctioned by policy. At the other end of the article spectrum, it is not at all the place of any sysop to take it upon themselves to act alone in the case of well-referenced articles based on multiple non-trivial reliable sources. I would have far less objection if the BLP watchers at WP:BLP/N and/or fellow sysops at WP:AN were consulted. Unilateral actions on the latter end of the spectrum are not permitted nor encouraged by the letter or spirit of the rules. On the contrary, I believe it to be against the spirit of Wikipedia and expressly harmful to the atmosphere of the project. I hope this clarifies and I will gladly answer any further questions. Vassyana 10:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of personal views on this, I would not think it right to object to this AfD because of differing on this--it is very much an unsettled question, and the views were defended very appropriately (I do agree with the view above myself, but I'd say that even if the candidate thought the opposite.)DGG 04:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
7. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are some cases that require a few spoilers to be discussed in order to effectively discuss the work of fiction. However, I do not believe it is necessary in most cases. Articles about works of fiction do not require complete plot summaries. Memento is a good case in point. The unusual narrative, filming style and movie basis could be discussed without providing spoilers. We should discuss these works, their general content, their style and their notable aspects, but there's no need to turn these articles into a version of Cliff Notes. The templates were a solution to complete plot summaries. However, the real solution is simply staying focused on encyclopedic content not including Cliff-like summaries, rather than an additional template and guideline. Vassyana 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Simply south (talk · contribs)
8. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? If so, why? Simply south 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes, there are and I think everyone probably has a few, until they get over the learning curve of the place. For example, I made edits to Buffalo, NY that were far more appropriate for a travel guide when I first started visiting and editing.[3] Someone was kind enough to take the time to explain what was wrong with my edits and welcome me to the wiki.[4] I'm not proud of it because while it was good writing, it was poor Wikipedia editing. In the end, I caused someone the additional work of cleaning up my acute error. Another example from my early this year would be at Talk:Rush Limbaugh.[5] I advocated for the inclusion of his drug scandal, juxtaposed with his previous harsh comments about drug users. I feel now that was a poor position to take, since it was actively encouraging original research to present a POV. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vassyana before commenting.

Discussion

  • Consensus not numbers: Vassyana's recent controversial statements against some straightforward implementations of the Biographies of living persons policy suggest that he's not yet acculturated to Wikipedia and has been misled by the "anything goes" culture that prevails amongst some newcomers. I don't think he's ready yet. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he'll handle it well. It's more important for admins to be able to listen and learn than it is to do everything perfectly right off the bat. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a point. I withdraw my opposition. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As nom —— Eagle101Need help? 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Glad I saw this. A very civil and helpful user. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Extreme support, with a specific invite to bless our ranks over at WP:MC with a nomination some time...I, for one, would love you to join us over there :) But this is about adminship, and I believe that Vassyana has shown everything I could want in an admin candidate. The ability to interact, be analytical, experience in disputes, and longevity. Daniel 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O:-) --Kim Bruning 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - A very good editor and deserving :)...----Cometstyles 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Change to support from neutral. Any editor that can respond (see strucken out neutral below) in such a civil and efficent fashion will use the tools well. Best Wishes and good luck.Pedro |  Chat  12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
  6. Support. Candidate seems competent, and we need more admins (as the atrocious backlogs at CAT:CSD attest). Waltonalternate account 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Very civil, confident, and level-headed. I see no reason why he wouldn't do well with the tools. —Anas talk? 12:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support demonstrates the right qualities badly needed around Wikipedia. Manderiko 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. First time I ever used the strong in an RfA, and this time I had a good reason. I have interacted with this editor over the last couple of months and found his concern for the project to be most appealing, lending a hand in content disputes in a manner that actually helps, while working to make our encyclopedia better by creating great content. It is not always that I come across a well-rounded Wikipedian, and it will be an honor to have him as a fellow admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - echoing the comments above. WjBscribe 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, Though his edit count may not be the highest, I feel he will properly use the tools. --Random Say it here! 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems like a good, solid candidate with no major issues. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - good work for MEDCAB shows that he will do well in resolving some of the disputes that admins get into. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Hmm...I thought this user was already an administrator. Anyway, all seems fine here. Acalamari 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I agree with Pedro: Though the edit count is rather low, the incredible civility and efficiency shows that the candidate has the capability neeeded in that area. As such, I support. --tennisman sign here! 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support for good communication skills, dedication, and (as per Jossi) devotion to the improvement of the encyclopedia. JavaTenor 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: While I would like to see this user have a bit more experience, the edits this user has made are of a good quality. I do not think this user would abuse the tools.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A good choice. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Vassyana handled a contentious mediation case I was involved with and did so expertly: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska. If he's always as calm and patient as he was in that mediation he'll make a great admin. In my opinion his relatively low edit count primarily reflects the exceptional level of thought that goes into his edits. --JayHenry 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per nom. Everything looks ok. —AldeBaer 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Candidate's edits show maturity and I am very pleased with the level-headed answers the standard Qs and to my question. I am sure he will make a great addition to the admin team. -- Seed 2.0 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per nom. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Tireless contributor, and trustworthy user. Also as nomintator. --eskimospy (talk • contribs • review me) 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I like the way the candidate has answered the questions. Possibly a bit soon but displays so much level headedness that its hard to see them loosing their cool.. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - excellent mediator. Addhoc 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - admin material all the way. Has done some important work in their time here. --Edwin Herdman 00:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Why not? I have seen this user more than once around here, and would make a good asset as an admin. Sr13 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Appears to be a very civil editor with good intentions. Gutworth 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support As usual, I place a great deal of confidence in users who have experience with dispute resolution. The article writing is also a plus. YechielMan 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I must admit, I wrestled with this for a bit, but the user's quality of editing is exceedingly good for their lesser experience in the project. Good luck! Jmlk17 05:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Pssh, editcounters. Full support for this editor and their high quality contributions to Wikipedia. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Since I don't have any arbitrary criteria and the user will make a great admin. Yonatan talk 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--MONGO 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I give very high marks to anyone who displays the kind of coolness and kindness seen here. Add to the fact that participation in MEDCAB demonstrates the ability to tackle tough issues and prickly editors with coolness. Civility is an absolute necessity for an administrator. He'll learn the knobs and buttons but already has what it takes to succeed. JodyB talk 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. SupportSeems like a good nom. I support! •Felix• T 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I'm not Mailer Diablo but I still approve this message! AW 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. There are no concerns on my part and the candidate's behaviour during this RfA has been simply exceptional. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support ^demon[omg plz] 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. The experience of this editor might be a bit low, but he has demonstrated excellent civility, good faith and dispute resolution among other things, so there isn't much to worry about. Great candidate for adminship... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks like a good admin. Captain panda 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sure, I would love to have the user make 1,000 mainspace edits before this RfA. However, I respectively view that as a sort of editcountitis. The spread of edits and the quality of contributions surely make up for the low numbers in places. The user shows knowledge and practice, as well as time well spent. I believe that the user has adequate use for the tools and is trustworthy of the mop and keys. I still only have around 8,000 edits total in a year and a half. But I have several thousand deletions as well as all the other button uses in my logs that don't show up as edits, or are rollbacks. It's about the use of the time, and Vassyana uses it well. Teketalk 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, impressed by work on WT:NPOV and elsewhere. The AN-BLP discussion does show a disturbing concern for process over action, but we all have our imperfections; I see nothing to suggest that the candidate would act inappropriately or against WM interests. -- Visviva 09:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Whats a edit count to do with it? Lmc169 09:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Terence 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I was very impressed with Vassyana's points in a recent discussion on the WP:NPOV Talk page. He's obviously thought deeply and clearly about how Wikipedia can be improved. TimidGuy 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support and I'm frankly disappointed at the trivialness of the opposes below. More recent Opposes provide very valid comments regarding BLP and though unilateral action is often needed to resolve BLP issues, especially amongst those of us with OTRS access but admitting such on an RFA is going to lead to failure, there's just no way you can say "I'll take unilateral action to remove BLP concerns ignoring policy" on an RfA, even though that is often necessary. Nick 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I've no doubt this reasonable an editor will handle admin tasks well. --Fire Star 火星 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Per WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV. I think that sometimes (oftentimes?) admins are completely overzealous in enforcing this policy, to the point where I think "wow, I'm glad I don't write biographies." I think the candidate's opinions even if they really do violate policy (which I am definitely not saying) are the types of well-reasoned, generally calmer opinions that would make me comfortable in tursting this candidate to be an admin. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. This candidate is already doing tasks requiring more responsibility. --Kim Bruning 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support definitely PeaceNT 17:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Very strong support Excellent support as mediator of Fellowship of Friends page. Patiently tried to guide editors to see what he was talking about, and when the arguments continued, he spent what was probably hours creating a sandbox page as an example. Since his involvement, the editors with two very opposite views are treating each other politely most of the time for the first time. He gently leads us to see what needs to be done with no hint of his own POV. We had a previous mediator who did not have the skill needed to mediate an article of this type, nor the consistency to stick with us. Vassyana stays in the background until he's needed (he must check in often to know just when to jump in) and responds quickly to a request for help. He shows discretion and respect at all times. There is nothing I would change. I hope these are some of the traits you are looking for from a mediator.--Moon Rising 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I've seen Vassyana work under very difficult circumstances and agree with Moon Rising's comments. Vassyana is perceptive, neutral and polite.Momento 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Competent and trustworthy. An excellent combination. The Transhumanist    21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Vassyana lent support to me when I was being unfairly blocked. He brought up important ideals of Wikipedia in support and seemed to take these to heart, therefore I support this nomination for adminship. Limin8tor 07:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, clearly gets it in regard to major policy issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Good user. Reasons for opposition are ridiculous. --- RockMFR 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, as I see no reason to validate the claims that the candidate does not understand WP:BLP. --Spike Wilbury 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Thoughtful answers, including Q6 and the follow up discussion in the oppose section. I understand and I do not dismiss the opposers' concerns, but I think Vassyana has been most reasonable in reply. I see a constructive and deliberative editor, who may be right or wrong but either way is open to discussion. No worries. ··coelacan 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support While my experience of Vassyana is limited to one article (Prem Rawat) he has been a source of great support for the project progressing to GA status. It can not have been easy, as feelings run high. I am too new to WP to grasp all the procedural implications, but Vassyana clearly understands the human dimension, and that, in the long run, is surely what it is all about. I am as sure as I can be that he will prove a great admin. Rumiton 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. I hate to oppose b/c Vassyana seems like a really good editor, but only 757 mainspace edits [6] is too low for me. When this is combined with Vassyana only being active since the start of 2007, I'm inclined to oppose. But if Vassyana keeps up the great work for a few more months, I'd definitely support. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am changing my oppose to neutral. While I still believe that Vassyana needs more experience and should make more edits to the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia, the debate around my opinion is distracting from this RfA and may give people the opinion that I have a grudge against Vassyana. (which I don't). As such, I am removing my oppose. However, doing so doesn't change my views of Vassyana needing more experience before becoming an admin.--Alabamaboy 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange. At the time of your RfA, you had fairly similar amounts of experience. Did you think you were not trustworthy enough to have the additional buttons? Is there anything in Vassyana's edits that gives you pause regarding this candidate other than pure edit counting? Vassyana now has 774 mainspace edits. Is that enough? Would 798 do? What about 1400? 712,363,124,123? --Durin 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durin, though I do not agree with Alabamaboy's reasoning, sarcasm is slightly less than helpful ... oh, wait, was that sarcastic? Sorry. I also want to note that Alabamaboy's RfA was in 2005. Having 750 edits when the average is 250 is different from having 750 when the average is 500. In case you're wondering, those numbers are completely made-up. Over time, the average number of edits made by regular/active editors has increased. I personally don't think that has any meaning – an edit is an edit, no matter when it was made – but that's just my personal viewpoint. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to discussion page. --Durin 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2,000 edits is the rough number considered to be enough to judge a person's admin qualifications. I think the distribution of edits is good in this regard, and shows us performance across the spectrum and not just in one namespace. I would have been worried if there were no discussion edits, because then we wouldn't be able to see how this user handles herself. The Transhumanist    21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, standards have risen in the last two years. If I'd come up for an RfA today with the level of experience I had in 2005, I doubt I'd be approved. I believe this rising of standards is due to the fact that Wikipedia grows in complexity every year. Just as an article which would have been a featured article in 2005 might not even qualify as a good article today, so too have the standards people judge admins by changed. As I stated, I'm also concerned that Vassyana has only been actively editing for a few months. Still, Vassyana seems like a good editor and I'd support in a few more months. --Alabamaboy 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Alabamaboy. However, you've maintained your position with respect to Vassyana's edit counts, and have still not provided any evidence that Vassyana can not be trusted with the tools. Is there anything in this nominee's editing history that gives you pause? Could you please provide diffs? Anything? Vassyana now has 778 mainspace edits. Is this enough? What is the magic number for you, and more importantly...why? What is it about "Magic Number" that would make Vassyana acceptable, but "Magic Number - 1" not acceptable? --Durin 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a "magic number." The numbers I gave were just to illustrate that I believe Vassyana doesn't yet have the experience needed to be an admin, especially considering how little time he's spent actually building the encyclopedia (as opposed to editing talk pages and mediating disputes, activities which are also important but, to me, not as important as actually creating content). The issue isn't the number--it's that less than a quarter of Vassyana's edits have been to mainspace. This means Vassyana spends more time at Wikipedia in discussions and other secondary affairs than actually creating content. That troubles me.--Alabamaboy 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you don't have any diffs to indicate that Vassyana is not trustworthy? --Durin 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have I done something wrong by saying Vassyana needs a little more experience? Others here (including Tony Sidaway) have stated the same thing, but I don't see them being endlessly questioned about their opinion. I am extremely tired of repeating myself here. I think Vassyana is a good editor who needs more experience and I'd support him for admin in a few months.--Alabamaboy 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can not reconcile is that you claim he is a good editor, are seemingly incapable of generating any diffs to show that this nominee can not be trusted with the tools...yet the tools should not be granted. This is non-sensical. I'm trying to evoke something out of you that supports this seeming significant contradiction. That, plus the fact this editor has similar experience to you when you went up for admin, and the only response is standards have changed...rather than actually looking at this editor's abilities and performance. It just doesn't make any sense. All I can conclude is that you are absorbed with editcountitis and refuse to look at this editor's contributions. --Durin 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among the diffs which made me question Vassyana's experience are [7], where Vassyana says "Editcountitis, "as per user X", no reasons given and similar "shallow" !votes simply should not count" with regards to RfAs (there is nothing shallow about agreeing with a previous editor's comment in an RfA), and most disturbingly, Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Criticism_and_controversy_sections, where Vassyana says "Are criticism and controversy sections in articles in harmony with the principles of NPOV? Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject? It is my opinion that the answer to both questions is a resounding 'Yes'. The fact that Vassyana has so little understanding of NPOV concerns me. While the vigorous debate that followed Vassyana's comment on that talk page did eventually reach a consensus, that doesn't remove my concerns about Vassyana's views on NPOV (a concern other editors in that discussion also raised). That said, I believe this issue (like the BLP issues other editors raised) arises from Vassyana's inexperience, not from any deep-rooted issues. So as I've said before, Vassyana simply needs more experience. Also, please see my note above (just under my original comment).--Alabamaboy 00:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I was inclined to support until I noticed the very low mainspace edits. Encyclopaedia-building is central to any administrator in my mind, whatever "specialty" they may decide upon. I appreciate the user's work in MedCab and believe that it is often an excellent qualification for an effective administrator, and I hope to see Vassyana back in a few months. TewfikTalk 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me asking, how is this going to make Vassyana a poor administrator? Is there any evidence to show that the user doesn't understand policy? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short of knowing the user myself, I can only issue judgement based on certain diagnostic criteria. Generally speaking, such a minimal involvement in the encyclopaedia "part" of WP [the free encyclopaedia, which everything else only serves] raises major questions about the user's experience and ability to deal with mainspace issues as an admin. Again, more involvement would change my mind. TewfikTalk 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, I do understand what your saying, and normally it may be a problem, but with all Vassyana's work for MEDCAB, I think it shows that he(?) would clearly be able to handle mainspace issues. The mediation work that he does gives clear evidence that he can step into some of the most complex article problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look past numbers or what? Vassyana has done plenty of work on articles relating to religion, both in terms of writing and discussion. Clearly if you'd looked past number count you'd have noticed this - and the amount Vassyana has isn't even low... Majorly (talk | meet) 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally when I vote "not enough editing in mainspace", it's because I believe administrators need to know how to handle disputes that arise around mainspace articles. I respectfully submit that Vassyana's fantastic and prolific work mediating article disputes alleviates this concern. Daniel 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with Daniel, Majorly and Ryan on this point, per the answer to Seed 2.0's questions which, I feel, demonstrate a maturity which is ideal in an admin candidate. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose per WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV. Nothing personal, but protecting innocent people from harm by Wikipedia comes first. Per above, the relative dearth of mainspace edits is also a problem.Proabivouac 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you may have misunderstood my position. I fully support protecting innocent people from libel and harm, I simply feel there is no need to circumvent both consensus and policy to do so.[8][9] However, I accept the possibility my position may be untenable to you and I respect that, even if we disagree. Vassyana 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no personal disrespect here at all. However, I do find your position inadequate: inappropriate material about innocent private citizens must be deleted today - as in immediately - not a week from today. If someone then wishes to discuss whether or not to restore it, that's fine, but defaulting to publish while the issue is being decided, and in the absence of consensus, is unacceptable: when in doubt, we must refrain from the possibility that we are harming innocent people. Your stance, while I don't doubt its sincerity, suggests to me that Wikipedia process is more salient to you.Proabivouac 09:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This shows a deep misunderstanding of the BLP policy. If you feel that removing such material immediately is not per the letter and intent of WP:BLP, you grossly misunderstand it - David Gerard 09:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Removed {{fact}} statement without supplying sources and without apology or admission of mistake. [10] Also made a understandable but very misguided complaint about me without apologizing after explanations. The two arbcom members who commented rejected his complaint. [11] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_BabaAndries 16:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose seems to think BLP is simply a matter of preventing libel [12].--Docg 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Doc - that's extremely worrying and not at all the level of comprehension an admin needs. It's a fairly simple matter but an important one - David Gerard 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Doc, David. I know this editor pretty well and I can say with conviction that you may have misinterpreted his comments at BLP. I invite you to explore these issues with the user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His replies in this oppose section to others give me little hope of this - if he honestly thinks defaulting to removing stuff about living persons is in any way against policy (c.f. WP:BLP), or that a claim of WP:CONSENSUS can override it, he does not understand the living bio policy well enough. I understand you and Kim consider him highly clue-attracting otherwise, but I'm not seeing it on this matter - David Gerard 09:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, sorry. Nice person, but Q6 is the clincher. BLP is so not about libel. Defamation applies to all articles, BLP is about the real and immense effect WP can have on real people's lives. We are bigger than big, we are probably not going away, and this is the single biggest issue facing Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my position on BLP may have been misunderstood, and that I may have communicated poorly in that regard. I do not believe that BLP is exclusively about libel, but I believe defamation is a large and central concern of BLP. Certainly, if I were the subject of a Wikipedia article that would be my own primary concern regarding the content. I would certainly care a world more about a false claim that I was arrested for male prostitution and meth possession than if the article said I had four dogs, instead of four cats. So to me, concerns of libel, defamation and related issues are of top priority regarding BLP, because those issues will cause the greatest harm to the subject and the greatest harm to the project. My two examples are the extremes, but I do appreciate how more "subtle" bias can be harmful to a subject. The best summary of my position was given in my answer to Q6: "I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm." If anyone has questions that could help evaluate my understanding of BLP, or clarify my position, feel free to ask. Vassyana 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest problem is not libel, it's damage to people's lives. Having a Wikipedia article created about you is frequently a curse. Furthermore, your statements on BLP at WP:ANI suggest that WP:BLP is susceptible to being outvoted by WP:CONSENSUS, which is evidently something different to actual "consensus" as the word is used by the rest of the world - David Gerard 09:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Alabamaboy. Quadzilla99 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually checked the mainspace contribs that Vassyana has made? You'll be surprised at the quality of them. Also - have you checked the MEDCAB works that he does showing a firm ability to resolve disputes - which essentially your saying he wouldn't be able to do by having few mainspace edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as Doc. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Doc and David. Phil Sandifer 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per concerns related to BLP. --After Midnight 0001 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now. I'm really sorry to mention edit counter here, but it is a touch low, and more importantly seems to have been made up of a sudden bust of activity. Is four months editing really enough to have a firm grasp of the policies and culture? Everything else looks great, and the answers to Q1 are model, but the experience level troubles me. Pedro |  Chat  11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have, if that would help ease your concerns. If you would still be unsure, I understand. Vassyana 12:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admin material answer - I don't need anything further - switched to support as above. Pedro |  Chat  12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. This might be a temporary stance. I'm concerned that Vassyana just started editing three or four months ago. That, in itself, is not a reason to oppose, but if you have a chance, could you address this point? Orangemarlin 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - This may be one of these cases in which quality trumps quantity, Orangemarlin. I have seen many editors with tens of thousands of edits that do not show the maturity that this user has demonstrated, and the understanding of the principles upon which this project is based. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people "get it" in a short period, while others have been around a while and still don't quite "get it". If you have questions that would help you make a determination, I would be happy to answer them. Vassyana 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemarlin, I agreed (past tense) exactly with your worries, hence my initial neutral. However the level headed responses and contributions, and the genuinely pleasent and thoughtful conduct in the RfA so far, makes me feel the Vassyana deserves our trust. If he believes this demotion will help then good on him IMHO.Pedro |  Chat  21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm going to remain neutral, even though I agree with the three points above. First, quality definitely trumps quantity by a huge margin. And I agree that Vassyana has shown lots of quality. But sometimes it takes a lot of edits before trends start to appear, both positive or negative. However, the level-headed responses are big plus. I'm 85% sure Vassyana will make a great admin. The other 15% results from time, meaning maybe a circumstance could crop up to cause someone to go ballistic online--it has happened! I'm new at this, and I want to make sure my votes are well-considered. Orangemarlin 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your desire to be cautious. Thank you for your well-thought consideration. Vassyana 03:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Off Topic The quality of consideration, respect and opinion in this RfA gives me considerable confidence in the process - it's rare to see such informed and well thought out statements from all sides. Pedro |  Chat  11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - While I do think Vassyana has good potential, and for the most part is a polite and respectful editor, I do have to also agree with those that brought up the few number of mainspace edits issues, as well as the valid points brought up above by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), and David Gerard (talk · contribs), in their "Oppose" comments. Smee 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Neutral The concerns I expressed in the oppose section are still valid. But the continual debate over my opinion was both irritating and distracting from this RfA.--Alabamaboy 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vassyana&oldid=134286836"