View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atlant

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Atlant

[edit]

Final (44/4/0) Ended Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:17:28 UTC

Atlant (talk · contribs) – Atlant has been editing Wikipedia for nearly two years. He has contributed and created articles over a wide range of topics. He has also been an effective vandal fighter.[1] Always civil and courteous, he remains cool in resolving disputes while also maintaining a sense of humor (see talk for New England). An asset to the project; giving him the mop would be an added benefit. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber, thank you very much for this vote of confidence! Yes, I'd be happy to accept this nomination.
During my roughly two years working on the project, I've been very impressed with the rapid accumulation of knowledge that the encyclopedia represents, and I'm pleased to have been a contributor to that progress in ways both big and small. If my nomination is successful, I believe I'll come to the task of being an administrator with a balanced view of what more we can accomplish in the future and how we can best work together to reach these accomplishments.
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I have a demonstrated record working against vandalism, both in corecting articles and in using the established Wiki processes to warn and take action against vandals; I'd certainly expect to continue that work. Also, as a WikiGnome, I've been trying to do my share of productive work in the article space, performing cleanup, Wikification, addition of context and cross-links, dabbing, and the like, and I'd expect to continue doing that sort of work as well. Finally, as I learn the ropes, I'd be happy to take on such tasks that are new to me and need doing, perhaps starting with helping out with handling the speedies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I try to make positive contributions at five different levels:
  • Creating new articles: Countertop, Rotary converter, and Lake Champlain Transportation Company are typical examples. I'm especially pleased when an article that I've started is seized upon by many editors and expanded; it shows that the topic was truly needed.
  • Major clean-up of existing articles: Lately, Sink is a nice example of my work. After long periods of undergoing many small edits, articles often need a sort of "combing-out" edit to re-organize the accreted changes.
  • Minor clean-ups (grammar, formatting, spelling, etc.) in countless articles.
  • Creation of redirects, allowing folks to find existing articles more-easily.
  • Aiding other Wikipedians via the talk pages.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had the sorts of editing disagreements that everyone here has. My strategies for dealing with them are:
  • If it's no big deal, I walk away. To split or not split an infinitive is of no consequence in the grand scheme of things. Other editors will always be coming along behind me.
  • If it matters to me and I think I'm right, I try to persuade my opponent, using external references and citations if appropriate. If that fails and I still think I'm right, I may appeal for community consensus.
  • If I'm (eventually?) convinced that I'm wrong, I admit it, apologizing if necessary.
To date, I have never participated in any of the Wikipedia formal dispute resolution processes, either as the bringer or target of the process (or even as an intervener, I think).

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ignore All Rules is a useful metarule for dealing with those situations that simply don't fit into the existing rules. We can't be so bureaucratic as to codify every last bit of behavior and policy so we depend on people's inherent good sense. (People do have good sense, don't they? Well, except for the kids in school study halls all around the world who vandalize Wikipedia.) And IAR is simply an appeal to that good sense.
The snowball clause is a good guideline for suppressing long, arduous votes that can only lead to rancor and hard feelings in the aftermath, but it should not be applied as a way to steamroll through a decision that would not have broad community support.

Question from ais523

5. Mathbot had to go back to March 2005 to find 150 minor edits. When do you mark an edit as minor, and how many of these edits do you think you make?
A: I generally don't use the "minor edit" flag, either when I myself am making edits or when I'm evaluating the edits that others have made. I think the "minor" flag has been used by some to hide too many sins (vandalism, snarky PoV insertion, etc.). For example, one could remove a single "not", completely reversing the meaning of a sentence, yet flag the edit as "minor".

Question from User:Mcginnly

6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As a newbie admin, I don't think it would be my place for quite a while to block an established user. But I do note that users, even long-term users, have been known to go off the deep end once in a while, so I could envision a time in the future when, with consultation from other admins, I would reluctantly block an established user. (Note that I'm referring to longish-term blocks. I'm a firm believer in WP:3RR and would have no particular compunctions against enforcing the mandatory short-term blocks called for under that rule.)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. DavidWBrooks 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Kafziel Talk 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom —Malber (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. In all my interactions with Atlant, I've found him very knowledgeable and helpful. If I recall correctly, he's one of the first people I encountered here and he made a good impression on my newbie self. I'm pleased to support him for adminship. Syrthiss 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, has sufficient experience to become an admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I find Atlant to be a competent user capable of making level-headed responses even under pressure. >Radiant< 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. The opposition has not presented any hard evidence that this user will irreparably damage the encyclopedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Michael 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good edit history and experience. We need more dedicated vandal-fighting admins like this. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. People are taking the IAR comment way too seriously. NauticaShades 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Nauticashades. He seems to be a good vandal fighter. Hello32020 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm going to IAR and vote support here, since this seems like a solid, well-experienced user who's well intentioned and I do not think they will they will abuse SNOW or IAR or ROTFLOL or TTYL. Themindset 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I like the response to question 4. I don't think Atlant would abuse IAR and I really can't get very worried about possible variations in the length of time it takes to delete someone's vanity article. Opabinia regalis 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I think he's adequately responded to the concerns about IAR so I don't think he'll abuse it. Apart from that, a well deserving editor. james(talk) 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I like the answers to the questions, especially to 4,5, & 6. --Muéro(talk/c) 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support meets my standards.-- danntm T C 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - per good answers to the questions --T-rex 04:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Merovingian ※ Talk 05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Duk 06:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support Per the above and the fact that he lives nearby to me -- the more admins nearby to help local editors and topics, the better. An asset to the encyclopedia. People Powered 09:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -Strongly--Perfect answers shows that, user will have a good judgement on all areas in wiki.Good luck to you. Mustafa Akalp 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Stance on IAR is perfect. JBKramer 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Answer to question 4 appears rational and moderate to me, so no objections here. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I like the way this user responded to the questions and the opposes seem to me to be based on opposition to the official policy and unfairly penalising the candidate for indicating support for existing policy. This project needs more admins who are concerned to follow consensus rather than their personal interpretation of what is right. --Spartaz 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support lots of being helpful at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is more important than 100% edit summaries or views on an essay such as WP:SNOW. Addhoc 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. In my experience with Atlant, I found him to be reasonable in confronting POV-pushing editors. I believe Atlant has demonstrated sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to weild the tools, and I don't see an over-reliance on IAR in the response to question 4 at all (I would oppose if I thought otherwise). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Although I am a bit concerned about attitude toward WP:IAR and WP:SNOW, I believe that the user can be trusted and will be a responsible admin. Nishkid64 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - we need more hands at CAT:CSD. Things can be undeleted. Speedies can be undeleted with minimal discussion (they were deleted with minimial discussion, after all). I don't see a danger. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Good answers, seems to have a good understanding of the place. Charlie MacKenzie 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Candidate has established a trust among the community and has obviously been a dedicated volunteer to the project. I'm a bit concerned with the candidate potentially using the snowball essay, but we have deletion review, so no big deal hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Great user, opposers are not compelling to me. -- RM 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Sensible understanding of rules and how they relate to good judgement, has been around for long enough that I recall him w/o having any negative impressions. I would strongly prefer that people who support our SNOW/IAR policies be admins rather than vice-versa - I hope candidate will be bold when needed WRT these. --Improv 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I am familiar with Atlant's editing and record. I think Atlant's down to earth and common sense approach to editing and dealing with people is what we need. I see his views on IAR as just an indicator of not just blindly applying the rules as maybe some admins do. He seems very patient and courteous with editors with whom he has had disagreements, and if he retains these qualities under the pressure of a new, and somewhat difficult, set of tasks, I think will make a wise Admin. Short circuiting of discussions( as in WP:SNOW), I think we can leave to Atlants judgement. He has a mature approach to these things I think.--Light current 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Great editor, I won't bother regurgitating all the above comments. Archer7 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. --Interiot 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Shows good judgement. Dryman 13:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support—After reading Atlant’s responses and looking through a subset of edits, although I can see how some might be uncomfortable, I believe we have a sufficient track record that we can trust Atlant to delete/undelete/block/unblock. An ancillary value of the Wikipedia RfA process is that it spotlights emerging issues. Badlydrawnjeff ‘s opposition and the discussion on WP:IAR revealed a debate on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming that I’d missed. Doubt that we need to brainstorm IAR since the suggestions on how to ignore all rules is already pretty good—especially as guidance for Admins, but… Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support without any hesitation. CWC(talk) 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I like him, but he once removed a statement I made on a talk page because it alledgedly was racist. On second thought, it was the right thing to do. -Lapinmies 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. As someone also wary of folks casually abusing WP:IAR, I think his response on the WP:IAR question is very reasonable and does not portend the sort of problems this RfA's opponents have expressed concern about. --A. B. 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per question 4 answer. Seems too willing to depend on IAR and SNOW, which worries me for administrative actions, especially as he wants to work with the speedies in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note for the record that WP:IAR is, after all, an official policy of Wikipedia and not a suggestion or guideline, so as an administrator, I should certainly be willing to rely on that policy! Atlant 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This response prompts me to consider a strong oppose. IAR is very specific in its usage, and your willingness to rely on the policy worries me. We have plenty of processes that do not do harm to the encyclopedia, and when you say "IAR is simply an appeal to that good sense" along with this response and your acceptance of WP:SNOW, it tells me you have minor interest in keeping from rocking the boat. Given the issues at WP:CSD considering the expansion of A7 and the way G11 has been handled by people, there's absolutely no reason to be treating IAR as something to rely on, but rather something to assist in very rare and clear situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always wondered what the difference is between an "oppose" and a "strong oppose". Do closing bureaucrats really take adjectives into account? Anyway, I think you're taking his reply the wrong way. He never said it was to be relied on constantly. Just in "those situations that simply don't fit into the existing rules". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, after all. Kafziel Talk 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if they do, but it couldn't hurt to be explicitly clear. Meanwhile, in terms of use of IAR, I've seen a grand total of one proper use of the clause in my year and a half editing, and it still could have been dealt with within our policies without causing irreparable or short term harm to the project. A willingness to use it does not bode well for someone who wants to use the tools, especially in the context of recent changes in one of his areas of interest, CSD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As you look at all of my edits, do you actually find that I've mis-applied WP:IAR? In fact, do you find that I've ever ignored the rules, let alone ignored all rules? Atlant 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only look at it in terms of how you plan to exercise your new tools in the future. I can't see what you've tagged for deletion, and if you're saying you've applied IAR in the past, it leads me to believe that you may not, in fact, know how to properly use it, as legitimate applications are very rare. Have any you'd like to share? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can read my reply above as suggesting that it's pretty rare when I ignore any rule, let alone all rules. I even edit dab articles to include only one "blue link" per line, even though I strongly disagree with that style guideline. Atlant 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear that, at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With specific regard to your concern about my work on speedies, as you look at my edit history, do you find that you disagree with any of the instances where I've tagged an article for consideration as a "speedy"? Atlant 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see deleted edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to see the articles themselves; if the articles that my edit history shows I've marked as candidates for "Speedy" aren't there (or were re-created starting new after my edit), that probably makes my point that they were valid candidates. Atlant 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent experience with A7 and G11 tells me that it's hardly the case. I'm more interested in finding out what you felt was worthy of a speedy rather than what you tagged and another sympathetic admin agreed with. If your judgement and the admin's was poor, promoting you means having two poor decision makers with the tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're on record as opposing my nomination -- I accept that. But please don't try and tar me with some set of hypotheticals to which I am no party at all. As I've suggested, the best way to assess what I deem worthy of speedy deletion is to see where I've applied the tags in the past (and commonly, the article title alone is enough data to reach a valid conclusion). Atlant 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Jeff and not enough use of edit summarys. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the main article space, in the template space, and in the meta space, I essentially always provide an audit trail comment (as others have noted) -- this is what 30 years of software engineering experience teaches you. I am guilty as charged of not always providing a talk space comment, especially when the edit I'm making is simply to add my own comment. But I think most talk page comments are pretty-well "self-documenting", and when I'm doing more than adding my own comments, I try very hard to add a comment. (And you're correct, I don't use the "+" tab.) Atlant 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that this has been called to my attention, I've been "watching myself" and I've noticed that the main time I tend to omit edit summaries is on talk pages where I've just posted a vandalism warning template but screwed it up; I'll go back and make some minor edit (like turning a "|" into a ":" or a "testn" into a "test-n") but fail to comment on my edit to fix my screw-up. I'm now trying to retrain myself. Atlant 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Malber's right about the summaries; if you check the counter output on the talk page, you'll find the 'no edit summary' values are pretty low for someone with so many edits. --ais523 12:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Editor has among his supporters some of the most marvelous Wikipedians I know, so I don't take this lightly; however, editor's flippant attitude toward IAR in conversation with Jeff is disturbing. It may be policy, but it is a subtle and deep policy by its own terms. Heavy reliance on it is a dangerous trait in an admin. I am open to persuasion on this RfA, but I was not impressed by editor's response so far. By the way, any user of IAR should remember: 1) it is always possible to apply the rule to itself, and ignore its existence; and 2) Wikipedia:Interpret all rules now exists, a much better formulation of the virtues of IAR, IMO. Xoloz 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is my last post here because it's not my RfA and I don't want to be one of those annoying people who constantly pester dissenting voters in polls. I just want to say that I think it's weird how those words have been put into Atlant's mouth. If you look at his response to the question, he doesn't say he'll "rely" on it, or "depend" on it or anything else. The people with the oppose votes are using those words. Atlant says it's for careful use (using good sense) in rare situations (which are not specifically codified). This has essentially turned into a semantic argument about whether relying on something means using it all the time or simply being willing to use it when the need arises. Semantics shouldn't be a basis for opposition; he's made his stance about IAR pretty clear. He should be judged on his record, not on the wording of oppose votes from other editors. Kafziel Talk 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, above, I did say "WP:IAR is, after all, an official policy of Wikipedia ... so I should certainly be willing to rely on that policy!", but as you observed, that still doesn't say I'd be applying it, let alone applying it willy-nilly. But when you look at the talk pages of the folks who are using my answer regarding WP:IAR as a reason to oppose my nomination, it's clear that IAR has strong opponents here. It's unfortunate that I'm being made into a tool for their opposition, though. Atlant 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that in the comments section, though, not as part of your response to question #4. You only said it after someone else accused you of it. And the question of semantics remains: I took your use of "rely" to mean that if the need arises you would be willing to rely on the policy to back you up, not that you would rely on it like a crutch to help you with every decision (which seems to be how all the "oppose" votes are taking it). Looking at your history, it's obvious you don't plan to use IAR at all, much less as a constant source of inspiration. As I said, "rely" is a poor choice of wording, but you weren't the one who chose it. Kafziel Talk 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Atlant 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly promise that I'm not using you as a "tool" for my opposition to anything here. My opposition to your adminship is not because of my opposition to IAR, but rather how I feel you've described how you would use it. That sort of assumption of my motices in my opinion here is not warranted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In his first comment, which raised my "red flags", editor said,
    "I'll note for the record that WP:IAR is, after all, an official policy of Wikipedia and not a suggestion or guideline, so as an administrator, I should certainly be willing to rely on that policy!"
    This initial attitude concerns, and later refinements mean little to me, until editor understands that his first statement, while not false, was ill-considered in its bravado. Xoloz 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bravado"? You don't know me very well, do you? Nor does it appear that you've taken the time to look at any of my work here on the project.Atlant 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admitted as much, and said I was open to change (especially given my high respect for your supporters); however, your unwillingness to admit that the statement was ill-considered is not helpful. I don't need to look at any other evidence, if the candidate demonstrates bad judgment right in front of me. If you were to say, "Gee, I unintentionally stepped on a land-mine -- obviously IAR is more controversial than I thought, and I'll be very, very deliberate and spare in using it", I'd retract my oppose. If you continue to defend a problematic statement, I'll continue to oppose. The tone of your response suggests you don't know me well, either! :) Xoloz 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "...I'll be very, very deliberate and spare in using it"
    I've already said as much in my reply to badlydrawnjeff, above. Atlant 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't quite get my point, I guess. I'll put it this way: when you answered Jeff, were you aware that IAR is probably the single most provocative, controversial policy we have? If you were aware of that, why answer so... simplistically? If you weren't aware of that, I'm concerned about your familiarity with policy. With respect, the original answer was a poor one, so I am justifiably curious about the thought process that motivated it. Xoloz 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the premise of your question. WP:IAR is far from the most controversial policy around here. (For example, whether people here are willing to speak of it or not, I think you'd find that the question of allowing or limiting anonymous editing is far more contentious, as is the question of recognizing the expertise of editors within their fields of expertise.) Nearly every organization has some form of the IAR policy. Perhaps one of the most famous way of stating it was R. Adm. Grace Hopper's: "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission." The real world depends upon such lubricating principles or it would grind to a halt almost instantly. Atlant 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to disagree, but that does nothing to alter my concerns. You might have addressed my concern while still disagreeing with the premise, but you chose to "duck the question." Every organisation, including US federal courts, does have a mechanism allowing administrative flexibility, that's true -- very few of those are as, and as often-misapplied, as our IAR. For whatever reason, from my perspective, you appear "out-of-touch" with a fundamental issue of great contention in Wikipedia. I must oppose you for that reason. It doesn't appear that you've thought very hard about IAR; and yet, you are willing to broach the matter in an RfA. In my experience, this is a recipe for a disruptive "rouge admin." Your relative evasiveness in addressing my concerns is also not a good sign. Xoloz 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per badlydrawnjeff. 1ne 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.