Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acalamari: Difference between revisions

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

Final: (40/28/14); ended 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari (talk · contribs) - Self-nomination: I have decided to nominate myself for adminship because I hope to be of more use to the Wikipedia community. There are tasks I’d like to do but can’t, as I don’t have the abilities to do so. I am aware that self-nomination is rare, and possibly frowned upon as well.

I have been registered with Wikipedia since October 19/20 of 2006. I was barely active during October and November, and I admit I made a load of mistakes during that time. Since December, however, I have contributed greatly to the encyclopedia; and during that month, I started to improve my editing skills. I have made nearly 4800 edits, and I should be at 5000 within the next three or four days.

Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I will keep a positive view; if the RfA is successful, then I will work with the admin tools; if not, I will consider the RfA to be a large-scale editor review (I hope that is the right attitude to take). Also, if I do become an admin, I will welcome questioning of any block, deletion, edit, etc; that I do. Acalamari 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. Acalamari 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 participants:

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

A: I, like most admins, will do work at AIV. However, I’d like to do more with WP:CSD, as during my time here, I’ve encountered many nonsense pages that were up for speedy deletion; and I’ve wanted to delete them, but couldn’t. I have tagged several pages for speedy deletion as well, as I do check the newpage list, and I will continue to go through the list. I always read the content of a page tagged for speedy deletion in case the tag is inappropriate, but I haven’t come across any misplaced tags yet.

As I have been autoblocked a few times (ask Luna Santin), I’ll help at the requests for unblock/unblock-auto. I have declined unblocks before, but mainly to users who have abused the requests for unblock. However, it’s unfortunate when I’ve come across a user who’s been autoblocked, and I can’t grant the unblock; so I’ve had no choice but to leave the request alone.

Once I’m more familiar with the admin tools, I’d like to help at WP:RFPP and WP:AN/3RR. I’m interested in page protections, so it would be nice to help there; and since I did break 3RR once (in December, sorry), I’d like to help at that part of the admin tasks, too.

I want to say this for users who may have concerns over me when it comes to usernames: I will be extremely cautious over blocks over usernames. Unless I am absolutely sure a username violates policy (such as Shitknocker36 or Timshithead), I will bring it to WP:RFCN. However, I don’t go name-hunting now; mainly because there’s more to Wikipedia than scouting out usernames.

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

A: There are several contributions that I am proud of; I am pleased with all the work I have done to Fergie (singer), Paris Hilton, and Anna Nicole Smith. I have worked especially hard on tidying up Fergie (singer), and as a result, I have over 200 edits to the article about her. I’ve done a lot of fixing and vandal fighting to Paris Hilton. With Anna Nicole Smith, I began to edit that article when I heard about her death. Since then, I have worked on the page to keep it free of vandalism, jokes, and made-up information.

I’ve also worked on The Pussycat Dolls, Christina Aguilera, Aly & AJ, List of Starfleet ship classes, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E), and Nicky Hilton. I’ve helped improve several sections on The Pussycat Dolls and Christina Aguilera by fixing and correcting references, removing vandalism, and generally helping to keep the article clean. I’ve worked on Aly & AJ pretty much ever since I’ve been here; and with the List of Starfleet Ship Classes and the Enterprise-E, I’ve done a lot of fiddly bits of work on them; though I did settle a dispute over the Enterprise-E’s maximum warp speed.

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 can think of only three major cases:

My first “stress” case was probably when I got blocked for 3RR in mid-December. However, that block encouraged me to do better work on Wikipedia instead of edit war. The edit war probably led to the mediation I was involved in over Aly & AJ. A user insisted their genre was “Christian Pop” while a user called King Bee, and I, maintained that their genre was “Teen Pop.” The mediation lasted for about two weeks, with the user saying that they were Christian Pop peacefully agreeing that he his information was wrong, and that Teen Pop was right. King Bee and I, as well as the mediator, Alan.ca, graciously accepted the end of the mediation.

Another major conflicts were when I ended up getting into discussions with two trolls, Dr. Stephen J. Krune III, and later, Rosemary2003. Krune was originally a user I welcomed, and then became blocked for incivility, and Rosemary2003 was a user who launched personal attacks against ChrisGriswold, some other users, and myself. At the time, I thought I was helping ChrisGriswold, but I was only making the situation worse. I now make sure I follow WP:DENY.

The other major incident was the banning of Starwars1955. This user continually edit warred with King Bee and Aviper2k7 over an article over a football player called Brett Favre. The user had tons of sockpuppets, and was extremely uncivil. King Bee, Aviper2k7, and an admin called MrDarcy, continued to deal with this user. I monitored the situation. In the end, there was a call for a community ban, and I helped support the ban. In fact, Starwars1955 even supported the ban using one of their sockpuppets. Even though this situation didn't affect me too much, I did get involved, which is why I feel it's worth noting here.

4. Optional question from Kyoko: In your answer to Q1, you state "I have declined unblocks before, but mainly to users who have abused the requests for unblock." Would you care to explain this further, because it was my impression as a non-admin, you wouldn't have the authority to decline requests for unblocking. I don't involve myself much in anti-vandalism efforts, so I might simply be ignorant of what's permitted in this matter, or misinterpreting what you meant. An explanation would be appreciated, anyway. Thanks. --Kyoko 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only deny unblocks when I see a user continually requesting unblock, and getting it denied. Unblock abuse is when a user who has been denied an unblock the once continues to request an unblock. I carefully review unblock situations before declining the unblock. As I cannot unblock users, it would be unfair to deny an innocent user an unblock; which is why I leave autoblocks alone. Normally those who abuse unblocks have few edits; so a review takes a short amount of time. Before this RfA, at least two admins knew I had denied unblocks: Yamla and Gamaliel. They should both remember the messages I left them about unblocks. I hope this answers your question. Acalamari 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Acalamari's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - I have seen this editor around. Remains civil from what I have seen and has good answers i think, especially to number 1. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Interacted with Acalamari prior, very civil, very trustable. Matthew 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - a nice self nomination, no major problems here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - A very good editor and communicator. Very good usage of edit summaries. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I've had numerous interactions with Acalamari and believe him to be a very mature and sound editor. I do not believe he will misuse the tools if he is granted them and will do quite a fine job.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Acalamari is a very polite young chap, sets his foot into admin territory, and from personal experience with him, he would be very conservative with the tools - certainly no misuse Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support good user who is not likely to abuse the tools. - Anas ^talk? 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support The candidate has disclosed his past mistakes, and has learned from them. YechielMan 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - very civil user with sufficient experience. Addhoc 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support per his own nom :). Yuser31415 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yep. Great self-nom and answers, great record... Looks good to me. Grandmasterka 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, looks like a thoughtful and conscientious editor. User:Timshithead --Mus Musculus 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I agree with most of what was said above, but also, it is nice to see someone willing to admit to wanting to be cautious with the tools early on. --Selket ^Talk 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - I do like how Acalamari strives to be civil with others. With his experience and his need for the tools, he will make a fine admin. -- Jreferee 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Super admin candidate. Really nice editor. Acalamari is civil and endeavours to be as fair as possible. Never fails to reach out to help newbies. He's an all-round nice guy! - Alison^☺ 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support great answers to questions, and a really nice person, should make a fantastic admin. – Riana ^ঋ 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Neutral. – Riana ^ঋ 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support, superior editor with very precise answers to questions. Has a good understanding of what it takes to become an administrator, won't abuse tools. Keep it up, Acalamari! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Acalamari appears to keep a level head, understand admin duties and responsibilities, and does good work in general. I see nothing which leads me to believe there would be any abuse of the additional abilities. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Conditional Support-Great user, but please don't skip steps in the RFCN process and do things like block users that didn't even know about the concern of RFCN. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I said in one of the questions that I would not block unless I was 100% percent certain the name violated policy. Acalamari 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support. I hope my children are as articulate at sixteen as you are!--Xnuala (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support from the land of giant squid. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Sounds good to me. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. <Cliché censored>. bibliomaniac15 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Based on answers and above. - Denny 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Seems capable and trustworthy enough.--Holdenhurst 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I've seen this user in action and he will be a good admin.--Poetlister 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support meets my criteria. -- danntm ^T _C 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - I've seen this user doing lots of helpful stuff, and I think he'll do even greater work as an admin. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I respect the candidate's dedication to the project and his overall record, and I believe he is well qualified for adminship. Having said that, the concerns raised by some of the oppose and neutral candidates are legitimate, and I hope that if this RfA is successful, the candidate will not be afraid to pause and consult when difficult decisions arise. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Everyking 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. I do share some of the concerns raised by Sarah below. However, Acalamari has shown a consistent ability to seek advice and recognise his errors. Given that no example has been given (and I am aware of none) of an occasion where he has given way when he should have stuck by his first opinion, I do not reach the same conclusion. I also believe he has developed a thicker skin of late. Someone able to identify and learn from their mistakes should make a good admin, but I encourage you to take care to 'look before you leap' to avoid making those mistakes in the first place. WjBscribe 02:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. I accept some of the points below: the warning removal stuff in particular was not so great. However, I don't see enough overall to withhold support given the positives. Newyorkbrad's comments are persuasive, and his advice is good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Unconvinced by the opposition. -Mschel 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Although User:Acalamari/Warning Removals might have been flawed in some ways, Acalamari appears able to learn from from such experiences. I'm admit to also being swayed by some of the support arguments I've seen above, particularly per Newyorkbrad and WjBscribe. Cautiously optimistic am I. Pig^man 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support per all above. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. This user may make mistakes from time to time but honestly puts more effort into learning from these mistakes than anyone else I can think of. At this point in time, it looks likely that this RfA will fail and I urge Acalamari to realise that this is perhaps an indication simply to keep at it, get a few more months of experience, and to try again in the future; a failed RfA is not a condemnation of you personally. --Yamla 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I'm not entirely convinced, as I`m usually very sceptical about young admins (Acalamari is only 16). But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Kjetil r 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per my personal experience with Acalamari in handling a particularly contentious sockpuppetry issue earlier this year in a reasoned and civil manner. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - didnt get this far without being somewhat decent. Twenty Years 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong support - Acalamari is obviously a committed user, obviously experienced enough, and obviously open and responsive to criticism. Moreover, in reviewing the positions of those who oppose adminship, I can't help but note that the concerns expressed are condescending, trivial, and/or petty. // Internet Esquire 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. oppose After some flip-flopping, I have to oppose this. I was gratified to see him graciously bowing out of the proposal at User:Acalamari/Warning Removals, which was not a good idea. But its successor proposal, User:Acalamari/IWN, for an inappropriate warnings noticeboard, is instruction-creepy, process-heavy, and ponderous, leading me to question the likelihood that he will prioritize common sense over bureaucracy. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is very hard, but I'm sorry, Acalamari, I have to oppose. Acalamari is always courteous and full of good intentions, however, there are a number of things that make me feel he is unsuitable for adminship. I feel he is very insecure and overly-sensitive and I'm very concerned how he will cope as an admin. Acalamari was upset when he googled his username and found that someone had complained about him in a blog. [1] What this person had written about him was actually quite benign, particularly when compared to what he can expect if he becomes an admin. He then became worried about whether his user pages might be vandalised and complained that, "when I joined Wikipedia, I didn't expect to get badmouthed and hated on blogs" [2] If he reacted so badly to a blog, I'm really concerned about how he will cope with tough criticisms and attacks he would likely to be subjected to as an admin.

   I am also concerned about Acalamari's judgement. For example, after being asked my Chris Griswold to stop responding to an obvious troll (Stephen Krune, mentioned in answer to Q3 above) who had been blocked, he continued replying, then later came to my talk page with peculiar concerns about whether people would want to work with him in the future since he had reported the editor. [3]His recent forays into policy development [4] [5] (and the associated talk pages, particularly [6] have also caused me to worry about his judgement and his tendency towards taking bureaucratic and arbitrary positions, most notably, supporting the suggestion that we force good faith but misguided editors to maintain warnings on their talk pages until an unspecified point when they're allowed to archive their page.

   I also feel that Acalamari has an inadvertent and unintentional propensity for biting and I worry about how this may become a real problem if he is acting as an administrator. This has been most concerning at RFC/Usernames but also recently at Alison's RfA, he took an interrogative manner when questioning an opposer [7] and then went to the talk page and urged others to also question the opposer about their !vote. [8] Acalamari withdrew his question when it was pointed out to him that his edits may not have been the best thing and no harm was done but it does worry me what harm may be done if he edited like this an administrator.

   Acalamari is good at admitting when he wrong and others recognise this as an admirable quality. However, I see it differently. I think there is a fine line between having the maturity and ability able to recognise your mistakes and merely blowing in the wind and trying to please other people. I fear that often when Acalamari appears to be recognising mistakes, it is actually just a lack of maturity and confidence to stand by his beliefs and that he is trying to do/say what needs to be said/done to get approval. I know all this sounds harsh and I feel really bad about writing this because I know that Acalamari is very sensitive and that this will cut him to the bone, but I think ultimately it would be harsher to not be completely open and upfront about these issues. Sarah 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't feel bad Sarah; this is an RfA: I accept your view, you've been honest. I consider you to be a highly influential user. Anyway, first of all, I want to say about Stephen Krune; I do admit that I handled that situation badly. At the time, I was unfamiliar with WP:DENY; and yes, I should have listened to ChrisGriswold. I said above that I shouldn't have fed the trolls, and now I do make sure I follow WP:DENY.

   How you think I handle criticism is based on one event. When I appeared on that blog, I didn't know what to do, so I went to you and HignInBC for advice; not to advertise the fact that someone had written about me. Since that incident, I have come across people who aren't too happy about me. When it comes to criticism, I now take this point of view: If you can't take bloody nose every now and then, then you should stay at home and hide. The world is a big place, and you're going to come across people who won't take a liking to you. I hope that cleared your concerns over me when it comes to criticism. Hey, I even found another site that I'm on, and the people on that were going on about me "sucking up to the admin", over an incident when I denied an unblock request. I've taken RyanPostlethwaite and Chrislk02's advice: look it as a good thing, and feel honored that they've gone out of their way to start a topic about you.

   That edit I did on Alison's RfA was completely wrong; and I know it. Sarah, I believe you handled the situation well by saying what the problem was, so I withdrew my message, as it was newbie biting.

   That brings me to another subject: newbie biting. On my proposal about removing warnings, I hadn't thought about newbie biting, or about how the proposal would scare off good-faith editors. I considered your argument good enough to withdraw the proposal. Contrary to popular belief, I do help newbies. In fact, I was able to convince an IP to sign up! A user called "Nukleoptra" was originally an IP; and since she signed up, I've been giving her help. I actually love newbies (love in the sense, "really like"), and it's great when one becomes a good editor. If you don't believe me about Nukleoptra, you can either ask her yourself, or I can ask her.

   As for me admitting when I'm wrong; I don't admit when I'm wrong simply because I do it to please other users': I do it because I've thought about the situation realized when I'm wrong. Also, you said about me not being able to stand by my beliefs; well, if my beliefs are proven to be wrong, why continue to defend them? It just makes me look like a joker. Plus, I don't like sticking to close to any beliefs I have because I try to be as NPOV as possible.

   This is probably the longest response a condidate has ever done, but I believe it's necessary. I had to talk about and explain the things you mentioned; and no, your views did not "cut me to the bone", because if they did, I would be contradicting what I just wrote. I hope I haven't offended you with this response, but you were completely honest, and I should be completely honest as well. Acalamari 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - per Sarah: despite the candidate saying they now follow DENY, the idea of a noticeboard for people to complain about being told they're vandals really violates DENY. Moreover, the whole blog/off-wiki criticism thing is not a good sign: admins get so much bile directed at them you simply have to be able to laugh it off; just stick the proverbial finger up. Hey, even I get plenty of off-wiki bile for various reasons, and I'm not an admin and have only been around for just under a year. Admins just have to take the water+back-of-duck approach, and I'm rather worried that won't happen here. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've been back and forth on where I'd come down on this RfA, and am still very conflicted. However, one thing I'm sure about is that I personally don't think you're ready yet. I've been watching with interest for a while now; I think you're a good editor who continues to improve on a daily basis and who cares a lot about the project. I can't shake the feeling that you've set yourself on a path to adminship, where it's been your ultimate goal. Some people don't mind that, but in this case it rubs me the wrong way. You've been very active in administrative discussions, which is good, and you've started to take on some functions that are generally regarded to be functions that administrators should be performing, such as declining unblock requests. Some people have a problem with that; I don't really, but I do think it's smarter to let an admin catch shit for it than you :). I do think it indicates that you've been working towards a nomination, and I assumed it was coming soon after you nominated Allie (whom I thank you profusely for nominating). And again, some don't have a problem with that, and my slight problem with it in this instance is more of a gut instinct than anything else. You've proposed some policy that I think was misguided and perhaps a little instruction creep-ish. That comes from a lack of experience, I think — you're still pretty new and you're not as cynical and crabby as some of us who sometimes become exasperated with overly cumbersome process. I had thought to myself that maybe you took comments a little hard sometimes, and that concern is deepened with Sarah's oppose. Having the mop may seem fun, but trust me, it really isn't. You have to deal with a lot of bullshit that comes along with it; I'm not convinced that you're quite ready to let all the garbage slide off your back yet. Sometimes I've felt that you do things a little too quickly without really thinking about whether, in the long run, it's ultimately helping the project. Most of these are just general observations, and I won't cite diffs because I don't think they're necessary. I think that this RfA is going to pass, and I'm not trying to stand in your way; I guess you should take this as you would an old codger giving you the advice that you never asked for. Just be careful. There are very few things that can't be resolved through calm discussion with other people, so take that avenue when at all possible. Don't let the crap that comes along with being an administrator bother you, but also continue learning from your mistakes, as you have been so far. We all make lots of 'em, so you'll have plenty of practice. Make sure you fully understand something (everything related to an incident, the policies involved, etc.) before taking any administrative action. With all that said, plow ahead and keep helping the project. It's appreciated. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, I didn't register just to become an administrator. In fact, I never even knew about the existence of administrators until ChrisGriswold first contacted me. Adminship has not been my "ultimate goal" for Wikipedia at all; and I don't know why anyone would think that the only reason I joined was to become an admin. My goal for Wikipedia is actually to improve the encyclopedia in any way I can; which is what I try to do. Acalamari 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And rest assured that your contributions are valued. Tyrenius 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose I have generally good impressions of this user, but also a sense (as in the opposes above) there is still a learning process going on, and there needs to be a bit more time before it would be fitting to grant adminship. Acalamari has been doing substantial editing for the last 3 months or so, and I think another 2, or preferably 3, months of experience is still needed. Tyrenius 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Well-intentioned user, but Sarah's argument in favor of more experience is compelling. Acalamari's response to Sarah shows wisdom in words, but a record of comparable actions in the next few months is needed before I'd feel comfortable entrusting candidate with the mop. Xoloz 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Sarah and Xoloz.--cj | talk 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per most of the above. Long story short I don't think the user is thick skinned or mature enough to be an admin (yet). Seems to be an honest editor though, maybe in some time. NeoFreak 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per Sarah and NeoFreak. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. (Not very strong) oppose per Tyrenius. I think this (undoubtedly good and valuable) user may still be on a learning curve and we'd be better to wait for a few months before promoting. Metamagician3000 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Weak oppose. Looks like a great editor, but having reviewed the arguments for and against I'd say not quite ready for adminship. Sorry. --Guinnog 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak oppose per concerns raised by Sarah. I've chosen to oppose, primarily due to what I feel is unduly hasty responses to user names, and concerns about how he will handle criticism. I'm also concerned about his admitted willingness to decline autoblocks as per Q1 and Q4 and as shown in diffs like this one, even though as a non-admin, he lacks the ability to actually choose whether or not to unblock someone. Perhaps it's just me, but it comes across as presuming an authority that he doesn't really have. Please correct me if I'm wrong about my understanding of what's allowed with autoblocks. I say "weak oppose" because I think that he is a thoughtful editor and he is willing to listen to advice after making a mistake, but I also think it would be better if he didn't make various mistakes in the first place. I'm sorry. --Kyoko 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me also add that if this RfA is ultimately unsuccessful, I hope that you won't be discouraged by it (as suggested by edit summaries like this one) and that you will address the concerns raised by everyone. If this RfA doesn't succeed, I hope that you will learn from this, gain more experience, and perhaps pursue adminship in the future. --Kyoko 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose - Seems to have good intent and has experience with policy, but needs more experience handling conflict effectively. Also somewhat concerned by emphasis on bureaucratic activities that don't focus on serious problems. —dgies^t_c 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I think Sarah stated that pretty well. I have to say that the RFCN for Theangryblackwoman was handled poorly overall. Work on handling conflict (and even agreement) better, and I could probably support in a few months. ShadowHalo 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - to be a good admin, you have to take that approach that someone above succinctly stated as water/duck's back. - Richard Cavell 06:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - per many comments above. Acalamari obviously is a very respected and civil editor who has made and continues to make many valuable contributions. Clearly he has the best of intentions. However, even the responses to his RfA come across as being a little defensive, thin skinned, and needing of others approval. There is no doubt in my mind that someday he would – at some point – make a fine addition to the admin staff, but I believe a bit more seasoning and maturity are called for first. Wikidenizen 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose for new per User:Guinnog. --kingboyk 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose - More experience needed and, in my opinion, thicker skin needs be developed. Additionally, MUCH less focus on WP bureaucratic non-issues would be helpful. I could certainly see changing my vote at a future RfA if these issues were addressed.K. Scott Bailey 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose, although I wish I could support. Acalamari has been nothing but friendly to me, and has reverted vandalism to my userpage numerous times when I have been offline, but I have to agree with everyone who has pointed out that you need somewhat thicker skin. Being an admin, especially if your intention is to focus on vandalism and new page patrol, can mean being attacked by people on a near daily basis, and you have to be able to completely ignore it. For one, it only encourages them, but more importantly, if you take that kind of crap personally you will have left the project by the end of the month. And that would be a tragedy, I think. Natalie 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Per the above. >Radiant< 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT comment by User:Qxz removed. El_C 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose As a medcab mediator for two of their conflicts, I find the editor needs to improve their conflict resolution skills. Alan.ca 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In other words, I should mediate more like this Acalamari 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose -- Not experienced enough in Wikipedia policy or norms; nor has the patience or maturity to handle the responsibilities and trust of adminship. Acalamari is eager to learn, but quick to jump the gun in situations that do not warrant excessive action. As an example, between January 29 and 30th, Acalamari went on mistaken campaign to expunge dozens of article talk page comments by an anon editor -- nearly all of which were perfectly legitimate-- deleting comments by registered users in the process.--Leflyman^Talk 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An AN/I was already issued over this, and you pretty much blamed ChrisGriswold for the entire thing. I've already been dealt with over that incident. If no one believes me, ask ChrisGriswold himself. Acalamari 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a matter of fact, Leflyman issued the AN/I himself. This is the link here. Leflyman blamed ChrisGriswold, an action I thought was unfair. Acalamari 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisGriswold's misuse/misunderstanding of admin powers, and regular incivility to other editors is another matter altogether -- as is his encouragement of you to proceed with improper deletions. He is far from an ideal admin on whom to model or base one's behaviour. However, you are responsible for your own actions, and need to take a more patient approach towards other users, particularly by not editing/removing others' comments -- as even Griswold admonished.--Leflyman^Talk 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For further discussion on the topic about Krune, please see this discussion on AN/I. Acalamari 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore my above message. I have apologized to Leflyman here. It's quite embarrassing what happened, but I think it finally ended a past mess. :) Acalamari 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose this time around. Happy to review subsequent activity if renominated in a few months, preferably by another editor. Tomer^talk 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose - per Sarah Epbr123 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. STRONG Oppose - Sarah did a good job with her explanation and provided a lot of diffs so I don't have to. Although Acalamari is very nice as most of the support votes state, I have interacted extensively with this user and do not see a comprehension or maturity level needed to use these tools appropriately. Acalamari tends to rush into situations that he doesn't fully understand and makes trivial situations into scandals. I have seen him scour Wikipedia for usernames that might possibly offend, but these are frequently inoffensive and merely misunderstood.

    Acalamari feeds trolls like he's a child at a petting zoo and loses his cool when they start biting his shirt. (like a goose - it happens!) With regard to Krune, he has kept that troll going for a week or longer, stretching out the drama as long as he could, when there needn't have been any. He even renewed the drama tonight in his usual the-sky-is-falling way,[9] which shows me that he has not learned from the situation at all. Rosemary2003 was a user who began to attack me on my user page and then Acalamari began a long, needless argument with her, for what reason I do not know other than defending my honor.

    The bit about declining autoblocks I didn't know until he casually mentioned it above, but I found that deeply disturbing and yet in line with what I understand the type of actions this user takes. He really oversteps his bounds sometimes, and this is another situation where it would be better left to at least someone more experienced if not an actual admin, to whom the requests are actually directed.

    Acalamari felt the need to emphasize that he would not misuse the tools, something I do not find in RfAs for editors beyond such suspicion. Acalamari's decisions are often rash and emotional, and I easily can see that access to more power on Wikipedia will only exacerbate the same sort of debacles he has instigated in the past. Give him time; he makes some positive edits, and I hope that he will mature and gain experience and a thicker skin. As he said he has only been noticeably active since December. That's really not much time at all. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose per Sarah and the rest. Not now, but in future. Terence 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose I feel we shouldn't give should be very careful about giving admin rights to anyone under 18.Rlevse 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arjun01 seams to be doing fine Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "young adult" can mean from 13-30.Rlevse 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Under 18 I'm afraid, not putting an age to Arjun01, but it's on previous revisions of his userpage Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a ridiculous reason to oppose a user. There are many administrators, myself included, who are below the age of 18, and we're doing perfectly fine. Nishkid64 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Or so you'd like to think Nishkid ;) Oh, and I'm under 18 as well. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And let's not forget Ilyanep, our 15-year-old 'crat who became an admin in 2003, presumably at the age of 11. [10] Sarah 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a bad reason to oppose. There are many users including Nishkid64 and Arjun01 that are fantastic admins. There is even a b'crat at age 15! My best judgement includes not to judge someones age, but to judge their maturity and how they react in stressful situations in Wikipedia. Anyways, Happy editing!--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Preston. Opposing on the basis of someone's age is ludicrous. I believe that this vote should be struck out, as it is neither valid, policy-based, nor in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. I would also like to reprimand Rlevse, strongly, for the comment, which I think directly violates WP:NPA. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose, time. --Sn0wflake 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral, as Acalamari is a good user for the most part, but I am hesitant about letting him "police" user names if he continues to do so in the wrong manner. I explained to you just two weeks ago on your talk page that the first thing with a borderline-acceptable username is not to bring it to WP:RFCN, it is to ask the user nicely to change their name first. You even said you understood this; clearly, based on your answer to Q1, you did not. I am very hesitant about enabling someone who "polices" usernames in a wholly wrong manner to block users based on their usernames. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect to your neutral, I believe I clearly stated above that I don't go username searching anymore. I also said that I would not block a user for their username unless I was absolutely sure the name violated policy, and I gave examples of what I would block. I thought I had clearly explained this subject. Also, you say about asking a user to change their name; might I ask what's the point of asking a user to change their name when their name is probably acceptable? What if I had asked Theangryblackwoman or ASERVANTOFCHRIST to change their names? RFCN clearly said that their names were okay. If I had asked them to change their names, I would have most likely have been in trouble Acalamari 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll respond on your talk page to avoid clogging up your RFA. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have great respect for this user, I am sure this user would not willingly mis-use his tools. However, with only 652 Wikipedia namespace edits(267 of which were on WP:RFCN) I just get the feeling it is too soon. In each of the last three months, this user has done more edits than the three months before combined[11]. It will not be long before I will be ready to support you at that rate. My only advice is to think hard before making a decision about if it is defensible if later disputed, an admin needs to make the correct decision and then stand by it when people complain(which will happen no matter how correct you are). Your admirable quality of recognizing your mistakes when pointed out to you and fixing them needs to be contrasted by an ability to know when you are correct and people are complaining anyways. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral leaning to support per Proto Neil and HighInBC. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral per pretty much everything above. -Amarkov moo! 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral per evidence linked to in Sarah's comment. I've only been able to block people for about a month, and I've already had about 8 people e-mail me to tell me how much they'd love to *insert act of violence* me (and I think all of my blocks have been justifiable so far). You just gotta laugh it off. You're a really nice guy, but I'm not sure how well you'll handle the off-wiki stuff. – Riana ^ঋ 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I haven't had much of that sort of experience (yet (knocks wood)). I must be dealing with a better class of trolls and vandals than you are. :) Newyorkbrad 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Lucky! I get the ones who replace an article with 'poo' repeatedly come up with all sorts of words I don't even know in their e-mails... :( – Riana ^ঋ 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You may be doing something wrong. I was an admin for two and a half years and never received a single threat of physical harm. Everyking 01:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You're free to check :) It may be a point worth noting that (a) I'm female, (b) I'm fairly young and (c) I have quite a few more blocks than you do. – Riana ^ঋ 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Young and female, you say, they allow those here? Whats your email address, I have some abuse to send you! ;) Rockpocket 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Point (a) will do it every time. I get that too ... - Alison^☺ 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe it's just that I don't make many blocks - or maybe my username is more menacing than "Alison" or "Riana". :) The worst I've ever had is some childish vandalism to my userpage. Metamagician3000 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not an admin, and I seldom do much against vandalism, but even I get various insults simply because I'm a woman. --Kyoko 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral per Riana. Michael 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral It is a too close call for me to go to either side. I apply much stronger measurements to self-nominations than to others, and combined with the minor issues that were mentioned (usernames and unblockrequest) and the fact that you only have been an truely active for about 4 months I cannot give you my support. But in reversal, none of the points truely make you unfit to being an good administrator. So neutrality is the only option. CharonX/talk 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral I thought I was going to support, but after reading the points brought up by the opposers, I have to remain neutral. I hope that if Acalamari succeeds, he tries to better his editing with the points brought up in the oppose comments and if he doesn't, I hope he takes them to hear and renominates himself later. Cbrown1023 talk 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral per Riana for now, I may be convinced otherwise though. Rockpocket 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral leaning oppose. I don't know the candidate well enough to oppose. But Sarah's concerns are hard to ignore and this comment on Anthony Bradbury's RfA leads me to believe that Acalamari is not too inclined to assume good faith, something an admin should really strive to do in order to avoid overly confrontational relations with other users. Pascal.Tesson 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. I am leaning oppose. She failes a few personal policies. She has not been active here for 5 consecutive full months and it really has not been long enough since Acalamari's confilicts. I'd vote for you if you went six months without any major conflicts. Sorry. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    She's actually a he :) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I've never given away my gender. I do not mind if people refer to me as a he or a she; as I don't expect them to know. :) Acalamari 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Weak Neutral Come back soon, and keep up the good work. Just a little longer it seems. Just H^{editor review} 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. You're getting there, but for now it's too soon. Keep it up and I'll see you around come summertime. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Neutral. A thin-skinned admin's not as bad as a volatile one. You seem good, but I'm too reluctant to support.--Wizardman 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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