Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Infinity0

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Infinity0[edit]

Final (5/32/6) ending 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0 (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia since September 2005. During that time, I have contributed extensively to the list of articles in my watchlist. My main contributions have been re-structuring articles so they are more coherent and consistent, and copyedits. Most of the edits I make are vandalism reverts, which I feel could be more easily done with the rollback function. I have dealt with two main cases of vandalism at my time here, once over on Second law of thermodynamics and once on Asian fetish. In both cases I had to appeal to WP:AIV, which took some time to respond to. I have dealt with, and have also been involved in, several disputes over content. In the cases where I am a neutral party, I feel I helped quite a bit (eg Talk:Asian fetish). In the cases where I have been involved in, I feel I have acted as civilised and polite as is to be expected (eg Talk:Problem of evil, Talk:Anarchism). If I receive admin privileges, they will be mainly used in countering vandalism, and alleviating such disputes. I feel very strongly about abuses of power, and I swear I will never abuse my privileges as admin. Infinity0 talk 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Infinity0 talk 20:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, Infinity was drawn into that edit war. That's a very tricky article -- a number of people working on it have been banned. Other than that, I think that he puts a great deal of effort into making Wikipedia a better place. None of us are angels. I'd be surprised if none of you had ever made a few harsh comments or didn't have a few articles that you like to pay a little more attention to than others. --AaronS 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, his infractions are minor and his contributions useful. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Although he has been blocked before, I feel that this user has learned from his mistakes and it is time to give him a chance. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, looks very unlikely you will win, so this vote means nothing. :/ ems 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support but having edit summaries for minor edits will be much better.--Jusjih 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, trolling/troll-feeding (to be fair, I'm not sure which it is) at [1]. Not enough experience with administrative tasks. Has 58 edits to AFD discussions and 56 of them are to the same page [2]. Averages 7.83 edits per distinct page, which suggests way too much focus on specific topics, which is not a desirable administrator trait. I would suggest diversifying and exploring corners of wikipedia you are presently unaware of. — Feb. 28, '06 [20:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • I have not participated in many AfDs because I don't go out looking for things to do. Things usually come to me. If you look further down the page, I have been involved in a few IfDs and TfDs, and suggested a feature to fight vandalism, which is currently on the to-do list at MediaWiki bugzilla. Infinity0 talk 23:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you should start going out looking for things to do, especially when the alternative is edit warring in your usual topics of interest. — Mar. 6, '06 [16:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  2. Oppose. Has been blocked for 3RR twice in the past month [3]. Bites vandals with edit summaries like "he had a wife you dumb bitch" [4], and doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with that when called on it [5]. Someone keen on fighting vandals ought not to provoke them further with profanity. (To be fair, he doesn't seem to have done this since we discussed it, but this is not the only instance of this I've seen from him.) Appears to have too hot a temperament for adminship. android79 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that my frustration at vandals gets the better of me sometimes, but to be fair that is quite rare - the vast majority of my reverts are commentless. I have worked extremely hard in fighting the particular nasty ones - for example, User:Infinity0/Vandal report. Infinity0 talk 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per recent 3RR block. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, with questionable behaviour this month and a 3RR block just yesterday, I'm afraid you're definitely not ready for the admin tools at this time. --Deathphoenix 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The questionable activity is as stated by Freakofnurture and Android79, and as per the your block log, of which the first block is okay (since the web proxy problem is technical in nature), but the second, being your first block for 3RR, is not. If your 3RR blocks were quite some time ago, that's no problem. However, since your first occurred less than a month ago, and your second just yesterday, that's definitely a problem. --Deathphoenix 21:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My first 3RR block wasn't in an edit war. A user decided to report me for removing three of his edits, even though I explained why in the edit summaries. He made no attempt to discuss the changes. Please do not think I constantly edit war because of these blocks. Infinity0 talk 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. However, your 3RR block yesterday alone is enough. The behaviour stated by Freakofnurture and Android79, ditto. --Deathphoenix 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, Admins should be the example of good editors to the community. With a record such as yours, I do not want you as one of those examples at this time. Due to the past two blocks, I may reconsider in another six months. --ZsinjTalk 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose - complete lack of civility, bad role model for wikipedia, edit-warring blocks, trolling/feeding.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete lack of civility?? Could you elaborate? Infinity0 talk 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. His edits have been useful, but the conduct is really worrisome. It's difficult when caught into edit wars, I understand. If he tones it down a notch, and shows sustained conduct change, I'm sure he will be reconsidered. -- Samir ∙ TC 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose recent 3RRs and, dare I say it, slight hints of immaturity. A bit low on the edit summaries too. --kingboyk 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for reasons stated above. Doesn't seem to have much regard for WP:CIVIL. PJM 03:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Needs to show more self control. pschemp | talk 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per above DaGizzaChat © 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, lack of edit summaries, and I am not sure edit warriors make good admins. Stifle 09:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. DEFINITELY NOT. NSLE (T+C) at 10:02 UTC (2006-03-01)
  14. Oppose I am sorry but at this point in the Wikipedia project's development I want more from an administrator. I appreciate that your contributions have been positive so far but I cannot in good faith give you my vote. Maybe in another 6 months.--Looper5920 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose --Terence Ong 13:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sorry, but no. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I am disturbed by the actions described by Android79. Expletives have no place in discussions never mind edit summaries. Ifnord 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose: multiple very recent 3RR blocks make this bound to fail. I suggest the nominee withdraw and try to achieve six months of building the encyclopedia, using a civil and descriptive summary for every edit, and without breaking the 3RR once. If he does that, he will have something to be very proud of, and an RfA will be much more likely to pass. Jonathunder 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: Sounds like this editor has been too hotheaded in the too recent past. Needs more time to prove himself before I could support. --Cymsdale 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Android79. KI 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above --Splette 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per recent blocks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose if it weren't for the 3RR blocks and the vandal biting, this vote would be support Prodego talk 15:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you mean newbie biting. Moe ε 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I haven't bitten any newbies... only vandals. -- infinity0 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Vandal biting? I don't see that for means of disqualification of adminship. I don't think it's possible to bite a vandal is it, I mean they are vandals aren't they? Moe ε 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank god someone agrees with me. I wanted to point out that vandals deserve whatever normal editors to do them at their discretion, but with many of the oppose votes opposing me because of [6] I thought I'd be frowned upon even more. -- infinity0 20:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do however frown upon that, abusive edit summaries. If you feel someone deserves a warning about vandalism, do so on thier talk page and try not to make any personal attacks while doing so. I do like your revert of vandalism, but no abusive edit summaries please. :-D Moe ε 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, and most of my reverts are un-abusive. But sometimes I feel the need to vent some frustration - it's only healthy :p -- infinity0 13:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. An admin should know better than to break 3RR, whatever the circumstances. Raven4x4x 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose NO WAY! The kid is OUT OF CONTROL. See edit histories and some of the articles he works on, such as anarchism. Multiple unreported violations of the 3 revert rule. Personal attacks, such as this one against me in an edit summary: [7] ("grow up" --and this from a 16 year old). And, he tried to file an arbitration case against me to get me banned from Wikipedia, ostensibly because he couldn't get around the fact that I provide sources that he has no way of disputing. It appears to me that infinity's philosophy is to ban an editor whose edits would otherwise prevail by Wikipedia sourcing policy --so as to preserve the POV that infinity wants presented in an article. Big big mistake if infinity ever becomes an administrator. EXTREMELY unethical. I know EXACTLY why he wants to be an adminstrator. RJII 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note. He's yet again violated the 3RR just a few moments ago. He's been blocked for 48 hours, as in indicated on his talk page: [8] RJII 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. per above --Ugur Basak 10:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per (waaaaay too recent) 3RR vios, aforementioned vandal biting, and this. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum in which to vent your frustration. IRC exists for a reason. Or, take a break from your computer. For example, read a book. Listen to music. Also, I agree with Brian's neutral vote below...this user needs more cowbell. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose. An adminship candidate who violates 3RR and NPA will be a failed adminship candidate. Esteffect 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong oppose not trying to pile-on here, but biting vandals being different from biting newbies violates one of the first principles listed on the Rfa page: Admins are held to high standards. That means your manners, not what you think they are. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. oppose. does not play well with others. ... aa:talk 21:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose 3RR stands for Three Revert Rule. Generally won't support those who've recently broken the rules. Staxringold 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Recent 3RR violations don't hold well for adminship. On top of it all, it doesn't help when you break out into a fight with somebody over a featured article. Give it a few more months, a few more good edits, and less bickering, and you should be there. --NomaderTalk 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral As blocking admin on the recent 3RR ban, I want it noted the user's behaviour was exemplary over the recent ban, but I can't support because of the ban and the edit warring after the ban. The user needs to learn other ways of dealing with disputes besides edit warring; then, I think infinity0 will make a good admin, and therefore cannot oppose. Hiding talk 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Not yet, but soon per Hiding. youngamerican (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - as per above. No Guru 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to 3RR block, trollfeeding mentioned earlier, but mostly because of his comment after his first oppose that he "doesn't look for things to do." As an admin you should be more committed to finding things that need doing, as opposed to waiting for someone to drop work on your lap. Mo0[talk] 18:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. It's not that I don't have the incentive, but I don't have the time to join projects/discussions on extra subjects which are not on my watchlist. Infinity0 talk 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's definitely a more reasonable attitude, and one that admittedly I follow myself. I'm changing my vote to neutral, since you did address that concern, but I really can't support this soon after a 3RR block. I'm sorry, it's just one of my own personal no-nos here. Mo0[talk] 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I understand. It's my fault really, I probably shouldn't have started this RfA so recently after an edit war. Meh. -- infinity0 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Not enough cowbell IMHO. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-3 06:04
    • What do you mean by cowbell? -- infinity0 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rob Church (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 85% for major edits and 27% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Infinity0's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Generally a relaxed editor, and far from a troll or problem user. However, I've also find his temperament a little too jumpy to advocate adminship. The WP:BITE above is rather unsettling, and I could see that sort of momentary hotheadedness translated into bans or other harsh, short-sighted decision-making. This user could do well in showing a better example in these areas, and re-applying. Sarge Baldy 00:49, 1 March 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Many edits I make are simple cases of reverting vandalism, so this will be an obvious task. I have quite a number of highly-vandalised articles (such as Karl Marx) on my watchlist, which I frequently revert. Another task I am willing to take upon is to browse Random and check WP:CSD ariticles.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have not contributed much major content to wikipedia, but I have restructured several major articles, such as Existence of God, Capitalism, Socialism. I feel my edits have made those articles more consistent and organised, which helps a lot. The content which I have added to wikipedia were mainly important points which were overlooked during the creation of the article, which I promptly inserted (for example Problem of evil). I also helped to develop Portal:Philosophy along with User:Go for it!, and also participated for a while in the Main Page Re-design Draft (forgot exact link).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been in several conflicts over editing. As I have gained experience from editing wikipedia, I feel my responses to disputes have matured (for example, compare Template talk:Philosophy navigation to Talk:Anarchism). I rarely start personal attacks, as the main point of disputes are articles and not people. In the future, I hope to further cut down on the number of outbursts I make, and use my own experience to help solve disputes I am neutral to.
4. Why did you just spam this link in #wikipedia? ems 17:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. [17:06:12] <Babajobu> infinity0, link me to your RfA
Agreed, he put the link up only after I explicitly asked him to do so with not prompting on his part whatsoever. Babajobu 17:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0&oldid=1089731659"