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

(talk page) Final (4/33/6); ended 19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) – self-nomination. Started now because I become sufficiently tired of things like [1] (nothing wrong with the edit, it is just embittering to me), necessity to ask nearby sysops to make an obvious block, complications with pages moves: although I enjoy the redirect suppress privilege, moving the garbage to some new title is not always convenient. Tired of necessity to ask a sysop to create a page like user:Incnis Mrsi/█, of inability to properly fix titles of articles like Abdul Majid al-Qa′ud (the ʿ symbol is appropriate instead of the former WP:OR transcription with ′), as well as to undelete pages deleted due to confusion; all these I would make without unneeded deliberations: my knowledge about these things is not weaker than the knowledge of an average sysop. An insider’s access to WP:IRC also would not hurt. I do not promise to become a great admin, but currently I’m devoted to this community and possess a broad range of skills necessary to effect this function. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. Thank for helping me to realize how serious the problem is. But I am disappointed that only my lack of civility was criticised, and other (potential) flaws were largely ignored. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily all sorts of operations with content pages (deleting pages, un/protection, moving files, problematic moves and operations with edit histories, editing MediaWiki:, protected templates…). Occasionally I’ll block vandals, sock puppets, and disruptive users, and remove certain blocks (especially those IP ones that are made thoughtlessly). Mentorship of a troublesome user also can be considered, if the community can entrust me such a user. The only thing I promise is that I will never become a dramaboard frequenter only, a person who ceased to make a real job but pushes wherever his/her “valuable” opinion. Until my mop will be relinquished, I’ll ever make something useful with it, except for wikibreaks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Not a long time ago I filed an editor review, but there was no feedback (BTW, feel free to contribute there, at last). To skip over wording and look directly on links, go to user:Incnis Mrsi/contribs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 had hundreds of conflicts. Of course, they sometimes make stress, but since I voluntarily choose a conflict-prone attitude, I must endure conflicts without causing much trouble to the community. Until recently I poorly adhered to WP:Civility, but now I realize that made not a good thing when bashed users on the pretext of their honest mistakes. I am not afraid about future conflicts because I trust in this great community: the people of en.wikipedia will correct me after I made something wrong. When I realize that made a mistake, I correct it or disengage. Everyone of you will ever be able to discuss my actions with me (I’d only ask to make new threads with section=new). The trust in a community is important to me. When I ceased to trust in one wiki community where I made about 9,000 edits, I just quit, without further conflicts. Any wiki is a website, not a real-life situation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius

4. I see in your answer to question three that you said you "voluntarily choose a conflict-prone attitude". Some of the opposers have assumed that this means you are antagonistic on purpose, but I suspect it might just be an unfortunate turn of phrase. Could you explain what you mean by this?

A: I do not agree with a description of my attitudes as wikt:antagonistic; some people perceive me so but it is a delusion. But I had long-time recognized problems with civility (once I even withdrew myself from communications for almost 2 months) and committed to reform only after realized that I, myself, contributed to a toxic atmosphere around this community. You can find some references to my rôle in dramas at user talk:Bbb23/Archive 18. I have nothing to conceal; I certainly made many mistakes but accepted a feedback and am willing to improve myself further. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it took a while for me to understand the whole question. When I said “conflict-prone”, it did not imply “conflicts in the name of conflict”. I had to say that I could avoid many conflicts (for example, I could completely ignore the Burmese scandal that was not related to me in any way), but frequently opt for another stance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Incnis Mrsi: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Incnis Mrsi can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Sorry, me again. Ones who aim to ask me, or to communicate in some other way, use the section above please or user_talk:Incnis_Mrsi. I will not comment votes, myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfA was originally closed August 1, but was reopened August 7 after discussion on the RfA talk page, hence the date discrepencies. Wizardman 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it must stay open until the period elapses, or the candidate withdraws. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "must" it stay open? WP:SNOW still applies. GiantSnowman 08:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SNOW is an essay. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:NOTNOW (an "information page"- whatever the hell that means): "if the candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time, then this is acceptable".Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted to the WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard urging that this RfA (now at 4/32/6 as I type this) be closed again and stay closed this time. Please see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. While you'll never pass, I commend you for having the huevos to come right out and admit you intend to be every bit as biased and clueless as the overwhelming majority of the current admin corps. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak support: Agree with the comments above. In addition...

   Incnis Mrsi does have a lot of experience and knowledge in programming, markup, typography, physics, mathematics, and other general knowledge. At a number of places and times in the physics and mathematics wikiprojects, he has highlighted numerous problems with article scopes, and despite his English grammar (no offense! mine is not brilliant) he places great emphasis on consistent typography and clear presentation in throughout articles, more than anyone else I've seen. People tend to ignore that Incnis is in fact hard-working and altruistic, and I would say his contributions are valuable.

   Yes, obviously his civility is an issue, but this seems to be the only real drawback for the nomination. Some people can ignore nasty language, others can't, and it's understandable that this is not acceptable for admins who should set editing examples. If Incnis could communicate in a completely neutral way without negative attitudes then I would say he could make a good admin. If the the nomination is successful, and he continues to be uncivil, then of course there is reason to remove admin powers.

   Perhaps a trial assuming good faith? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Moral support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support From what I can see, this candidate has an unbiased mindset and I think being neutral minded is important enough that some other weaknesses may be overlooked with the hope that they will improve to the community's expectations in those areas too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - edits from just a few hours ago like this (reverting an IP without explaining why, either via edit summary or to the IP involved - how are they going to learn/improve?) as well as this (mini edit-war over a header at ANI) are concerning and not suitable for a prospective admin, and you have not actually provided a valid reason to become an admin. You say "Mentorship of a troublesome user also can be considered, if the community can entrust me such a user" - you don't need to be an admin to be a mentor. You say you want "remove certain blocks (especially those IP ones that are made thoughtlessly" - are you aware of WP:WHEELWAR? You also seem to lack appropriate communication skills. GiantSnowman 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Just a quick glance at the user's talk page shows a combative style that isn't suited for adminship at this time. Intothatdarkness 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose, strongly, as intemperate. Self-described as conflict-prone and civility-challenged. Recent edits suggest that giving this editor a mop would be a net negative for the project. -- Scray (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vehement oppose - the notice at the top of the talk page does it for me ... an admin saying "If I don't watch the page then I don't care" is not an appropriate message. Beyond that, Q2 scares me ... he or she is waiting for an editor review before he or she can assert what they feel their best contributions are. C'mon. Go Phightins! 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose as per Scray and Phigtins. The user's comments at their own talk page demonstrate over and over that they do not (at this time) have the temperament or judgment to be an administrator. The answers to the questions above confirm that impression. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Regretful oppose I'm sorry, but I rarely find myself in this section. Your talk page alone did it for me. Your comments are quite snarly at times, your huge notice at the top of the page is a bit rude, and the fact that you blank sections and replace them with your own summary shows a lack of respect for others comments. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Major concerns with temperament at this point. The diffs from Snowman are concerning as well. – Connormah (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per Go Phightins. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC) moved to neutral[reply]

8. Oppose per the discussion above. Faizan 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)contribs) 02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. No. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose " Per the above answers, your talk page does not incite confidence at this time, sorry. Mfield (Oi!) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. If this is representative of how much good faith you tend to assume when something doesn't go your way, then you should not be an administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. While from looking at your contributions and talk page you appear to have improved drastically from the last time I've interacted with you, you still appear too confrontational now to be an administrator on this project. This isn't to dissuade you from running, and frankly some of the comments here in the oppose section are concerning to me, and I feel that you are trying your best to help this project succeed. However, I think you need a few more months of good editing before I'd support your RfA, and it would help pretty much everybody (including yourself) if you tried to tone down your language slightly. Try to improve on this, reapply in a few months, and I'm sure you'll get a more welcome reception here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per above, with particular emphasis on Someguy1221's oppose. Any user in good standing can close an RfA where the result is obviously a no-pass.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. I have concerns about combative behavior based on the applicant's response to Q1. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per the above concerns. Razorflame 04:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose because the user is apparently too clueless to realize that this RfA is doomed to fail for a number of reasons, and instead of listening to the advice of several other admins and crats (that have been here for a lot longer than the candidate), the candidate made an assumption that the early closure of this RfA was a conspiracy against them and demanded that it be reopened and remain for the full 7 days. This behavior implies that the candidate thinks he knows everything, that the candidate is unwilling to listen to others or consider the opinions of wiser users, and that the candidate is overly uncooperative and argumentative. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 04:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose I'm sorry, but due to your recent behavior and "bitterness", I'm afraid that I can't support your candidacy at this time. MJ94 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose temperament unsuited to adminship. wctaiwan (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose - Without addressing the various concerns above, just merely what I witnessed of how the candidate acted when trying to get this re-opened. Asking for a SNOWED nom to be reopened of course is and should be allowed, but what I saw... Not what was said, but how it was said to several at several locations... Just doesn't inspire confidence. - jc37 05:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose - The editor is rude, exceedingly and unnecessarily antagonistic, and seemingly somewhat immature. He seems to think the community is out to get him, and I don't think that someone who thinks the community is "sick" should have access to the admin tools. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21. Per question 3. The candidate voluntarily chooses a pro conflict attitude. For their benefit as well as the project that would need to change before they were ready for the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 07:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. The "bitterness" on display after this RfA was originally closed is enough for me to oppose. My advice to the candidate would be to start by heeding the sensible guidance that User:Alex Shih gave in his editor review. You are a good contributor, but you are also a long way from being entrusted with the mop at the present time. — sparklism ^hey! 09:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Attitude, temperament and style appear utterly incompatible with the role of administrator. While the candidate may indeed have good intentions, their interactions appear so poor that such intentions become almost indiscernible. Admins need to be able to work productively with those with whom they disagree as well as those they agree with, and, like it or not, they do need to display exemplary behaviour. If the candidate is serious about adminship then I suggest that before applying again they work hard to ensure that as well as being good, their intentions can be seen to be good. Begoon ^talk 09:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose as per Giantsnowman, above. There is little else to say that has not already been said, above - but stating an intent to wheel war is not a promising first step for a potential admin. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose since recent conduct on the user's talk page and with this RfA does not make me confident that he will meet the expectations of adminship at this time. The user mentions wanting the admin tools for maintenance purposes, but on the RfA, he says he wants "to help this sick community". In addition, the user mentions wanting to be a mentor, but you do not have to be an administrator to be a mentor. I am not comfortable with this lack of understanding. I encourage developing a personal philosophy not to act so quickly, especially to counter others' actions. Engage with grace. It is easy enough to gauge if another editor is a long-standing one and to drop him or her a line on the talk page to resolve matters such as not closing this RfA early. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose - I said I wasn't going to vote, but wow. "some people perceive me so but it is a delusion" is too hilarious to ignore. Add (from this RfA's talkpage) "I do not describe myself as a highly competent member of community" and there is not much left to convince me that, while good intentioned, this user is not ready for extra tools. --Onorem (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose. While the initial SNOW close was perhaps a bit hasty, particularly given the candidate's tenure, everything else leads me to say no to this request. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose - I rarely oppose, because this is a rather stressful process, but this user's behavior really shows that they're not ready to be an Admin. You've got to work on your interactions with others first. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose. Talk of a fascist ochlocracy plus very poor English both weigh heavily with me. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30. As much as I appreciate the apology that followed the behavior here, and while I hate to pile on, I think this incident is worth mentioning: Incnis was uncivil toward User:Cirt for leaving him a welcoming template on Wikidata, and, when I called him on it, his initial response was to request administrative intervention and ban me from his talk page. Like I said, I very much appreciate that he apologized (and as you'll see in my reply there, I can empathize with such paranoia), but I think a user who was behaving like this relatively recently needs to make a major effort to be more civil before becoming an administrator; from the volume of opposes here, I gather that Incnis has not made such an effort, and I am thus forced to oppose. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. There is enough aggressive posturing made both by and against admins already, without putting someone in the job who feels that not getting what they want is persecution, and that they're justified in hitting back in response to that persecution. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose My only concern is that having the sysop tools you are continuously asked to mediate or intervene in areas of conflict. If the recent answer to diplomacy in avoiding a conflict prone attitude is to walk away, then it would possibly suggest an inexperience in finding consensus and compromise through discussion (heated and otherwise). Mkdw^talk 19:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose over insisting that a full 7 day RFA be run. --Rschen7754 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Due to the unusual circumstances of this RfA, I fear that the candidate will be unfairly piled on in the oppose section. In my opinion, any candidate who has been around for a decent amount of time should be able to get his or her RfA reopened, at least when only a handful of !votes have been made, without having to go to as much trouble as this candidate did. Obviously, this RfA has very little chance of being successful, but it was originally closed with only eight !votes having been made. While I don't question the decision making of those who made the early closure, it's not too unreasonable for a candidate to ask that an RfA be kept open longer than this one originally was. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In my estimation, it's not the circumstances of the SNOW closure at all. Consider that there were other ways to address the situation. And this gave everyone an adverse situation involving the candidate, to see how they chose to deal with the situation. "Not well", I think, would be a fair estimation. - jc37 05:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Was it handled well? Probably not. However, the candidate should not have had so much difficulty in getting it reopened. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   As the original closer, I was never against re-opening this nomination. As I said to him, I closed it to do him a favour, and after he reverted my close, I did not had the intention to close it again. Actually, if Wizardman would not have re-closed it, this would have stayed opened since then. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I think Wizardman may have re–closed it since it appeared that your closure was reverted because you are not a crat. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, maybe. But Mrsi, instead of asking for it to remain opened, said that he'll "accept only closure from a bureaucrat, period." Then a crat came and closed it. But if he'd said "I'd like this to be open the full seven days," things would have been different. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I completely agree. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. I agree with User:AutomaticStrikeout that this RfA was closed too soon considering the candidate has been around for awhile and wanted to continue the candidacy. While WP:SNOW might be an obvious conclusion to spare newer editors from a pile-on of opposes and after some advice about what they should do in another candidacy, I think it was too soon to close an RfA for an experienced editor who wanted to see how the comments would develop. I'll stay in neutral since it appears that the outcome is shaping up without another support or oppose vote likely to affect that outcome. Let me add that I am not saying that WP:SNOW should not be applied to experienced editors but that the candidacy should run a little longer in a case like this, especially if the editor does not want such an early termination. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Comment. To put this in perspective: A capable editor with valuable contributions, and excellent specialised knowledge. In contrast with abrasive demeanor, weak communication skills and a lack of common etiquette. The fact that the candidate simply decided to ignore all of the comments that was suggested to him (including the editor review I gave him) is frankly disappointing. Neutral to avoid unnecessary pile on. Alex Shih^Talk 06:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moral suppport. The candidate possesses obvious intelligence & technical skills; if he can only rub off the rough edges I'm sure will prove a valuable management asset. (I especially like this candidate's self-evaluation and adaptability whereby I've seen him in at least two separate occasions step back to reevaluate and change his opinion and tact. No one is perfect and it is popular to be "stuck in [one's] ways", so to actually see change & self-improvement is a positive and even inspiring.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. The "If it's not on my Watchlist then I don't care about it" is being misinterpreted and is a red herring. (We all have Watchlists and not every item on the WP is in them because our interests are selective. That is all he meant.)[reply]
5. So difficult. Do you debar someone from adminship for being honest? I'll be watching this user in the future in preparation for the later RfA we anticipate.Deb (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. What Deb said. I can't support right now, doesn't meet my criteria; on the other hand, the whole way the thing was SNOWed and then not reopened at Incnis Mrsi's request...i believe that has lead to more opposes than necessary. Neutral for a candidate with undoubted ability and real concern for the project is not where i'm happiest landing, but here i am. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   While I can't show that your impression is incorrect, I think it's instructive to have a look at this RFA at the time of the first close, in case you haven't done so already. The snowball was well on its way down the hill at that point. IMHO, the close has only made some editors more sympathetic - but I think I understand and respect your concern. BTW, I don't think I'd ever interacted with the candidate before. -- Scray (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you clarify what means “interacted”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   "To interact is to act in such a way as to have an effect on another." —Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I did look at the position when it was closed originally. In fact, i looked at it before it was closed, and was preparing to land somewhere at the time. I suspect that Hahc21's well-intentioned action (and, to be clear, in mine opinion correct action) probably stopped some supports and opposes, both. I also suspect that even if the original seven days had run, the candidate would not have become an admin, but i doubt there'd have been this much attention and this many opposes. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:36, 7 August 2013 (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.