Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret

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

Secret

Final (18/9/6); Withdrawn at 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Secret (talk · contribs) – In a way, this is a difficult nomination to write. Partially that's because I'm out of practice, but it's also since I've seen this user around for a long time. To be blunt though, this is a user who, for better or worse, has the best interests of the project at heart. Secret has written several featured articles for the site over his years here, and has dealt with conflict from problematic users appropriately, including quite recently. Included in his featured content is Selena and Ben Paschal. This is, simply put, a user who would be further valuable with the extra tools. With him, the worst thing that could happen is that he resigns and turns them back in, but that's also true of every other admin as well. Adminship is about being a net positive to the site, and this guy is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination Secret ^account 03:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Honestly I plan to use the tools less than I had before, as I just bought so much material for baseball writing that I'm going to focus on writing content for now on. Recently I seen so much new adminstrator mistakes, articles that are speedied that shouldn't be, WP:AFDs closed as delete though they should have been no consensus, no consensus AFDs that should have been deleted because none of the keep voters had any policy based reasoning, bad faith AFD openings (like all the Transformers sockpuppet AFDs) that I couldn't close because I wasn't an adminstrator. Yes I'm a strict deletionist, but I don't let my point of views affect my closes. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages was an example of something I disagreed with but closed the consensus directly, I also closed several of the most heated AFDs the project has seen, and my out of my almost 1,000 AFD closes and many thousands of deletions I've only been overturned once in DRV that I remember (not including prods and closes when new information comes to light). So I would close the occational AFD, but most likely I'll just do the WP:CSD (which is always backlogged), image deletion, and the occational WP:AIV report. Yes I made mistakes in the past, Mzoli's Meats but I do have the good intentions of the project at heart. Secret ^account 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A: My best contribution in my opinion is the Paul Krichell article, which I started from scratch and it's now in WP:FAC, I'm also glad about the other four featured articles and the good article I have. I had more good articles but they were removed during the GA sweeps as I couldn't find the time to update them as I was either too busy at work (which I been inactive most summers because of it), or too busy using the tools, but I'll be more restrictive using the tools. My new project is Eppa Rixey followed by Roberto Clemente and History of baseball. I have so many articles to write, that if I fail this RFA I wouldn't mind it and likely won't try RFA for a very long time. Note I also started the WP:NSPORTS guideline. Secret ^account 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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 just had a conflict with User:AJona1992 over his addition of adding gross misinformation on the Selena article. The article had to be protected and I just had to give a such a stern warning to AJona that he finally realized that what he was doing was wrong, and hopefully he would become a contructive editor in the future. I do have a schizoaffective disorder, which explains some of my erratic behavior in the project and evenually led to my desyropping by ArbCom, but I am fully medicated and capable of handling the stress that comes from becoming an adminstrator. Secret ^account 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

4. Could you please set out (a) when you have previously been an administrator; and (b) the circumstances in which you relinquished the tools? I know the information (eg Arbcom) is there for us all to find, but I think it would be helpful to explain it briefly here, in your own words.

A I was an adminstrator from July 2006 - January 2009, with the exception of two breaks, one because of the Mzoli's Meats incident when I took a comment by Jimbo the wrong way, and another time when I was being harrassed by Blu Addvark as I was the one who blocked most of his socks and let discussion of his ban. He created a libel article about me in Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I had to lay low for a while, that was back in 2006, I had my facebook hacked, my page became the article of the now (meaning it was on the front page of encyclopedia dramatica for three or so days) and a whole lot of harrassment that I thought about leaving the project forever. But doing that was going to be a victory for him, and wouldn't get my ED page deleted unless I get legal action which I can't afford right now. Mzoli's was in 2007, I was so hurt that I purged the password of my old account and disabled email, but I was right back attracted to Wikipedia, and I got my new account resyropped after confirmation and a apology. With 2009 I decided that wikipedia was interfering with my school work and I request a desyropping, I became inactive soon afterwards until November 2009 when I asked for the tools back. I got desyropped by ArbCom a little over a month later. I was slowly developing systems of scizoaffective disorder, and my health was been deteriating for quite some time. I had a full nervous breakdown after a fight with my family which left me hospitalized and I told my cousin who knew the password to my account to delete my userpage and to leave a message explaining what happened, thinking I would be ill enough that I had to cancel school (which I had to miss two semesters) and my hobby which is this. I was hospitalized around 10 times, including once for two weeks before I managed to get my life back in track with the proper medication, which is Geodon. I didn't have an computer I could use so I was inactive until last month, when I finally went back to the University. I'm still a bit ill, I'm fighting a recent sleeping disorder that is forcing me to me most of my classes. I'm going to the doctor tomorrow as an emergency to explain that my sleeping medication doesn't work, and I need another one. With the money I'm getting Columbus Day weekend (I work as a nightclub promoter) I should be able to buy a computer more often juggling schoolwork with articlework. Thanks Secret ^account 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please supply links to the relevant ArbCom discussions? ^Bongo_matic 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the only thing I could find; there's also a couple oversighted edits at User:Secret from that time, presumably concerning the same issue. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note see the ED article before deciding to support or oppose please, to see what kind of hell I was going though in the project encyclopediadramatica.com/Jaranda Secret ^account 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

5. Firstly I would like to Thank you for your dedication ,commitment and desire to contribute to Wikipedia despite your health problems.Can you confirm that you have a very strong password (You need not give a hint here) given the fact that your accounts including Facebook were hacked?

A: I have a very strong password, I had a different password (just my mother's name) as my facebook account password, my account was never hacked, I just let the dumb mistake of letting my cousin edit on my account.

6.Can you assure the community that you will never share your password with any other person again in any circumstances?

A: You can be reassured that I won't never share my password again, to regain the trust of the community I would place myself on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, as I see some concerns in the oppose section. Secret ^account 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} Secret, my regards and respect for your contributions. These questions will go some way in contributing to my (and perchance the community's) belief and trust in your future competence in the administration of Wikipedia. I apologise in advance in case the questions look affronting.

7. A newly created BLP, which is clearly not an attack BLP, is nominated for an AfD by an established editor. Seven editors comment (seven is just a number to give an idea of reasonable participation), all voting keep at the end of the seven days' listing period. There are no delete votes. You are the closing administrator and notice that neither does the BLP have any reliable sources, nor are there any reliable sources reasonably available. Kindly comment on your subsequent course of action in this situation.

A: I would see how valid are the keep votes, if none of them cite policy, or are suspicious (like five of the keep voters has never been in AFD before the incident, which is a sign of either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or canvassing) I'll relist, explain why I relist the AFD, and vote delete with a finding of my research, and if it's the case with new users, I would ask for a checkuser. Secret ^account 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

8. Does the term 'high profile individuals' have any relevance when it comes to BLP policy?

A: Of course it doesn't, all BLPs should be held to the same standards, which is WP:V, and have highly reliable sourcing, if anything the BLP policy should be stricter on "high-profile individuals" removing any sources that are opinion pieces or clearly biased, unless the opinion writer is notable on their own right, or the newspaper is highly reliable, for example notable writer with their own wikipedia entry writing from a blog, or opinion piece from an highly reliable source (The New York Times, Rolling Stones Magazine, etc) criticizing the subject. Secret ^account 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

9. You notice a controversial statement in an article, which, according to your knowledge, is completely false. The statement has been supported by an exceptional reliable source. Yet, you're sure that it is false. If you were required to recommend an editing action on that particular statement, what would it be?

A: I would see how long was the statement was on the article. It's highly possible that the exceptional reliable source decided to use Wikipedia as a source for the statement. If the article is before the time the statement was added, I'll look if that statement is mentioned on other "exceptional" reliable sources. If it is, I'm likely wrong and I'll keep the statement, if it's not it must be a newspaper mistake and remove the statement from the article, or take it to the article talk page. For example, some reliable sources has Usher (entertainer) birthplace in Dallas, while others have it in Tennessee. We had the Dallas birthplace for a long time on Wikipedia, but now with an "exceptional reliable source" (Allmusic) have him born in Tennessee (they originally had him born in Dallas, so the site themselves are confused by it), I had to take it to the talk page, where nobody commented yet so far. Secret ^account 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

10. You wrote above, that all BLPs should be held to the same standards; and if at all (there were to be different standards) high profile individuals' BLP should have stricter standards. I write my final query here (and I apologise again for this; Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}). Would the term 'low profile individuals' have any relevance when it comes to BLP policy?

A: They should follow the standards of BLP, anything unsourced, or comes from unreliable sources should be reverted or removed, and honestly they should be held the same standards as the "high-profile" ones, as low profile BLPs are more of a problem for Wikipedia than high-profile BLPs. Secret ^account 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Secret: Secret (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• Edit summary usage for Secret can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Honestly my stress always gets affected when I'm under an RFA, if there's one thing I can't handle very well in this project it's RFAs, and my history with them shows. I been through alot of them, and always I make such a big deal that I either withdraw the first thing bad that happens (that was back in 2005 and 2006, I barely passed my June 2006 RFA because of that problem). I'll avoid this RFA unless I have to answer questions for its duration.

Support

1. Yes. Positive interactions, and from what I've seen of their contributions, they're knowledgable and competent. I have no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. Good luck, Airplaneman ✈ 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
2. It's about time. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
3. WP:AGF Support. After the circumstances surrounding your desysopping, I was extremely reluctant to support, but it's been a while and you were a great asset when you were an admin. I'm going to assume good faith and hope that the issues of the past are behind you and there will be no such issues in the future. Trusilver 05:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
4. All mortal men make the occasional stupid decision, and Secret was among them. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Was an admin before, learnt the mistake he made earlier, so nothing wrong here. Minimac (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Support was intending to co-nom but got sidetracked by RL busyness. Wizardman sums it up succinctly as I would have. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Super Secret Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
8. I have long been a supporter of Secret, including at some of the less happy times he notes above. I trust that the password for the account will stay secure. I admire your dedication and desire to help despite your illness (an illness which is not really our business, however I appreciate your candour). Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  07:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Everyone have their ups and downs in RL, and it's good to see Secret still here despite his personal problems. Bejinhan talks 10:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - trusted user, has learnt from past mistakes and I highly doubt his password will be an issue now. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:05pm • 11:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Support —Soap— 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Per Trusilver. I think that the arbcom action has taught you a lesson, and by the looks of your contribs, it has. Good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Suppport I see no reason why not to support But it's a Secret! Pilif12p :  Yo  14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Support morally surely. I believe that an editor (and a former administrator), who has the wherewithal to own up to past intransigent occurrences and has the honesty to provide details of current personal issues in the way Secret has, has my complete moral support. Secret, I hope you take time off to answer the questions above; take your time if you wish, but do well. Even though, editorially, I would not agree with some of your past actions, I'd go a long way to defend your right to undertake them. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
16. I understand health issues are very difficult to juggle with Wikipedia, but Secret knows the ropes and has been very open about his editing history. I, for one, have trusted him for a long time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
17. Support No reason to oppose, this editor has shown that they have an understanding of policy and procedure. Ronk01 talk 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
18. I think I can support this. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry to be the first. I admire your dedication to Wikipedia, and your article work. I don't think you'd be a particularly good admin though. First off, I can barely read a sentence of yours without finding some sort of spelling or grammatical error. What is "desyropping"? A simple spell-checker will help you here if your spelling isn't up to scratch - nothing to be ashamed of! The rather long history of flip-flopping between usernames, accounts, adminship and so on doesn't give me much confidence. I understand that you were harassed, but you took it very poorly indeed. I can't understand why you'd want to risk yourself again, particularly with your illness. You even say in your Q1 answer you don't intend to do much work as an admin. Well, I think that in a case like yours, there ought to be a more compelling reason for you to get the tools back. Because, frankly, I think remaining an ordinary editor is in your best interests. Aiken (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   I am dylexcic, forgot to put my statements though Microsoft Word as it was late at night and the library was about to close. And yes I took it poorly, but I least I didn't fully retire from Wikipedia. Secret ^account 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

2. While we have an administrator shortage, for me, your nomination says enough for me. "For better or worse". Unfortunately, you've been an administrator twice before, and you've been in enough controversy, that the chances of 'worse' are too high. For me, it may be better to simply remain a regular editor, I'm afraid. Esteffect (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose I look at the history of your own userpage, and I see a lot of recent drama and mess. I wish you well, but I believe restoring you as an administrator would be a bad move for yourself and also possibly for Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm really sorry to be here, because I admire your dedication to Wikipedia and your contributions; however, I can't really bring myself to trust your judgement... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Note for the three of you I will add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, if any of my actions doesn't comply, and I won't be like certain users who remove myself from the recall category as soon as I get recalled or become promoted. I think that category is important to prevent abuses from all adminstrators. Secret ^account 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Knowingly violated WP:3RR. As Secret was a former admin, he should know better. — ξ^xplicit 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Note some of the edits were vandalism, and all of them failed WP:V, (one of the statements I reverted was that 100 million people went to her funeral [1]) so 3RR wasn't the case here, I was defended of my actions in WP:AN/I. Secret ^account 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Note there was only two edits that I reverted that wasn't considered as vandalism, the dif Explicit shows, and this one. The dif I showed, and this one can be considered as vandalism. No artist ever sold 200 million records with the exception of Celine Dion. Secret ^account 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Doesn't pass my basic grammar/spelling accuracy threshold for admins. This user has been desysopped twice now, I think that should be the limit. Answers to the questions above and a brief look into their contributions reveals a history chock full of drama. I think this user helps WP far more as an editor than as an admin. SnottyWong ^express 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   I only been desysopped once, and again I'm dylexcic. Secret ^account 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose Regardless of whether or not I agree with your stances, your constant involvement in drama on this site cannot allow me to support at this time. I feel promotion would be a detriment to Wikiepdia. Vodello (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose You're generally a good editor, however in the past you have been too quick on the gun with some of your actions, and then left the project for unknown periods of time. The tools are not a necessity, please continue your good work as an editor. riffic (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Explicit, and the candidate's response. Multiple reverts going over 3RR wasn't the most appropriate response. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   I didn't revert over four times, look at the article history closely. Secret ^account 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Comment I thought Secret (talk · contribs) was already admin? Or did I miss something here? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   See my userpage, I got desyropped by ArbCom for letting my cousin use my account as he knows my usual password for all my accounts. I changed passwords after the insident. Secret ^account 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   See [2]. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Waiting for more answers. There are some things about this RfA I'm not thrilled about while other aspects make me quite respectful of you for your commitment as well as dealing with harassment and seeking help. It's commendable but I have to be neutral for now. Tommy! 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Comment: I need to check some more past work, and give it a little longer perhaps for some more questions, but I just though I'd like to highly commend the candidate for being so open and honest about issues that have affected past spells here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I took the time to trawl through a load of random old edits and found a lot of good changes, but... occasionally slightly impulsive or not written clearly. Not bad, per se (I will not oppose this rfa) but perhaps not always at the high standard that wikipedians seem to expect from admins. That's just my judgement, though, which may or may not be worth much. On the other hand, I really appreciate honesty about previous problems and that alone nearly swung me to support. I've seen a lot of good content work so Secret could, presumably, continue to make valuable contributions to wikipedia even without a mop. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral I've seen Secret around a fair bit in the last few months and have thought highly of his contributions. I also looked at the history and issues and nothing there looks like a good reason to oppose. But Explicit's comments indicate that some issues continue. Not enough to oppose on, but enough to prevent my support given past issues. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral Nice contributions, but seems too unstable for an important job. Especially considering past events. Glad to have you on Wikipedia though. :)--intelati^(Call) 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

   Adminship is not "an important job". T. Canens (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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.