Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearian (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 20 September 2007 (Bearian's RfA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bearian | 63 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 22:02, 27 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
SQL | 44 | 13 | 0 | 77 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ronnotel | 42 | 9 | 0 | 82 | Successful | 08:20, 26 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Captmondo | 28 | 14 | 0 | 67 | Unsuccessful | 14:27, 25 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Fabrictramp | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Addhoc | 58 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Nehrams2020 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Edokter | 26 | 3 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Amire80 | 25 | 4 | 0 | 86 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Espresso Addict | 60 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 09:03, 23 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Penwhale | 67 | 20 | 0 | 77 | Successful | 23:10, 22 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
JForget | 73 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 20:42, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
iridescent | 83 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | 20:28, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Tanner-Christopher | 19 | 11 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | 20:38, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bearian | 63 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 22:02, 27 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
SQL | 44 | 13 | 0 | 77 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ronnotel | 42 | 9 | 0 | 82 | Successful | 08:20, 26 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Captmondo | 28 | 14 | 0 | 67 | Unsuccessful | 14:27, 25 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Fabrictramp | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Addhoc | 58 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Nehrams2020 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Edokter | 26 | 3 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Amire80 | 25 | 4 | 0 | 86 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Espresso Addict | 60 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 09:03, 23 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Penwhale | 67 | 20 | 0 | 77 | Successful | 23:10, 22 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
JForget | 73 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 20:42, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
iridescent | 83 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | 20:28, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Tanner-Christopher | 19 | 11 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | 20:38, 20 September 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 16:54:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Bearian
Final (63/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian (talk · contribs) - I'll fill in this section after you indicate your acceptance. Shalom Hello 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian (talk · contribs) has been an active editor for the last six months. He has added substantially to the encyclopedia, creating dozens of new articles from the "requested articles" lists: see User:Bearian/Contributions for examples. He also has spent hours solving complex administrative problems, especially at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I am impressed by Bearian's prudent method and sound judgment. He always looks for ways to solve a problematic article before recommending its deletion, and he deals kindly with his fellow Wikipedians. Bearian has the necessary experience and temperament to be trusted with admin access, and I hope this process will be little more than a formality for him. Shalom Hello 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Copied with permission. Bearian 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I respectfully decline this nomination, because I am not yet ready. I will be open to another nomination in another month or so. Bearian 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I accept. Bearian 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an administrator, I will be able to improve my already significant contributions to Wikipedia. I believe that I have earned your trust, based on my past experience. I have already declined an RfA twice, because I felt that I was not ready. I enjoy this community, and would like to go to the next level of involvement. I am in this for the long term. Bearian 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: In the future, I hope to do some things I can not do as an ordinary user, but would need to be a sysop to do:
- To close out debates at AfDs, both controversial and in cases of clear consensus, but not where I have stated an opinion.
- To monitor vandalism and correct as necessary at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, and providing semi-protection where necessary.
- To mentor new editors and admins.
- To delete pages nominated for speedy deletion.
- To block vandals after 4 or more warnings.
- To work on the backlogs at old articles nominated for deletion.
- To revert vandalism after two or more supervening edits, and do so more easily with "rollbacks".
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I actually did not need to be an admin to do my best work so far. I am especially proud of articles at Nick Katzman, Tom Winslow, and Teodoro Maniaci, although they are not yet Good articles. They, like all of the articles I have created, are works in progress. I am an eventualist. I consider them my best work, so far, because they are decent biographies about people who are not famous for being famous, but are otherwise notable. Also, I have attacked the huge backlog of legal articles requested at WP:AR1. I am continuing to create a body of work, none of which, by themselves, is great. Some of my other good work so far has been to bring stubs and articles at AfD to the Heymann standard. I like to rescue "lost" articles at AfD and "orphaned articles". For legal examples, see Law practice management software, Hague Justice Portal, Pro-rata and Ted Frank. Also see Grieg in pop culture and Irish Americans in New York City for non-legal examples. For the full list, see User:Bearian/Contributions. I have not always succeeded in getting articles rescued at AfD, for example, Electrocrunk.
- 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 have had some conflicts. I consider these as my mistakes in communication. With so many edits across so many fields of knowledge, as well as at AfD and COIN, it is inevitable that will happen sometimes. The catalog of my conflicts include:
- Making an unsuccessful request for comment.
- Disputes with other users, such as User:ArtLit, User:Joebengo,User:RadicalHarmony, and User:Arkyan. In each case, I apologized, resolved the situation, and moved on. Often, the other editor did not even seem to notice. I try to fix the problem. Most recently, I have had a conflict with User:Bazaryakov at AfD. It hopefully has been resolved, see [1]. I can provide more diffs if you need them, but I am trying to protect the innocent. Some vandals have given me grief, but I will not take it too personally. I lost my cool once, see this diff:[2], but that is the worse I have been. (I promise not to carry out my foolish threat.) I have never violated the 3R rule, nor have I ever vandalized a page, despite these conflicts.
- 4. Optional question by self. What is your specific experience at English Wikipedia?
- A: My past experience at WP includes:
- I have been an active and regular contributor to WP, about 1,000 edits per month. I have made 6,000 edits (over 2,500 in the main space) to over 3,000 pages in the past seven months. My actual count is at least 6,050, with many articles I nominated or tagged for speedy deletion, as well as some articles I tried - but failed - to rescue at AfD.
- I have created 58 current articles and stubs; see User:Bearian/Contributions. Most of these have been for WikiProject:Law. I have also created some biographies, and stubs on religion, music, science fiction and cuisine. Some of them are pretty good, but many are merely stubs.
- I have been very active at articles for deletion, the conflict of interest notice board, for proposed mergers, and the requested articles pages (WP:RA, WP:AR1, and WP:AR2). I have commented extensively at this page, WP:RfA. I have just started to become active at admin's intervention against vandalism page and request for page protection.
- I have fought vandalism by reverting the changes, and placing notice tags on the offending users' talk pages. I have not reported much on WP:AIV - unless it's extreme. My tussles are evidenced by attacks on my user and talk pages, see the diffs at my userpage for that.
- I sometimes nominate articles for speedy deletion and conflict of interest.
- I often welcome new users, and sometimes userfy autobiographies. I avoid biting newbies and try to assume good faith.
- I have used edit summaries well over 99 % of the time (see my edit count).
- I have sign over 99 % of my talk page entries (see my contributions).
- I communicate so much with other users that I have had to create 2 archives for my talk page (soon to be a third).
- I attended the NYC wiknic in August 2007. See this page for images.
- I have also done a lot of mop-type work at WP:Law - systematically watching, tagging, and categorizing dozens of articles.
- I have taken short wikibreaks of a few days, but am otherwise consistent.
- I make a strong effort to obey all rules, and not edit in anger.
Optional question from Dreamy
- 5. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? Assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.
- A: Oh, that happens all the time with my students and at times with clients. I try to get evidence to prove something. I learned once that, "People defend what they help to create." Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Bearian 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. Question from User:Pedro. How did the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk make you feel, considering the amount of effort you put into trying to save it? Pedro | Chat 09:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A:Well, I'd be lying to you guys if I wrote that I was not disappointed. However, I'll live with it. Maybe it will become a notable genre yet in the future. Anyway, I discovered yet another new form of music I like, and a community at WP. So it is not all bad. :-) Bearian 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from The Random Editor:
- 7.. I took a look at your earliest contributions, and it appeared to me as if you knew right away what you were doing. Have you edited under a IP before, or have you had a previous account. If it was a account, would you mind sharing the name of it with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Random Editor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes, I have made some of the edits at User:71.245.156.223, and perhaps one other IP address in January and February 2007; I'm not certain. I have not had any other accounts at WP. I have an account at a certain well-known blog, from which I learned some Internet 2.0 protocol. (However, that account reveals my real name and address, so I'd rather not disclose it in such a public forum.) I know a bit of HTML from a 100-level college web design course, so I found Wiki markup somewhat comparable. This is much in the way I picked up cognate vocabulary in Latin and French from my high school and South Bronx Spanish, high church Episcopalian liturgy, and law school legalese. I'll follow up when I investigate further and get a more complete answer to you. Bearian 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think I made all the edits under 71.245.156.223, but those were done after February 2007. Hmmm, perhaps I forgot to log in? More to come.... Bearian 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm still not sure. It's not the Internet cafe I'm using now. I edited a few times from an IP address located in early 2007. That's all I can figure out now. Maybe another admin can figure it out. I have not had service on my home computer, so I am a vagabond user. My co-workers have complained that I use the work computer too often. I hope this answers your question. Bearian 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think I made all the edits under 71.245.156.223, but those were done after February 2007. Hmmm, perhaps I forgot to log in? More to come.... Bearian 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., folks, I can't find the old edits from the old ISP. Here is my final answer, on how I "knew right away what (I was) doing," which in turns may be pompous, pitiful, or poignant.
- "I am smarter than the average bear." :-)
- I have no social life.
- I have found my bliss. Bearian 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes, I have made some of the edits at User:71.245.156.223, and perhaps one other IP address in January and February 2007; I'm not certain. I have not had any other accounts at WP. I have an account at a certain well-known blog, from which I learned some Internet 2.0 protocol. (However, that account reveals my real name and address, so I'd rather not disclose it in such a public forum.) I know a bit of HTML from a 100-level college web design course, so I found Wiki markup somewhat comparable. This is much in the way I picked up cognate vocabulary in Latin and French from my high school and South Bronx Spanish, high church Episcopalian liturgy, and law school legalese. I'll follow up when I investigate further and get a more complete answer to you. Bearian 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional questions from User:Geo Swan
- 8: There is Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Less than ten percent of the existing administrators have volunteered to be open to recall. Were you planning to open up your administratorship for review? If not, why not? Cheers! Geo Swan 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Bearian's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Bearian: Bearian (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bearian before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support Oh, sure... I hardly ever agree with you on anything, but you always seem to know what you're talking about. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Civil, competent, and some of the better answers I've seen in some time. Hiberniantears 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid record of contribution. Ronnotel 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Civil user who gives opinions backed solidly by relevant policies and guidelines at AfD. Should make a good admin. — TKD::Talk 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He respects advice from smart people--יודל 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support someone who declines a nom can't be all that bad. Yossiea (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Give this user the mop! Dreamy \*/!$! 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Prolific, sensible contributions to AfD. Espresso Addict 22:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent candidate.--Húsönd 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. No reason to oppose. Solid candidate. Pursey Talk | Contribs 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly appears to understand policy, and I particularly like that he has (twice!) declined a nomination for adminship. faithless (speak) 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong support per significant participation on Wiki pages, good answers. --JForget 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! — xDanielx T/C 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extensive edit count with quality edits, very organized and professional with answers, civil editor with knowledge of policies and has much experiences to admin-related jobs. He deserves to get the mop. GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great record. Pleasant and competent discourse. Dr.K. 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Happy to give my support. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great explanations in answers, as well as solid contributions. Phgao 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice guy with an excellent record of contributions. --Eastlaw 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - such a lot has been achieved since you started - a good candidate. Lradrama 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very careful, sensible, and competent editor. DGG (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Of course. Contributor show's a high degree of care, civility and commitment to Wikipedia which is very endearing. I think it is little things like this: [3] - that discern a great editor from a good editor. Definitely has my support. ScarianTalk 10:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EXTREME Support. I wasn't going to bother voting on this RfA, since it looks like it's going to pass unanimously. However, I briefly looked through the candidate's recent contributions, and found his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy. Most users would just post "Delete, fails WP:BIO" and move on, secure in the knowledge of adding +1 to the projectspace count (I admit I used to do exactly this before I became an admin, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical). However, instead, this candidate took the time to reformat the article, remove cruft and add inline citations, in the hope of saving it. [4] [5] [6] [7] So, even if we didn't mention his prodigious edit count (2,000 more than I had when I passed RfA), his civil and intelligent comments, and good relationship with other users, this would still be a candidate worthy of everyone's wholehearted support. WaltonOne 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bah. Walton beat me to it, but almost exactly the same thing happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk - per my Q6. Outcome was delete, yet Bearian made some 15 odd edits trying to save the article. And per his answer above he lives by the communities decision to delete it despite his best efforts. Prime admin traits. Bring forth the mop please. Pedro | Chat 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I honestly don't remember having a dispute with this user - obviously if we did it was so minor (or so well resolved) that it's left my mind. That's a good sign :) In any case this editor's contribs look good, seems to display a good understanding of policy, and looks worthy of support to me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - give the man his own mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. (Good to see other participants that remember the old mop and bucket.) Meets my undergoing refurbishment standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have seen Bearian around the wiki, and have the utmost confidence he will do a good job. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bearian is a great addition to Wikipedia! -Lemonflash(do something) 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Q4 answer. Yikes! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) (Drought) 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CO2 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I get a very good vibe from this user, and I have no idea why. But as for a much less arbitrary reason, he has demonstrated a willingness to actually try to save articles from deletion, something I greatly respect. And most of the above. — i said 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Upon reviewing the candidates responses I have concluded that the problem lies with me and not the candidate; I see no evidence that the mop will be abused. LessHeard vanU 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns to me. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad's rationale. Acalamari 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen this editor's work, and found him to be a civil contributor with good judgment. His participation at AfD seems knowledgeable, and he does try to fix up articles marked for deletion. He creates new articles from scratch on legal topics that appear well-balanced. He gave sensible answers to the questions above. EdJohnston 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Newyorkbrad and has a good track and declined nomination shows he is not after Admin powers.Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Newyorkbrad and good answers to questions.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great answers to all questions, very good experience, and he is a knowledgable and civil editor. He will make an excellent admin. Dreadstar † 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Every time I see this editor, another place of Wikipedia becomes even better. Full support. :) -WarthogDemon 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I agree with you about 1% (maybe that's too high) on matters at Xfd, you obviously know policy and won't misuse the tools. I also will say, I admire those who fight the good fight against the odds often for the good of WP, even against a majority of opposition (even when I am in that opposition). WP improves best by vigorous civil debate and you have certainly been a good contributor to the vigorous debate and have remained civil - and I even recall when you so improved an article that you turned around virtually all of us at Afd but in searching through your edit history I couldn't quite recall which it was but the memory remains. Good luck! Carlossuarez46 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A contributor who knows policy and whose first priority is solid encyclopedia building, with great interaction that is so important to dealing with other users as an admin. It speaks very highly to your character that those who often disagree with your opinions are also supporting you here. ~Eliz81(C) 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate appears very qualified, and I appreciate the dedication to improving articles to meet Wikipedia's criteria - that is, it's great to see a "Keep and clean up" voice that follows through on the "clean up" part. JavaTenor 17:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks experienced and competent. WjBscribe 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - woah man! Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport, even though I think you're fighting a losing battle at City of Dublin Male Voice Choir. (*grin*) Still, you know policy, you think before you type, and you can be trusted with the mop. --Fabrictramp 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - user is most certainly not insane. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - However, I have not seen an psychiatric exam report (see above by ST47) showing either sanity or insanity. WP requires citations. Archtransit 17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor, seems trustworthy, and he treated me fairly when I was vulnerable. - Crockspot 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Since the day I welcomed him, it was clear he'd be a good editor. I see I am not alone in that opinion! Jokestress 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems like a fine candidate. Good and comprehensive answers to the questions, and has a fine track record - Alison ❤ 04:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment. — [ aldebaer ] 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile-on support: I don't see any cause for concern, and I trust User:Shalom's judgement as nominator. I'm sure Bearian will do good work - though I'm still a little upset that he outed my identity... MastCell Talk 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Thanks for answering my question. Cheers! Geo Swan 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good answers and edit count. Have fun!!! •Malinaccier• T/C 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice user, good answers, lots of contributions spread nicely among all spaces. --Kudret abiTalk 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hopping aboard the steamroller. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- impressive, thoughtful candidate. --A. B. (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - Level headed and reasonable. - Jehochman Talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Very, very weak oppose User states he is currently editing from an internet cafe, be it from a personal laptop over wifi or the computers there this poses a slight security risk, heightened for a sysop. Don't leave your fly open. Dureo 04:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it pose a risk for a personal laptop? --DarkFalls talk 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is addressed in the essay I linked. Dureo 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns. I have a secure password, but am planning to change that, if chosen as a sysop. Is Verizon Internet service reliable and secure enough? I'm hoping to get them at home ASAP. Should I stop using the college's computer for this purpose, or should I get a bot account? Bearian 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I would hold this as a reason to oppose, but, yes, please do exercise caution on a public computer. An incorrectly configured system could be infected with a key sniffer and potentially leave your account vulnerable. Ronnotel 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest creating a sock account for you to use when you edit from a less-secure location, such as a college computer. Socks are allowable in instances like that, and it's suggested that it be named something similar enough to your main account to make it obvious; for example, my own account is creatively named User:EVula's sock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is a weak reason to oppose, thats why I said weak, weak :P, but still concerns me, if you take your own laptop, it's a small matter to break the WEP/ WPA and pull your password out of the air, even worse if you use their computers and someone has slipped some type of keylogger onto the system, so being careful goes a long way. Dureo 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a point of interest, about 70% of my Wikimedia edits are done wirelessly (granted, it's a home network, but still). Yes, the danger is there, but I don't think that wirelessly connecting on your own machine is terribly high-risk (as opposed to logging into a public terminal). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is a weak reason to oppose, thats why I said weak, weak :P, but still concerns me, if you take your own laptop, it's a small matter to break the WEP/ WPA and pull your password out of the air, even worse if you use their computers and someone has slipped some type of keylogger onto the system, so being careful goes a long way. Dureo 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns. I have a secure password, but am planning to change that, if chosen as a sysop. Is Verizon Internet service reliable and secure enough? I'm hoping to get them at home ASAP. Should I stop using the college's computer for this purpose, or should I get a bot account? Bearian 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is addressed in the essay I linked. Dureo 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it pose a risk for a personal laptop? --DarkFalls talk 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral I want to support, but I find that I am uncertain. Perhaps it is the quantity of contributions to RfA and XfA for someone so "new" to WP. Hopefully the answers to The Random Editor's question, or this, will alleviate my concerns.LessHeard vanU 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Change to support. LessHeard vanU 15:33, 22 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
SQL
Final (talk page) (44/13/7); Ended Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:31:57 UTC
SQL (talk · contribs) - Let's see... I really hate talking about myself, but, I suppose, I have to here. For starters, I really believe in this project, and, I would like to help it succeed. I think, that I would be a useful addition to the extraordinary team already in place here. I've only been what I'd call active, here, since about 6/07. Since then, I've done a lot of reverting vandals, reporting to AIV, and, generally improving the encyclopedia. I have been very active, in fixing articles with reference problems. I've even made a bot to list articles with <ref> tags, but, no {{reflist}} tags to display them. There were some 16,000 entries, before User:Smackbot started fixing them at high speed :)
I also try to fix Broken Redirects. I've got a bot for that, too. I do my best, to notify users, of these tags, however, more often than not, it's too late, by the time the user gets the notification. I should probably note, that I've got somewhere around 700 deleted contribs, I think, from doing this.
Anyhow, I would like to thank you all, for your input here. SQL(Query Me!) 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Obviously, I accept :) SQL(Query Me!) 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: To start, I would like to participate, in the things that I am the most familiar with. For one, fixing (or, deleting) broken redirects. A lot of the time, these can simply be fixed. Sometimes, they cannot, and, should be removed.
- Secondly, I'd like to help out at WP:ACC more. I really enjoy helping out there. I love bringing new people to the project :) (I've probably got stacks of wikipedia-space edits in, doing this, but, as WP:ACC pages are deleted every so often, they likely won't show up in the editcounter.)
- I would also like to help out, more, fighting vandals, and spammers. Particularly at WP:AIV.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Hmm. That's a tough one. I'm really proud of my work with references, on the other hand, I really enjoy correcting vandalism. I suppose, the reference work wins :) Not just the {{reflist}} stuff, but, correcting references in articles, such as, changing inline links, to cited references ({{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}} etc etc etc,), finding new references, and, removing spam references.
- 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: That have caused me stress? Not really. I don't really get stressed over things on the internet. The closest I've come to a conflict, was, when User:Lib Democrat came to me, asking me to get involved in his/her conflict. Basically, I rephrased WP:DR to that user, and, they moved on.
- Optional question from Миша13
- 4. Why have you decided on a self-nom (which is often frown upon) instead of finding/letting someone else to nominate you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misza13 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I've only ever seen it made a big deal once, from a user that always claimed that self-noms are evidence of 'power hunger'. I also feel that sometimes, the nominator gets factored into the equation as opposed to it being about the candidate. I would really prefer to go through RFA on my own merits / faults, as opposed to who / how many who's nominated me. I hope this answers your question :) SQL(Query Me!) 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from aldebaer
- 5. A box on your user page says you made over 3.000 contributions to Wikipedia. Wannabe kate displays a total of 2.537. Is it broken?
- A: Sorta, but, no. As of right this second, Special:Preferences says I have 3,388 edits. This includes deleted contribs, which, Wannabe_kate does not display. SQL(Query Me!) 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: Could you explain the difference? What was the nature of the ~850 deleted edits? — [ aldebaer ] 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Edits, to pages that either no longer exist (due to being deleted), or, edits, that were not included, when a page was restored from deletion, are not viewable by non-administrators. I assume, that wannabe_kate uses some form of screen-scrape, and, probably (wisely) does not use an account with administrator permissions, and, therefore, does not list these, in it's count.
- Followup: Could you explain the difference? What was the nature of the ~850 deleted edits? — [ aldebaer ] 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Sorta, but, no. As of right this second, Special:Preferences says I have 3,388 edits. This includes deleted contribs, which, Wannabe_kate does not display. SQL(Query Me!) 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the exact nature (I mean, down to every last edit) of my edits, I can't tell you for sure... I don't have sufficient permission to view them at this time. However, Mr.Z-man summarized them pretty well below, in the Neutral section. Most of them are Broken redirects (under R1). I tend to tag a lot of those for speedy deletion. Some are A7's, albeit not many, probably less than 30 (Notability not asserted). And, there are probably 30 or less G11's (Advertising). Also, probably, less than 10 G10's (Attack Pages). Of course, those figures are guesses.
- Another bit of my deleted edits, although I have no idea how many, are pages from Wikipedia:Request an account, which, are deleted every so often, due to privacy concerns. Anyhow, I hope that this answers your question! SQL(Query Me!) 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional questions from User:Geo Swan
- 6. One of my frustrations with the current corps of administrators is that, in my experience, we have allowed it to include some volunteers who seem to act as if their obligation to comply with WP:CIV is over once they have been entrusted with administrator authority. The way I see it, administrators have an extraobligation to fully comply with policy, becasue we should be conting on them to set an example. If we entrustr you with administrator authority, can we count on you committing yourself to continue to do your best to fully comply with WP:CIV -- to fully comply with all wikipolicies? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Absolutely! WP:CIV is a very important policy, and, should not be ignored by anyone, regardless of what area of the project they volunteer at. And, I agree with you, about administrators setting a good example. I don't claim to be perfect, but, I will do my best to continue to follow Wikipedia's policies, regardless of the outcome of this RFA. SQL(Query Me!) 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Another important quality I would like to see all our administrators possess is enough objectivity and humility to keep in mind that they too are fallible, capable of error. I'd like our administrators to have enough maturity to bear in mind, ever time someon has a question about their decision, that they are capable of error. I own up, when I realize I have made a mistake, and I would like all our administrators to be able to own up when they realize they made a mistake. When you have realized you have made a mistake in the past, have you been able to openly acknowledge this? If we entrust you with administrator authority, can we count on yuo being objective enough, and humble enough, to remember you are capable of error? Can we count on you owning up when you realize you made a mistake? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yep, I have made mistakes in the past, and, expect to make them in the future :). I'm only human, and, will make mistakes. It's always best just to admit it (ESPECIALLY to yourself...), try to correct the mistake, apologize, and move on. So, yes, I beleive you can count on me owning up to it, when I make a mistake. SQL(Query Me!) 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. I was a bit alarmed by one of your answer to the frist question -- that you saw yourself as a "vandal fighter". But you didn't say what "vandal fighter" means to you. No. This is not obvious. And, unfortunately, in my experience, the ranks of administrator include some self-identified vandal fighters whose definition of vandalism is indistinguishable with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could you please be more specific about what you regard as "vandal fighting"? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I'm sorry, that I wasn't clear enough. WP:IDONTLIKEIT should NEVER come into consideration, when correcting vandalism, and, I think I've been pretty neutral, so far, in my efforts. My definition, of correcting vandalism, is two-fold. I use tools, like Lupin's, and, techniques such as watchlisting articles with vandalism problems (and, watchlisting everything I touch), to find vandalism. As above, an edit isn't a vandal edit, just because I don't like the subject. Vandal edits, are things like 'XXX is a dick', and the like. I do this part already. The second part, is blocking accounts and addresses, in order to prevent further vandalism. In most cases, this does not mean, an account that stopped 4 hours ago. I hope, this helps clarify things for you, and, everyone else SQL(Query Me!) 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 9: There is Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Less than ten percent of the existing administrators have volunteered to be open to recall. Were you planning to open up your administratorship for review? If not, why not? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I've always thought that this category is a great idea, and, I do plan on listing myself there, should this RFA pass. I haven't, however, put much thought into the process to use there (it seems, like everyone has a slightly different version), but, right now, I don't need to worry about that. SQL(Query Me!) 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See SQL's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SQL before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support I was kind of thinking the Wikipedia space edits were too low. But, considering the other work you've done over the last few months I'm fairly certain you'd do fine with the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholeheartedly support This user embraces the spirit of WP in my opinion. We all make "whoops" once in a while. Locking someone to a minimum period of time or number of edit counts does not necessarily demonstrate skill which has obviously been demonstrated. I think this user would be a great addition to the admin ranks. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While my normal thershold for a comment in support of an editor is 14 years and 3 months of experience in the project, an annual income in excess of $56,378, and an Image talkspace edit count well north of 90,000, I believe this editor has displayed enough maturity, and skilled edits over an admittedly short period of time to gain my trust. Hiberniantears 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do not believe that this user would abuse the added tools given to him. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support an excelent editor but he does not have as much project space edits as I would like to see. -Icewedge 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good user. Acalamari 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Water. See him around. Also, I can't help express my incredulity at expecting a user to be here a year before submitting a an RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded my comment on the one year thing here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Honestly, I find the extra scrutiny this user is enduring (yes, enduring) to be unusual, unnecessary, and ridiculous. There is no evidence the candidate will abouse the tools; therefore there are no reasons to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CO2 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — your mainspace contribs are not particularly satisfying, you seem like a good guy who won't go crazy with the tools. The opposing comments here are just plain bizarre. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although the project space edit count is niggling, there's no reason whatsoever to believe tools will be misused --Benchat 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure niggling is a word? :P Interesting enough, FireFox isn't flagging it as misspelled... I'm gonna have to google this one! (Googled before saving....) Well I'll be! it means 'petty' basically. Not what I thought it would have been! :) Thank you, for your trust. SQL(Query Me!) 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as I see no reason to assume abuse. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced enough. It shouldn't be necessary to spend your entire life glued to a keyboard in order to become an admin. WaltonOne 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Walton One. ♠TomasBat 13:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - however weak or strong - per Pursey and Icewedge. Not quite at the magical number of 3,000 edits, but six months is enough time to test the user's trustworthiness. Perfectly sensible editor. Bearian 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. SQL did a good job at Hunting license. Bearian 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user seems just fine for adminship. I do not see the need to deny tools based on the reasons of the opposers. Captain panda 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thoughtful candidate, no issues, will do fine as an admin, even though he is slightly inexperienced. Editcountitis is no reason to oppose for me; most people who became admins 2 years ago had less than 2.5k edits, and I haven't seen them go mad with the banhammer. Melsaran (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An earnest candidate, slight inexperience in this case is not a problem for me. No oppose evidence has been provided, only vague generalizations. VanTucky Talk 21:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Reedy Boy 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very modest, constructive and supportive. I don't see how he'll misuse the extra tools. MITB LS 06:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rettetast 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good edits, seems friendly and helpful. See no reason why this user would abuse being an admin, and wish you the best. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - if you do good work, don't get stressed and get loads of slightly drivelly opposition to your adminship, you get my vote! :-> Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor will use the tools properly and after spending the last part of this evening deleting all the broken redirects you tagged for speedy deletion, next week I hope you'll delete them yourself. :-) Carlossuarez46 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a fine editor who will make a fine admin. Xdenizen 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, does not appear to be stupid. Neil ム 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good sense of the social dynamics and how they grow at Wikipedia. Bsharvy 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, switching from neutral. Excellent answers and great attitude. Tim Vickers 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Dureo 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support answers, CSD tagging, edits to AIV. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support SQL seems like an excellent editor with a desire to use the tools and the experience necessary to know what he's doing in almost all cases and know what to do when the rare anomalous case comes up. I don't see much in the opposition that doesn't boil down to editcountis.--Chaser - T 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don;t believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Me neither, and the one year thing is ludicrous. * Aillema 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree. Setting an arbitrary time frame is meaningless. I've seen sleeper accounts run by bots that pop up after a month to a year, some even make edits off and on during that time. Having an account for a year doesn't make an editor any more qualified for adminship than an account created yesterday. Setting an arbitrary time frame for advancement is for paid positions, not volunteer work. If a volunteer shows the dedication and skill(s) to get the job done, give them the tools to keep working. --I already forgot 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't think he will abuse the tools; seems at least adequately experienced. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NetUtility(SQL + mop) > NetUtility(SQL) Ronnotel 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ach, what the heck. I trust this user will not misuse the tools. — [ aldebaer ] 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason to believe the user will misuse the tools. Level headed, mainstream view of the goals of the project, etc. Avruch 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. With the deleted ACC edits, you show that you have the experience to handle the tools. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He's been around a while, he's got at least a thousand edits, he's never been blocked, and a brief look at his contributions show no major problems. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I'd love to see more experience. However, seeing as that's basically the only argument given by the opposers and I see no red flags, I'll give in here. Wizardman 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks OK - a little more experience might have helped with a few lingering doubts but you seem to know what you're doing. Take it slow when dealing with anything unfamiliar and don't hesitate to ask for help :-). WjBscribe 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Spawn Man's concerns, expressed more thoroughly and persuasively than those of some other opposers, are not, to my mind, without merit, but I do find there to be the record of contributions here to be a sufficient one from which to draw the conclusion that SQL is sufficiently acquainted with policy and sufficiently possessed of sound, measured judgment as to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know that he does not know) the tools, such that I feel comfortable concluding with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There's nothing to suggest that SQL would, in bad faith, abuse the administrative features, and there's nothing to suggest that xe, while acting in good faith, would misuse the tools through ignorance, or that xe would misuse the tools in an occasional lapse of judgment and be unwilling to revisit the situation, reverse xyr action if necessary, and accept appropriate criticism for, and learn from, that occasional lapse. </longsentence> WODUP 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - per question 2. More experience required. M.(er) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (expanding) Also, per question one, you really don't need the tools for those purposes. M.(er) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...how not? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators have to do more than tagging refs. Although, I applaud the user for his efforts, there is so much more than tagging refs. For example, upholding biographies of living persons. I have created accounts, combated vandalism, etc. and really didn't need the tools in order to help out in those areas. M.(er) 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- re. his Q2 answer: Since when does question 2 have any relation to admin tasks?
- re. his Q1 answer: I'm sure you're aware that administrators are able to create more accounts than regular users, are able to revert more effectively using the admin rollback function, and are able to block persistent vandals - 3 tasks that SQL is currently unable to do. You may not need the tools, but he has demonstrated a need for them in these areas. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, however, that's just a small scope of what adminship details. You have to make sure articles coincide with certain rules, as well as resolve disputes among editors. I don't see that from this candidate right now. We aren't debating what the powers do. We are debating if we can trust him to use the powers. And, now due to the lack of experience, my decision is still oppose. Sorry. M.(er) 09:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators have to do more than tagging refs. Although, I applaud the user for his efforts, there is so much more than tagging refs. For example, upholding biographies of living persons. I have created accounts, combated vandalism, etc. and really didn't need the tools in order to help out in those areas. M.(er) 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...how not? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (expanding) Also, per question one, you really don't need the tools for those purposes. M.(er) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Ignored basic WP:AFD assumption and deleted a draft article I was working on in my user page --Donn Edwards 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he can't delete articles at the moment - he's request the powers to do that ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'd like to see more experience all round yet. Especially Wikipedia-space. Lradrama 09:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your honest criticism :) I'll make sure to work on that SQL(Query Me!) 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for understanding. As long as you take note of all the pointers laid down here, and work on them, you'll become a great Wikipedian and a worthy admin. Mind you, this RfA may yet still pass. ;-) Lradrama 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NP :) I'm not terribly concerned if this RFA passes or not. I'm just volunteering to help :) I knew, going into this, that I might be a little new, for some people's tastes, to be trusted to help out, and, I take absolutely no offense, at any Oppose comments here. In fact, I have found most of them very helpful, as to directing me to places, that I can help out more! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for understanding. As long as you take note of all the pointers laid down here, and work on them, you'll become a great Wikipedian and a worthy admin. Mind you, this RfA may yet still pass. ;-) Lradrama 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your honest criticism :) I'll make sure to work on that SQL(Query Me!) 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - User requesting adminship should be active for a minimum of one year so other wikipedians can make a thorough evaluation of the user before granting such privileges. --I already forgot 10:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ( Note to discussion )Confirm oppose with El C method. Even though this is the users RFA, user made no attempt to mediate discussion or quantify reasoning against requiring one year for adminship, even though user responded to less controversial decisions to support/oppose after discussion. --I already forgot 05:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If requestor of adminship should be active for at least one year, should those that support or oppose be required to be administrators who have been administrator for at least two years? And also be bonded with a criminal background check? After all, there is no mechanism to prevent convicted felons, rapists and murderers from being an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of One (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One year? Most admins have not even been active for that long, and it shouldn't take such a period of time to evaluate a user. DarkFalls talk 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most admins have not even been active for that long" And so goes the problem. "and it shouldn't take such a period of time to evaluate a user" Says who? Is their an authority on admin evaluation and what is/are their credentials. If you allow, I accept nothing less than a BA in BS :) .--I already forgot 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no should be active and this is a personal requisite. Khukri 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like adminship is a big deal. Leebo T/C 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was made an administrator with 10 months experience and 2000 edits. Am I that unsuitable for adminship? This is not a reason to oppose the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was made an admin with 5 months of experience and did not get a single opposition on my RFA for experience. - I still don't have a year of experience. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I've been un-happy with some of the decisions made by admins elected over the past 8 months with very little overall time here at wikipedia. I've decided that instead of complaining to myself about it, I should be a bit more active with the RFA process. I personally would NEVER hire a manger to help run my company with less than one year of on the job training. Anyone who has been in a position to hire someone knows that the worker always starts out as an eager motivated worker that is pleasant to work with. After they have settled in and the newness of it all wears off, you finally see their true colors. Throw in a few season changes, employee disputes, job redundancy, etc., then you can start the evaluation for a management position if you think they are still qualified. Until then, they are just a newbie enjoying the "newness" making friends and focused on moving up the ranks. I may be over analyzing the requirements for adminship but there is more to adminship than reading the rules, making friends, and wracking up edit counts. Time in the saddle is just as valuable. --I already forgot 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was made an administrator with 10 months experience and 2000 edits. Am I that unsuitable for adminship? This is not a reason to oppose the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So rather than follow the procedures for resolving conflict, you enter a protest vote here at RfA? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter is that an administrator is not comparable to someone of responsibility like a manager. Everything administrators do is undoable, and it really doesn't take much to carry out the majority of administrative actions. Again, adminship is not a big deal, but discussions like this make it seem like it is. Leebo T/C 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree and obviously hold adminship too a higher regard (which may be why my opinion is not very popular). I'm sure my opinion will keep me from ever being chosen for admin rights but its not about me so I will continue to voice my opinion on matters that have a large affect on wikipedia even if it doesn't send warm fuzzies and barnstars.--I already forgot 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said it was the reason why I chose to be active in the RFA process ( which I knew would not go over well with the liberalness with which administrators are "elected" so I always avoided it). Also, I have not been in a conflict with any administrator. My perception has been influenced by admin actions toward others. I feel that SQL needs more time in the saddle which has nothing to do with any sort of protest. --I already forgot 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you won't support any user unless they have one year of experience? --DarkFalls talk 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There can and will be exceptions to my own personal criteria for adminship, hence the use of "user" instead of "users". In this case, I see nothing that would warrant an exception. Given the relative low activity for the first six months or so, an additional few months to evaluate the user does not seem unreasonable. --I already forgot 09:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you won't support any user unless they have one year of experience? --DarkFalls talk 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter is that an administrator is not comparable to someone of responsibility like a manager. Everything administrators do is undoable, and it really doesn't take much to carry out the majority of administrative actions. Again, adminship is not a big deal, but discussions like this make it seem like it is. Leebo T/C 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An admin is more a glorified janitor/security guard than a manager. There are about 1,000 admins on Wikipedia, most recieved the mop (that's what some of us used to call it) with far less than one year's expereince. I'm sorry you don't agree with some admins, but it's their responsibility to follow consensus, support policy. If you know of any instances of admin abuse, it needs to be addressed through proper channels for the good of the project Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, calm down. Regardless of whether or not editors should be active for a year before adminship or not, he is entitled to his own opinion on the matter. Everyone has different ideas on admin criteria, X number of edits, X number of months, X number of mainspace, X number of AIV, or whatever. Useight 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Far as I know, everyone still uses the "the mop" to describe adminship. Sure, we are supposed to believe that they are just a janitor but soon as a janitor (admin) can put employees on leave or fire them completely (editors
bannedcontinuously blocked from editing) or discontinue a product (page deletions) I refuse to accept that admins are just janitors in the traditional sense. To me, they are more of a hands on manager. Yes, I agree, they should act as janitors but thats not always the case so I'm not going to throw out my support to every smoe requesting adminship. I think if more editors here were concerned less with becoming an admin, they would tend to be a little more cautious about handing out the mop. Just my opinion here.--I already forgot 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like adminship is a big deal. Leebo T/C 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ( Note to discussion )Confirm oppose with El C method. Even though this is the users RFA, user made no attempt to mediate discussion or quantify reasoning against requiring one year for adminship, even though user responded to less controversial decisions to support/oppose after discussion. --I already forgot 05:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough experience. AdamBiswanger1 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Just not quite there on the experience...yet. Keep up the good work, and try again a little bit later on in the future. Jmlk17 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too little experience. Not enough real contributions to the project. Another janitor for the project. And really weak answers to the questions (don't expect a novel, but I do expect some indication of intelligence, commitment, wisdom, and other character traits, whether positive or negative). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose for now. I can't help suspecting that you've been editing based on what would sharpen your RfA, possibly at the expense of integrity. You've supported a lot of RfAs recently, and some of your !votes were cast 2-3 minutes after a previous one, though it looked like you didn't have prior familiarity with the candidates in most of those cases. My suspicions might be off, and if they are correct you might make a good admin anyway, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting after a few months. — xDanielx T/C 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- First off, thank you, for your honest feedback. My editing patterns, generally reflect things that I think I can best help with. For instance, I think, that references on wikipedia, are a semi-serious problem, and, one that I feel I am well-equipped to deal with. Yes, that resulted in probably 4-500 edits, before a bot was created to do it. Also, RC patrol... Another area, that I feel I'm well-equipped to deal with what I see as a serious problem. Then, there's RFA comments. My criteria, are probably fairly low, compared to other editors. Also, for every hour that I spend editing, I probably spend 5 reading. While I may not interact with everyone, I feel like I get to know them fairly well. I probably don't dig as deep in the contribs as I should (and, often times, I am working on a couple in tabs at the same time), but, generally, I go by what I see around the wiki :) I don't see admin status as a big deal, so, I usually lean towards support, unless something catches my eye, to give me a reason not to. In other words, I try to practice WP:AGF at RFA. However, I generally refrain from commenting on RFA's, where I have not 'seen the editor around' a lot. Anyhow, again, Thank you, for your feedback, and, I hope this helps to address some of your concerns :) SQL(Query Me!) 06:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak oppose. Looks pretty good, but over half of this editor's edits were in the last three weeks. I'd like a longer time before supporting. Useight 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, 1/3 or so of my contribs have been this month (by Special:Preferences, I have about 3,200 contribs, not 2xxx as wannabe_kate does not include deleted contribs). Had it not been for the reflist project, and, my addiction to fixing references, this would very likely have been another ~350 contrib month. I believe, that I have proven that my judgment can be trusted, given over 700 successful CSD's (Although, DarkFalls, did decline a few, that redirected to the mainspace as a result of bad/vandal moves, because they were in the userspace), and, almost 20 successful AIV blocks. Anyhow, thank you, for your honest feedback. I asked, you answered, and, I appreciate it! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, wannabe_kate shortchanges me about 1100 edits (4600 in Special:Preferences and only 3500 in wannabe_kate. Stay active through next month and I'll be supporting in six to eight weeks. Useight 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, 1/3 or so of my contribs have been this month (by Special:Preferences, I have about 3,200 contribs, not 2xxx as wannabe_kate does not include deleted contribs). Had it not been for the reflist project, and, my addiction to fixing references, this would very likely have been another ~350 contrib month. I believe, that I have proven that my judgment can be trusted, given over 700 successful CSD's (Although, DarkFalls, did decline a few, that redirected to the mainspace as a result of bad/vandal moves, because they were in the userspace), and, almost 20 successful AIV blocks. Anyhow, thank you, for your honest feedback. I asked, you answered, and, I appreciate it! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough contributions in talk space to evaluate how this editor interacts with others. I feel that communication is vital to the role of admin, and this "lack" also does not provide evidence that the candidate fully understands policy - as abiding by it, and explaining it to others are different animals. LessHeard vanU 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not much time here and my interactions with him show that he hasn't yet learned how to deal with problem users, my read is that he gives input without regard for newbie biting or what he's actually giving input on (for example, he inadvertently got involved with a very nasty edit war, without even realizing it I think). Also came away feeling he had only a superficial understanding of WP policy. Certainly adds to the "inexperienced" comments above. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per question 2. Admins should have sufficient interest and practice in article writing in order to be able to make a sound judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --Irpen 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second thoughts about opposing
Weak opposeper above. I want to support you, but it doesn't appear that you've been under enough pressure to effectively judge how you will respond when that time comes. I hate opposing over this, but I don't feel that I can support you, or be apathetic to you getting the tools. Sorry, The Hybrid 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - (withdraw oppose) 4 months of editing is really fresh and 82 main talk edits are awfully few to reliably estimate long-term behaviour in that important namespace. What tipped it over for me is the
smiley in the signatureoveruse of smileys which gives me the creeps and the feeling that the user doesn't quite get it (I know it's a lame reason, but it really makes me uncomfortable in combination with your editing age and main talk participation). On an unrelated note, you may also want to get rid of the annoying floating message on your talk page (but that's really just my personal opinion and I wouldn't withhold support for much longer than a second if it were only for that). — [ aldebaer ] 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you, for your comment! Hey, I'm curious, where the smiley in my signature is? If there is one, It's not intentional. Also, I'd like to point out, that I've been here for about 7 months (well, registered, at least). Anyhow, thank you for your input! SQL(Query Me!) 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second thoughts about opposing
- Oppose - WOW! How come so many editors are supporting when this user clearly hasn't been active long enough or racked up wnough experience?! 8 months, one of which he was inactive and the others with low edit counts? Under 200 Wikipedia namespace edits?! We really are letting our standards slide significantly. However, although I don't think the editor is a bad guy or would abuse the tools, he really needs more experience. I thought I knew everything on here, then I started contributing to AfD and noticeboards recently and I found I knew very little. I'm only now getting a grasp on things and I've been here over 2 years. This user needs waaay more experience and I'll oppose until he does so. Please don't reply over and over to this comment, everythin's already been said above and you're not going to change my mind, so there's no need. Cheers, Spawn Man 12:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per Spawn Man and others. Experience is limited. This is the first month of strong participation. Wait a few months, gain some additional experience, then try for adminship at that time. LaraLove 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Regretful Neutral with shades of support. I just really can't fully support. You've only really been here three months with a sudden massive flood of work recently. Nothing wrong here, but I'm just not convinced that it's enough time as opposed to experience. I strongly disagree with I already forgot that you need to be here a year, but I wish you'd perhaps waited one more month or so to show consistency. Also although your work is great I'd have liked to see more WP:XFD bits and generally more project contribs. In my opinion, a certainty in the future but I would like to see more than a one month explosion before fully supporting. I'm sorry if that sounds mean. Best. Pedro | Chat 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support What this editor has done up to now is great, but I myself am in agreeance with Pedro, in that it's not experience, but time, as once you have been here for a period of time, you get to know things more deeply, and realise there actually is a lot to Wikipedia than first meets the eye. Phgao 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - The opposes have some good reasoning, however I won't oppose. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, with only 81 edits to talk pages it is hard to be sure how well this editor interacts with others. Everything looks OK with what is there but I'm uncomfortable making a decision on such a small sample size. Tim Vickers 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Switching to support. Editor's answers and ability to address issues brought up by other editors during this RfA have been exemplary.[reply]
- Neutral
leaning heavily toward support: While I can't find anything to make me want to oppose, some more talk space (other than user talk template warnings) would be nice. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Also, even though you did not specifically say you were going to do much CSD work besides redirects, some more CSD experience would be nice too. I skimmed through your deleted contribs and only a handful of your speedy deletion tagging were something other than R1. While you may not be interested in clearing the article/image backlogs, some more knowledge of the different criteria (like G11, G12, and A7 specifically) would be nice as questions and complaints regarding speedy deletion often come up in places other than CAT:CSD and newpage patrol. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, all the way :) I said, that I would like to start out, on R1 CSD's.... It's what I'm probably most familiar with right now (As far as CSD's go)... And, that's exactly what I've been CSD'ing mostly :) Thank you, for confirming (for those without the ability to do so themselves), that what I'm looking to do, is in fact, exactly what I have experience doing :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, even though you did not specifically say you were going to do much CSD work besides redirects, some more CSD experience would be nice too. I skimmed through your deleted contribs and only a handful of your speedy deletion tagging were something other than R1. While you may not be interested in clearing the article/image backlogs, some more knowledge of the different criteria (like G11, G12, and A7 specifically) would be nice as questions and complaints regarding speedy deletion often come up in places other than CAT:CSD and newpage patrol. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to neutral. Same concerns are before, but candidate's response was fairly convincing. — xDanielx T/C 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Lack of experience, but very strong edits recently. I would support in the future, but for now - I am undecided. Crassic(talk) 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - user does lack experience interacting with other users, but I no longer have any concerns about what this would mean. If a user can take the pressure of an RfA, then they can take almost anything :P. I don't feel that I can support due to this lack of experience, but I no longer consider it anything worth opposing over. The Hybrid 06:23, 26 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Ronnotel
Final (42/9/4); Originally scheduled to end 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnotel (talk · contribs) Ronnotel 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I boldly, but humbly, nominate myself for adminship having, in my opinion, established a reputation among my fellow editors as a responsible, reliable and knowledgeable contributor to this project. I am most proud of my contributions to the financial pages, particularly those having to do with options and volatility trading. I have initiated a number of articles in these areas, and have worked on improving many more. However, I have also spent a good bit of time patrolling for vandalism, mentoring new users, and making non-content edits to articles in both the more active and less active areas of WP. I would like to note that I was once briefly blocked, but this was due to a mis-understanding regarding my attempt to fix page move damage during an extremely busy period of updates on Seung-hui Cho. The block was reverted after I explained my actions and intent to the admin involved.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I am particularly interested in addressing vandalism not just by blocking users, but by helping to reform vandals into productive editors. In the finance pages, there is a tendency for spammers, promoting some trading package or another, to carpet spam a number of pages with links to their wonder product. It would be useful, at times like these, to be able to rollback changes en mass.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The two pages I feel I made my strongest contributions are Option (finance), which I substantially rewrote, and Virginia Tech massacre, where I was one of the most active contributors and which was singled out by external sources as an example of excellence within Wikipedia.
- 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: With one exception, I have been fortunate to avoid major confrontations. The exception was Option (finance), and had to do with to whom the page was to be targeted - i.e. a general audience vs. a more stylized retail investor interested in options as an investment. Rather than engage in edit warring, my strategy was to simply wait, make gradual, incremental improvements, and then after I had gained consensus, re-incorporated a more encyclopedic tone when the time was right.
- 4. from Dihydrogen Monoxide
- Is there a reason for your minimal use of edit summaries? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit that I was surprised by the stats because I feel that I do make an effort to provide good edit comments. Looking over the history, I believe the issue has to do with edits in the intro section of article (when no auto-comment is provided) and I am making merely tweaking a previous edit. Please note that as per the suggestion below, I have now turned on the 'force edit comment' property (of which I was previously unaware).Ronnotel 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Ronnotel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Ronnotel: Ronnotel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ronnotel before commenting.
Discussion
- I think this is a case where people have to really look beyond simple metrics to measure how good a candidate Ronnotel is. Project space edits are not the sole indicator of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and process. Two and a half years of substantial contributions, calm demeanor, willingness to get involved with guaranteed-headache articles like Virginia Tech massacre: he's an excellent editor, with plenty of experience on the project who clearly understands how things get done around here and there's no reason to believe he would, knowingly abuse or unknowingly misuse the tools. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before this gets closed off, I'd like to add some thoughts on take-aways from this process. Regardless of whether the RfA is successful or not, I think this has been an extremely helpful exercise for me. The feedback has been open and frank - it's not often you have the chance to receive such direct input on how you're doing. Here's what I heard and what I plan to do about it, (this applies whether I get the mop or not):
- Edit summaries - I was clearly not up to standard. I have turned on forced edit summaries and will keep in on. My edit summaries from here on will succinctly paraphrase my edit and be useful to admins in their duties.
- Edit count - some were concerned about my edit counts. While it's true I have not been very active in traditional admin-type duties, I will make an effort to do so to gain needed experience. I will also make sure not to get in over my head and will ask for help when needed.
- Argumentative & badgering - there was a concern raised that I may have been argumentative in some of my interactions here. In all cases, my intent was simply to engage in the act of consensus building. Nonetheless, I will redouble my efforts to maintain a balanced and measured tone when doing so. I will consider the impact of various words when formulating arguments, and strive to use the words that maintain the clearest meaning and minimize the probability of being mis-construed.
- Tool use - in the event that this RfA is successful, I promise to be diligent and judicious in the use of the mop. I will respect these new tools and not use them beyond my competence level as I am coming up to speed. It goes without saying that I will never abuse them.
- Controversy - some expressed a desire to see me engage in more controversy, in order to judge my performance under stress. I'm a little less clear on what do here, since by nature I avoid controversy and seek consensus. Nonetheless, I will try to spend some more time working on high-visibility articles. However, I can't promise to generate controversy for it's own sake.
Please feel free to leave your own additions to this list. Ronnotel 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Tentative support. Candidate shows a reasonable (though not outstanding) amount of experience in WP-space. Looking through edit history, I found nothing major to complain about. May possibly change my stance if another editor discovers something objectionable that I overlooked. — xDanielx T/C 07:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support mature editor that should do fine as an admin but please turn on the forced edit summary option in your preferences. Pascal.Tesson 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the option 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'? If yes, then I have done so. Ronnotel 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what he means, I have it on as well, it's a nice feature, as it's always good to let others know what you are doing with a particular edit. Phgao 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that's what I meant. After a week of "*** not another **** warning", you'll develop good habits! Pascal.Tesson 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what he means, I have it on as well, it's a nice feature, as it's always good to let others know what you are doing with a particular edit. Phgao 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the option 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'? If yes, then I have done so. Ronnotel 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Probably the best editor I've seen on Wikipedia, certainly in the technical areas of finance. I've worked with him on the Option (finance) article and found him to be helpful, polite, and patient, but most of all extremely knowledgable (without pushing his technical expertise to the extreme - no patronizing attitude here). He may have referred above to some minor disagreement we had on the technical level of the article (or to the audience that it should be aimed at). But if that was a "conflict" then 99.9% of the edits I've seen on Wikipedia are conflicts; at worst it could be described as a "polite disagreement." I've seen his work on other finance articles and it is just as good as on the option article. By the way, I consider myself to be an expert in the area of finance, and I can judge if somebody else knows what they are writing about. Ronnotel does. I can tell if somebody is pushing a non-standard point of view - Ronnotel does not.
- There is a real problem in finance articles, as he has mentioned above, where companies push their new products, "expertise," trading platforms, etc. And this pushing can easily cost our readers lots of money. Ronnotel does not push a product or a point of view, and I trust that, as an administrator he will use his additional powers to prevent others from doing so. In short A+++. Smallbones 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, my disagreement I referred to above was not with Smallbones, but with Retail Investor, regarding a section entitled Risk. Ronnotel 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a real problem in finance articles, as he has mentioned above, where companies push their new products, "expertise," trading platforms, etc. And this pushing can easily cost our readers lots of money. Ronnotel does not push a product or a point of view, and I trust that, as an administrator he will use his additional powers to prevent others from doing so. In short A+++. Smallbones 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I would like to see you gain a stronger technical grasp of Wikipedia, I think you bring a specific focus, and objectivity that will help you function quite well in the role of sysop. You have certainly been here long enough, and have made more than enough edits to demonstrate you actually know what you are doing, and can be trusted. Hiberniantears 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — [ aldebaer ] 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with this type of indicator. Does it mean the same as Support.? Ronnotel 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. -Lemonflash(do something) 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Here's the diff. I merely signed in the support section (using "support" as my edit summary to avoid any potential confusion) to express my agreement with the nomination. The constant use of "support" or "oppose" on what ostensibly is not a vote but a discussion is a bit unnerving. — [ aldebaer ] 09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with this type of indicator. Does it mean the same as Support.? Ronnotel 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Glad to give my support. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support,
despite not reaching the "magic number" of 3,000 edits. He appears to be a longstanding and trustworthy, if sporadic, editor. Needs to be more consistent with the edit summaries, but has contributed tomanya good articlesand one featured article. Bearian 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Bearian 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support He needs to use edit summaries, needs experience, and needs technical experience in order to become a better contributor. No reason to oppose. A.Z. 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the question, I referred to the overwhelming trend here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason not to. Neil ム 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The finance pages on Wikipedia are weak, and would benefit from having a dedicated admin who can coordinate efforts among WP:FINANCE contributors and combat linkspam. Finnancier 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all the points raised above, which imo outweigh any opposing arugments. I might add, I did not arrive lightly at this decision, and I did evaluate your contributions which I found to be quite good.Phgao 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I looked through his recent contribs and found a great combination of major and minor article edits, vandal-fighting, and XfD participation. Basically, primarily an article-building editor, who nonetheless has enough experience in admin tasks to understand the tools. WaltonOne 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate has been editing since 2005 and has made substantial article contributions, and has some familiarity with deletion process. 120 Wikipedia-space edits is not a lot, but it's enough to show me that he knows the basic principles. Shalom Hello 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Finance is a tough area to write about, and given the amount of spam we have in business-related areas, a set of admin eyes knowledgable in the area could be a valuable asset to the project. Also, Wikipedia namespace does not equal policy knowledge, nor does it equal experience. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's made good contributions, he's experienced, and I trust him. That's all it takes to get my support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support a fine hardworking editor; per Orangey's comments below, basically. * Aillema 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unconvinced by editcountitis opposition. Acalamari 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also unconvinced by the edit-counting oppositions which do not demonstrate any reasonable doubt as to this user's ability to use the tools. --Haemo 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. The candidate has made substantial contributions despite low edit count. Majoreditor 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Reasonable variety of experience, good on talkpages... Unlikely to run amok with mop. LessHeard vanU 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Editcounters should all have their heads examined. Sometimes I imagine a Wikipedia without any edit count scripts. Users could still count the edits by hand, of course, but they'd have to actually look at Special:Contributions (I'll link it in case some of you forgot where it was), instead of some sad computer-generated summary. "Barely contributed to the project" my ass. I'd be pretty hacked about nonsense like that as well. If over two thousand good-faith edits is not a big enough sample for you to determine if you trust someone not to burn the encyclopedia down with admin buttons, then, to paraphrase Jimbo, maybe you should stay away from RFA and just find a new hobby. ➪HiDrNick! 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like oj. --Benchat 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Basic, no concern with this editor kind of support. CitiCat ♫ 22:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Very good edits, unlikely to abuse privelages. Crassic(talk) 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a great candidate.--Chaser - T 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a good editor and the editcountitis-suffering opposers should evaluate the quality of his contributions and his knowledge about policy rather than an arbitrary number of edits. Melsaran (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Default position should always be to support unless there is a decent reason to oppose. Two and a half years is long enough to form a judgement- in this case, I see nothing at all that suggests to me that Ronnotel will misuse the tools. Admin is no big deal etc etc etc.... Badgerpatrol 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Checked his contributions and they look quite good and spread. Answers to the questions are also satisfactory. Edit summary usage could be higher but now that he is forcing it, this should not be a problem any more. --Kudret abiTalk 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quality over quantity. Large, complex edits requiring research are take more time than drive by punctuation corrections and bot-like edits, or even more significant but less complicated edits not requiring research. Nom should not be penalized for taking the time to do research. I do not find the oppose arguments compelling. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think there is plenty of good reasons to support. Captain panda 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - contribs show someone sensible and unlikely to misuse the tools. Reasonable policy experience. My only concern (edit summaries) is addressed by the answer to Q.4. WjBscribe 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. Dureo 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Frankly, some of the oppose votes show the folly of using raw edit counts. User has quite substantive mainspace contributions. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Genuine knowledge of financial topics and very impressed with the statement in the discussion section. If he can figure out stochastic volatility I'm quite sure he has the intellect to comprehend the intricacies of WP:CSD or WP:BP. --JayHenry 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Substantial, high-quality record of contributions. JavaTenor 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm not particularly concerned by the number of portal talk edits Ronnotel does or doesn't have. There is nothing that I can find, or that any opposer has raised, which concerns me in the least. He seems to be a sensible, experienced, and communicative editor who will be considered in his use of the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I spent quite a bit of time combing through this editor's contributions today, since I have not (that I know of) crossed paths with him before. (My initial contributions here are below, under neutral.) There seems to be a very good history of contributions to Wikipedia in general. Although contributions to some of project space are a bit light--and it would be nice to see more interaction with vandals, since vandal fighting is what he wants the tools for--his behavior overall reflects due consideration, diligence and obvious desire to improve Wikipedia. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. I remain slightly concerned about the willingness to promote a blog as a source in a WP:BLP here, but I note that the candidate didn't run willy nilly ignoring all rules, and he offered sound reasons, even if I personally disagree with them. :) He proposed and, lacking much vocalized consensus, didn't press forward. That reinforces my belief that he will not abuse the tools. I am also still a little concerned about the conflict-averse behavior demonstrated here, but primarily because I suspect that if the editor uses the mop for dealing with vandals, he's going to be finding it pretty hard to "avoid controversy and seek consensus". That said, it once again encourages me in my belief that he won't abuse the tools. His responses to my questions were reasonable and seemed in line with his typical approach to conversation. He seems generally prudent, and I see no reason for concern. Good luck, and if you don't make it this time, I think you might find it valuable to try out more Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. It'll probably give you all the opportunity you need to demonstrate your ability to deal with conflict. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Upon rethinking things, I think that Ronnotel is more than cabable of adminship, he may not have a large edit summary but what really counts is that when he edits, a radical change is made to a page his demenor also seems perfect for adminship. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit history warrants support. My statements below still apply but I do not see a glaring reason to oppose. (personal note:using ElC method/not effective). --I already forgot 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even as there remain for me a few (rather trivial, I suppose) unallayed concerns, I am convinced that Ronnotel is possessed of sound judgment, measured disposition, and cordial and civil demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I can conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. (I am further motivated to support by the support of Pascal; although I do not base my RfA conclusions solely on the nominations or expressed views of other editors, I would say that Pascal is amongst our most sensible users and that his conception of adminship is generally consistent with mine, and so his strident support should speak well of a candidate.) Joe 05:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defense, I'd like to point out that I often compose complex contributions on a sub-page and then post them in a single edit. E.g., I substantially rewrote Employee stock option with a single Main space edit. My point being that my edit count total may somewhat under-represent my true experience level and record of contribution. Ronnotel 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - roughly scattered edit count, with very few Wikipedia-space contributions. Not up to standard as of yet. Lradrama 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This "standard" is getting rather ridiculous. 2600 edits over 2 years, including significant researched contributions on difficult topics, is a considerable amount of experience. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose( changed to support ) - As per above. User needs more experience with basic housekeeping task. I would also like to see few more controversial edits (started by other users) so we know how he/she would handle the issue and expanded use of the edit summaries.--I already forgot 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- Barely over 100 wiki-space edits. AdamBiswanger1 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done Adam, you can count! :) * Aillema 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. 100 wikipedia namespace edits means a lack of experience with the encyclopedia. That's just an absurdly low number, and, even if it wasn't your intention, I don't think its fair to accuse me of being narrow-minded. It is just my belief that a candidate should have at the very least around 400 wiki-space edits, just like how I won't vote for a presidential candidate who hasn't held a position in government before. AdamBiswanger1 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, in defense of my experience, I would like to point out that while I may not have engaged in an overwhelming amount of typical 'Admin' chores such as XfD, nonetheless I have been relatively active in other non-content tasks such as anti-vandalism and spam patrol. Over my length (2+ years) of activity, I have demonstrated more knowledge about WP policies and tools than a statistic like 100 edits might indicate. Perhaps there is some way I can attempt to address your concern? Ronnotel 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I think you just need a bit more experience. Wikipedia-space edits show that you can discuss matters of policy civilly and intelligently with other users. I am certain you can do this; you just need to prove it. AdamBiswanger1 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, in defense of my experience, I would like to point out that while I may not have engaged in an overwhelming amount of typical 'Admin' chores such as XfD, nonetheless I have been relatively active in other non-content tasks such as anti-vandalism and spam patrol. Over my length (2+ years) of activity, I have demonstrated more knowledge about WP policies and tools than a statistic like 100 edits might indicate. Perhaps there is some way I can attempt to address your concern? Ronnotel 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. 100 wikipedia namespace edits means a lack of experience with the encyclopedia. That's just an absurdly low number, and, even if it wasn't your intention, I don't think its fair to accuse me of being narrow-minded. It is just my belief that a candidate should have at the very least around 400 wiki-space edits, just like how I won't vote for a presidential candidate who hasn't held a position in government before. AdamBiswanger1 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done Adam, you can count! :) * Aillema 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible oppose I'm going to sound like a broken record, but here I go again. Just someone who wants to be an admin, but has barely contributed to the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you and I have different definitions of barely. He's been here for 2 years and a half with a record of solid, substantial edits across the project. Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I certainly acknowledge the right of anyone to oppose my candidacy, I believe Orangemarlin's charge that I have "barely contributed to the project" is unfair and demonstrates unwarranted contempt. I have compiled a somewhat lengthy response on a separate page. Ronnotel 13:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it matters to this vote, but I've slightly changed my vote to a strong oppose based on this barely civil post on my user page that probably violates WP:CANVAS. Sometimes individuals show their true colors under a bit of cross-examination. I honestly don't give much credence to violations of WP:CIVIL because it is a matter of interpretation, and a bit of incivility now and again certainly makes a point. But, in this case the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe all my comments have been civil, and I apologize if any was taken as otherwise. Is there a particular statement to which you object? Also, I do not understand your comment regarding WP:CANVAS, my comment on your user page was intended as a courtesy notification to you that I had responded to your comment in a non-obvious area, i.e. a sub-page. I believe WP:CANVAS addresses an attempt to unduly and non-transparently influence a user's vote, which was not the case here. Ronnotel 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, just an outside take on it... I saw absolutely nothing wrong with that post, Orangemarlin. You had a concern, Ronnote addressed it with a userspace subpage, and left you a note about it. Not really canvassing (in my opinion). Yes, he could have loaded it up with smilies and pictures of puppies and/or kittens or other happy-fun-silly-dumb things, but he didn't; that doesn't make it uncivil by any stretch of the imagination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You and I have disagreed on these things in the past. Why am I not allowed my person POV on candidates? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are well within your rights to voice your opinion. The flip side to this is that I'm equally within my rights to voice my opinion as well. It's a two-way street. (for what it's worth, I don't even remember what we have disagreed about before this) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Confused you with someone else whose name is similar (well, ok, you and Durova share a V in your names). Please forgive me. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are well within your rights to voice your opinion. The flip side to this is that I'm equally within my rights to voice my opinion as well. It's a two-way street. (for what it's worth, I don't even remember what we have disagreed about before this) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You and I have disagreed on these things in the past. Why am I not allowed my person POV on candidates? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That last comment is even more absurd than the original oppose. First, you might want to read the canvassing guideline again if you think that notifying an editor that one has responded to a comment is wrong. Secondly, his response to you is perfectly acceptable and measured in tone. Your original assessment that he had barely contributed to the project was way off-mark and nobody can blame Ronnotel for taking issue with that. And now you're saying he fails your "subtle test of maturity"? You are failing my not-so-subtle test for inability to recognize when you're in the wrong. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I appreciate the comments.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not Orangey, you're simply wrong and you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with this behaviour. I've often found that users who shout "That was uncivil!" are the most rude and uncivil people themselves. Thank goodness most people bother to look at the candidate before opposing, for what I can only call proposterous reasons. * Aillema 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What hole? Read above. I don't actually care about civility. I am quite rude and uncivil, and fairly proud of it. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not Orangey, you're simply wrong and you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with this behaviour. I've often found that users who shout "That was uncivil!" are the most rude and uncivil people themselves. Thank goodness most people bother to look at the candidate before opposing, for what I can only call proposterous reasons. * Aillema 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I appreciate the comments.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it matters to this vote, but I've slightly changed my vote to a strong oppose based on this barely civil post on my user page that probably violates WP:CANVAS. Sometimes individuals show their true colors under a bit of cross-examination. I honestly don't give much credence to violations of WP:CIVIL because it is a matter of interpretation, and a bit of incivility now and again certainly makes a point. But, in this case the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeStrongest Possible Oppose. I think this editor could do with a bit more experience and maturity before attempting to make the move to admin. A total of less than 2600 edits? Less than 1500 edits in mainspace? Seriously active for less than a year, although the account has been around since early 2005? I would suggest humbly that this editor is still a bit wet behind the ears. Addendum: I have now changed my vote from "Oppose" to "Strongest Possible Oppose" based on argumentation and badgering of these editors giving their input here on their talk pages. --Filll 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- This is a case where editcount doesn't give the full info. For starters, 2600 edits and 1500 edits in mainspace are not ridiculously low as you seem to imply. For the most part these are not typos corrected with AWB but substantial edits to complex pages. The account has been active two years and a half which suggests that Ronnotel was at the very least an active reader and he has made substantial contributions for at least two years. As for his maturity as an editor, the editcount doesn't provide any clue. If, on the other hand, you take the time to skim through his contributions, you'll find ample evidence of his competence. Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so you're making this a "strongest possible oppose" because the candidate notified OrangeMarlin that he had responded to the criticism? Or are you referring to the "badgering of AldeBaer on OrangeMarlin's talk page? In the latter case, a) I don't see what's srong with Aldebaer's comments and b) what does that have to do with Ronnotel? Pascal.Tesson 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is with you people that you feel the need to contest every damned vote? You stated your support, Filll stated his opposition, just leave it at that. •Jim62sch• 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, please be civil.
- Secondly, Pascal.Tesson is responding because Filll changed from "oppose" to "strongest possible oppose" for reasons that the candidate had nothing to do with, as stated here. As for why people do respond to some opposes in the first place, it is because RfA is technically considered a discussion. Acalamari 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is with you people that you feel the need to contest every damned vote? You stated your support, Filll stated his opposition, just leave it at that. •Jim62sch• 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so you're making this a "strongest possible oppose" because the candidate notified OrangeMarlin that he had responded to the criticism? Or are you referring to the "badgering of AldeBaer on OrangeMarlin's talk page? In the latter case, a) I don't see what's srong with Aldebaer's comments and b) what does that have to do with Ronnotel? Pascal.Tesson 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a case where editcount doesn't give the full info. For starters, 2600 edits and 1500 edits in mainspace are not ridiculously low as you seem to imply. For the most part these are not typos corrected with AWB but substantial edits to complex pages. The account has been active two years and a half which suggests that Ronnotel was at the very least an active reader and he has made substantial contributions for at least two years. As for his maturity as an editor, the editcount doesn't provide any clue. If, on the other hand, you take the time to skim through his contributions, you'll find ample evidence of his competence. Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with no prejudice for future attempts. From the often vague answers here, and the extremely low amount of talk and project space edits, I do not think the candidate has enough experience. Would be a great candidate with some coaching and increased contributing. VanTucky Talk 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sorry, but low amount of talk space edits doesn't show sufficient interaction with vandals - especially for an editor with the stated goal of diverting them from vandalism to productive editing. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. I didn't find the candidates answers terribly illuminating, but that aside, what I really want to see is some solid wikispace contribs, and a few blazing rows handled with tact, dignity and aplomb. – ornis⚙ 13:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 2628 edits in 2 and one-half years? Just not enough experience. And, not that I'm the greatest at edit summaries, 69% on major edits is too low. (And please, no rebuttals, I don't check back on these things either.) •Jim62sch• 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a response to Jim, as he notes he will not be back to read this, but to readers in general. It has been noted several times that the level of my contributions are not adequately represented by a number like 2600+ edits. The complexity of my edits, as well as the fact that I tend to post large revisions to complex articles in a single post should be considered as a balancing factor when evaluating my overall contribution to the project. Ronnotel 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I see two AIV edits in the last 2000 edits, I see blocks within 6 months for major reasons, and I don't see edit summaries. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't wish to be argumentative but I would like to correct the record to avoid mis-interpretation. There was a single block, which was reverted after about an hour, and stemmed from a mis-understanding about my good faith attempt to fix page move damage. Please see my opening statement. Ronnotel 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The user seems intelligent but I don't see a great knowlage of Wikipedia policey. A little more experiance is needed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Nothing wrong as such, and your article works is great. But this conversation on your talk page would indicate you were not sure how to even e-mail another user. That's not so much a fault as perhaps revealing a weak(ish) grip of the "technical" aspects of Wikipedia - which is pretty important for an admin. Also you could really do with using edit summaries more - almost all of them are automatic, even when creating new pages. That's minor but admins must leave "quick to see" information summarising their actions. Very Best. Pedro | Chat 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not yet looked over the contribs, so I can't make a determination at this time, but I wanted to comment that if he had not enabled his email or needed to use the feature before, he probably didn't even know the option existed. I don't think that should be a determining factor in eligibility for adminship. Of course, I'm just saying. You are entitled to your opinion. :) LaraLove 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but this is a very unhelpful neutral. You don't know the editor. I have never been in contact with millions of other editors on wikipedia. Not so much, as having seem them around. It just seems like a unhelpful vote. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not surprising he voted nuetral, he has edited over 1 day, and is suspected of being a sockpuppet. This is just to build his posting count.JJJ999 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Jmlk17 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense to you but I don't think it is fair to the nominee or the reviewers if you don't give a reason for your vote. just putting Neutral doesn't help anyone. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, (switched to support above) and I hope to have the opportunity to re-evaluate. :) I have two primary concerns relating to the candidate's participation at AfD and to his position on sourcing. First, the contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off and its subsequent discussion on the user's talk page makes me wonder about the editor's philosophies on AfD discussions and his feelings about controversy in general. It puzzles me that the user was willing enough to be swept into the global warming debate to put forth an opinion for keeping the page, but not enough to simply link to the references purportedly found. There's nothing wrong with acting with caution, but I can't see the purpose for stating that reviews exist and then refusing to specify them. "You can google it yourself if you want" does not strike me as the type of response an administrator ought to give and is not really in keeping with the purpose of AfD, which is to discuss the articles, not merely to !vote on them. It also makes me wonder, if controversy is something he seeks to avoid, how he will handle the fall-out that comes with working more extensively with vandals. As far as I can tell, this editor's interactions with vandals have been very few. My second primary concern regards the comment at Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names in support of incorporating information into an article from a blog that is "fairly well documented and supported" (per the candidate's words). This suggests to me that the candidate may not have considered the reason for the stance on blogs and the issue of "editorial oversight". If the information were adequately sourced at the blog, as asserted, it should be possible to trace it back to a reliable source that could be used, rather than incorporating a source that per policy "should only be used in articles about the sources themselves". I'm not sure that was a good case for WP:IAR, and I would like to understand the rationale. --Moonriddengirl 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you've done your homework. I'd like to respond to each of the issues you've raised. My contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off, in which I referred to a list of references I found at google was somewhat premature. I found what seemed at first glance like a list of notable reviews in multiple mainstream sources, however when challenged, I reconsidered and found problems with them that made me doubt whether they would stand up to scrutiny. I had somehow tricked myself into believing that what looked at first glance like multiple, independent reviews actually all channeled back to the same review that could possibly be seen as a blog. Perhaps I should have specifically conceded the issue but my action that day was simply to disengage. No, my actions weren't perfect and this is one of the few instances where I'd like to a do over. However, I don't think my behavior was beyond the pale - I made a mistake, and when it was pointed out, I quickly realized it and moved on. Regarding Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names, yes, my thinking was indeed along the lines of WP:IAR. I agree that blogs are to be avoided because they do not have editorial controls. However, in this case I was agreeing with someone else's opinion that this might be an exception because the blog post is essentially a detailed and transparent compilation of publicly available information. Certainly there needs to be latitude to discuss such situations on the Talk page - otherwise how would consensus on exceptions be found? As yet, there hasn't been sufficient consensus (I would set the bar particularly high because this is a WP:BLP page) and no further action has been taken. FWIW, I am very familiar with WP:RS and often cite when deciding whether to use a source or not. Ronnotel 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hank you for taking the time to respond. :) Everybody makes mistakes (I know I sure do), but I wonder if "moving on" was your best response in that case. If you had discovered you were in error, why tell the editor who came to your talk page seeking clarification that the people in that community "play far too rough" and to "google it" himself? If you could do this over, what would you do differently? As for my other concern, your history on Norman Hsu makes it obvious that you are generally very careful about sources, but I do wonder a bit about your interpretation of the conversation at Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names as you agreeing with another editor about the appropriateness of including that source. That suggestion seems to have originated with you. SEWilco suggested "watching for" the numbers "in other sources." If the data is detailed & transparent, is there a reason to ignore all rules rather than seeking WP:RS? --Moonriddengirl 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I believe that when I made that particular comment, I hadn't yet discovered my error. However, I do recall spending a bit of time reviewing the discussions on Global warming and starting to regret getting involved in the AfD in the first place. It is a highly controversial topic and an area I would generally try to avoid. After my first comment, I was simply trying to extract myself as quickly as possible. As I said, I didn't cover myself in glory, but at the same time I don't think any lines were crossed. If I were to do it over, I would have admitted my googling error in the first place and retracted my original comment. It wasn't pride that cause me not to do that, just a desire to disengage as quickly as possible. Re: Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names, I guess I mis-read SEWilco's comment, and missed that he was simply suggesting to track them. Ronnotel 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hank you for taking the time to respond. :) Everybody makes mistakes (I know I sure do), but I wonder if "moving on" was your best response in that case. If you had discovered you were in error, why tell the editor who came to your talk page seeking clarification that the people in that community "play far too rough" and to "google it" himself? If you could do this over, what would you do differently? As for my other concern, your history on Norman Hsu makes it obvious that you are generally very careful about sources, but I do wonder a bit about your interpretation of the conversation at Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names as you agreeing with another editor about the appropriateness of including that source. That suggestion seems to have originated with you. SEWilco suggested "watching for" the numbers "in other sources." If the data is detailed & transparent, is there a reason to ignore all rules rather than seeking WP:RS? --Moonriddengirl 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you've done your homework. I'd like to respond to each of the issues you've raised. My contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off, in which I referred to a list of references I found at google was somewhat premature. I found what seemed at first glance like a list of notable reviews in multiple mainstream sources, however when challenged, I reconsidered and found problems with them that made me doubt whether they would stand up to scrutiny. I had somehow tricked myself into believing that what looked at first glance like multiple, independent reviews actually all channeled back to the same review that could possibly be seen as a blog. Perhaps I should have specifically conceded the issue but my action that day was simply to disengage. No, my actions weren't perfect and this is one of the few instances where I'd like to a do over. However, I don't think my behavior was beyond the pale - I made a mistake, and when it was pointed out, I quickly realized it and moved on. Regarding Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names, yes, my thinking was indeed along the lines of WP:IAR. I agree that blogs are to be avoided because they do not have editorial controls. However, in this case I was agreeing with someone else's opinion that this might be an exception because the blog post is essentially a detailed and transparent compilation of publicly available information. Certainly there needs to be latitude to discuss such situations on the Talk page - otherwise how would consensus on exceptions be found? As yet, there hasn't been sufficient consensus (I would set the bar particularly high because this is a WP:BLP page) and no further action has been taken. FWIW, I am very familiar with WP:RS and often cite when deciding whether to use a source or not. Ronnotel 14:32, 25 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Captmondo
Final (28/14/7); Originally scheduled to end 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Captmondo (talk · contribs) - I have been active on Wikipedia since March 2005, and have concentrated primarily on articles relating to the history and culture of Ancient Egypt, and am an active member of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt. In terms of the number of edits, I am just under the 2,000 mark, though I take more pride in making substantial additions to articles rather than a pure edit count. In that capacity I have collaborated with other members of the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject on various articles, and am pained when I see repeated vandalism of substantive articles requiring constant vigilance. I cannot claim to be an academic on the subject, just someone who has had a lifelong interest in the subject and who has gained a good sense as to what views are academically respected, and have acquired a substantive personal library on the subject the better to provide citations where needed.
If I am made an Administrator I intend to use the new tools to better monitor pages within the purview of the Ancient Egyptian Wikiproject, with the hope of bringing up the quality level overtime. I have a longstanding commitment to the topic, and will continue to do so whether I become an administrator or not. Captmondo 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: My plan is to more closely monitor pages within the scope of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt, particularly those that are often targets for vandalism (such as Hatshepsut, Rameses II, Cleopatra VII, Tutankhamun and so on), in order to more quickly revert vandalism before subsequent edits in good faith can be added. In the past I have sometimes looked through the extensive history of an article in order to sort out the bad faith edits from the good (good recent examples of these can be found in the history of the Rameses II and Narmer articles). I also plan to continue to assist new users who contribute to this area of Wikipedia, and to gently remind editors that assertions made in any given article ought to be properly cited from respected sources.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am most proud of having been a significant contributor to the article on Ahmose I, which became a Feature Article on January 6, 2007. Though the acknowledged founder of the New Kingdom, he tends to be an overlooked figure in a history that is dominated by the likes of his eventual successors Thutmose III and Hatshepsut. With information culled from many sources, I believe this article provides a very well-rounded history of this pharaoh, one which would be hard to find in other sources intended for a lay audience. On a completely different subject, I was a significant contributor to the Delrina article, which was a Featured Article on January 4, 2006, ditto the article on the McLaughlin Planetarium, which achieved Good Article last month. I was pleased when my new articles on Reserve heads and Ankhhaf (sculpture) (and their associated lead pictures, which I contributed to Wikimedia Commons) were chosen as entries for "Did you know?" back in April of this year.
- 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: The only conflict of note was with a new user (User:Leo_III) who started posted copyrighted text and images to various articles relating to Ancient Egypt. The history of his Discussion page details my polite efforts to get him to change his ways, finally ending with most of his "additions" being reverted or otherwise removed from Wikipedia. I am a very diplomatic person by nature, and am always willing to see both sides of a given argument. In future instances I would continue to be diplomatic, and firm in applying the principles upon which Wikipedia is founded. In the end an Administratorship would provide me with a better set of tools to do what I already do.
Cheers, and thank you for considering my (self-)nomination! Captmondo 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Dlohcierekim Hello, Captmondo. I woukd like to offer you some optional questions to better understand your readiness for adminship.
- 4. Please assume of course the following is an article rather than on a user page. You are checking new user contributions. You see this article--Jim Fraser. What do you do?
- A: My first reaction would be "Is this a truly notable person?" I would then do a quick check against Google on the name and on some of the content (your test page does appears there btw, and that's the only significant entry). Ascertaining that, I would then place a notability statement on the page in-line with Wikipedia:Notability (people). I would then attempt to contact the person(s) responsible for placing the page on the site and ask them why this person is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. I would also ask them to provide sources, as there are no citations as per Wikipedia:Citing sources (I'd also add a notice about that as well). Depending on the outcome, I would either a) help support the person in bring the page up to Wikipedia quality standards, or b) talk to an administrator about deleting the page as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
- For the record my experience with sort of thing has happened more with deleting suspect images I have found on some Ancient Egyptian articles that I know/suspect have been scanned from books or museum catalogs, or from Web sites and placed on Wikimedia Commons for use on articles on the English or other-language Wikipages on a topic. Automated bots are doing a better job of that these days, though I am currently investigating whether or not this image is truly as "original" as the poster asserts, and plan to look on Google for prior usage before asking after the poster of the image about it, and then follow the procedure outlined on Commons:Deletion requests if it does turn out to be a copyrighted image.
- I also commonly find articles where people have been adding copyrighted text from other sources, and I provide the target URL that the info is derived from in my revert comments. Here is one example, and here is an example of my digging into a claim that the contributor owned the copyrighted material that was wholly spurious.
- 5. Would there ever be a time you would remove a vandal warning and caution the user that gave it?
- A: Yes, particularly if there was a question regarding the validity of the information. My own instinct would be to do a quick fact check to ascertain whether or not new and valid info was being added in good faith by the contributor. A good encyclopedia ought to admit new ideas that have been validated within the academic community (or within the rules of its own relevant community at the very least). It should also get rid of cruft, like I did with this edit, which I also removed from the "source" article as well.
- I want to add though that I feel there are bounds to which I feel comfortable critiquing information this is located outside of my own domain of knowledge and experience.
- 6. Is there ever a time you would block a user who had not received a full set of warning templates?
- A: My inclination would be to say yes, if it was a vandal that had a history of attacks and was clearly on a vandal spree that needed to be stopped short (after at least one warning). Another case would be an obvious sock puppet whose history and style I was already familiar with (in this case, the case of Ararat arev comes to mind, who has attacked articles I had worked on peripherally before he was banned indefinitely).
- In closing, while I may not have been much of a contributor to the wikispace, I certainly try to read the latest info as it pertains to an issue I am trying to tackle (be it vandalism, copyrighted text or images, etc). There's contributing to policy and then there's acting upon it, and I guess I tend to fall more into the latter camp.
- 7. I'm curious how you have dealt with a controversial issue (say two POV-warriors battling over the age of a Pyramid...I don't know much about Egyptology). Some diffs could be helpful. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. There are always ongoing controversies on this topic, and some of the additions tend to fall under the area of "fringe theories". In general I think there is room for that sort of thing as anyone looking up a contentious topic might wonder why it is absent from the article, but that type of material ought to be marked as such, usually under its own head/sub-heading, typically titled "Alternate theories". A good recent example of that would be this.
- I am big on asking people for citations for questionable assertions that are added to some articles, and am a stickler for detail, see this as an example. I will ask for citations when they are not provided (see this), and in at least one case, have questioned the validity of info that has been added based on the provided reference (see this example).
- I don't always agree with the views of my colleagues within WikiProject Ancient Egypt, as the debate on removing this page shows; despite that, User:Thanatosimii still values my opinions enough (as I do his) to lend a Support vote here.
General comments
- See Captmondo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Captmondo: Captmondo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Captmondo before commenting.
Discussion
- To the opposers re. "no need for tools". In answer 1, he says he wants to revert vandalism. Admin rollback is a far more efficient method of reverting vandalism, than some javascript tool. And, to quote Gurch: "Are vandals supposed to block themselves?" * Aillema 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still rollback with JS. CO2 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, mediawiki rollback is much better - and you'd agree with me if you tried to beat DerHexer to reverts on a regular basis ;) * Aillema 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you, but there is still a non admin rollback. As far as DerHexer goes, he's a bot :). CO2 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is DerHexer so so prolific? He's amazing and fast. I want what he's using! Phgao 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to practice your vandal-reverting & nonsense-prodding skills at your leisure without the "race" of RC patrol, this is always a good place to start — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is DerHexer so so prolific? He's amazing and fast. I want what he's using! Phgao 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you, but there is still a non admin rollback. As far as DerHexer goes, he's a bot :). CO2 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, mediawiki rollback is much better - and you'd agree with me if you tried to beat DerHexer to reverts on a regular basis ;) * Aillema 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still rollback with JS. CO2 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support For a lot of reasons. 1) Just shy of 2k edits over a long, long time. Let's kill this edit counting thing. 2) Substantial contributions - quality not quantity. 3) Sure, you haven't done a lot of the traditional admin work e.g. WP:AIV, WP:XFD etc. but just a look at your edit summaries and content additions shows you have a strong knowledge of policy, particularly sourcing and citing. Let's kill this "no need for the tools" thing while we're here. 4) No issues of civility or bad faith. 5) Honest approach by self nominating and describing your contributions here so far make me feel you can be trusted. Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Happy to give my support. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per Pedro, who brings up excellent things we should put into practice more often. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Perfect example of an editor who has enough experience, even though their edit count isn't through the roof. Being around for over two years is definitely enough to know how wikipedia works. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pedro is quite right; "no need for the tools" isn't an adequate reason to deny adminship. Anyone who is trustworthy, and has demonstrated a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and process, should be given the admin tools if they want them. There's no upper limit on the number of admins we can promote, so less active admins don't harm the project. WaltonOne 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Pedro. Marlith T/C 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT Has FA. Sometimes, one must look past mere numbers to quality and ability. I believe the nom has the sense(?) to use the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support too! Clearly a 'good faith' editor. Backsigns 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak support with exactly the same rationale as Tanner Christopher yesterday. I don't agree with "doesn't need the tools" as an argument as long as you might find them useful. I'm not worried you'll deliberately abuse tools, and while Faithless raises a valid concern below that you won't understand policy well enough to enforce it, the very fact that you only seem to work in a small area makes me willing to give you benefit of the doubt that you won't try to get involved in things until you understand them — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support doesn't need tools... no one needs tools, but he might find them useful. I don't care if he makes 3 deletes or 3333 deletes, so long as it's something. * Aillema 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Low wikipedia space edits, but your edits are quality edits. CO2 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support per CO. A little more project space edit would help. --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your Q1 answer. The admin revert function is great - I wish I had it. You know, it's one of the 4 major admin tools (alongside block, protect, delete) - we should dish it out more often. Also, new users look up to and respect admins - and this guy will really help them out. Support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He is a meticulous, attentive and thoughtful writer and editor, and an excellent collaborator (I was a contributor to his feature article on Delrina.) What he needs to learn to become increasingly effective in this role, I know he will learn quickly and apply fervently. VickiZ 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think admin tools here will be used pretty infrequently, but that's okay. If the Capt. uses admin rollback, and blocks an occasional vandal, that can't hurt. And I don't see the potential for serious misuse. CitiCat ♫ 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good signs of 'pedia building. Admin tools are always useful there (don't forget protecting, moving etc.). Hate to see split between builders and admins.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a quality editor rather than a quantity editor. "Doesn't need the tools" and editcountitis are unconvincing reasons to oppose. Acalamari 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Having worked with Captmondo on numerous occasions, I know him to be a calm, reasonable, and remarkably levelheaded editor who has been invaluable. More senior editors on the whole who have proven responsability such as he has need to be given certain administrative tools, particularly revert and protect, and he would be an excellent person to give them to. Thanatosimii 04:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user has been here a while, and has made more than enough edits to expose any untrustworthy patterns. The answers to the questions are thoughtful, and demonstrate a command of WikiWays... Best of luck! Hiberniantears 15:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I really liked the answers to the optional questions. --Rocksanddirt 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good history of vandal fighting. --Fabrictramp 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - After reading some of the answers to the newer questions I could no longer oppose. Although the editor may not have much experience in the wikispace; he seems to have done a good job at reading and comprehending our guidelines. I believe the tools will not be abused. Brusegadi 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Support Mild only because I'm changing from Neutral and my initial hesitations concerning captmondo have not been assuaged, but rather I have changed the way I view those misgivings. I was neutral before for two reasons; first, because I thought that this user's relative lack of experience led to him being a little too unfamiliar with some policies to be granted adminship. The more I thought about this, however, the more unreasonable it seemed: no one, from the lowliest IP editor to Jimbo himself, is 100% familiar with all of WP's guidelines, policies, folkways, precedents, etc. If I can't support captmondo because of this, I wouldn't be able to support anyone. Second, while this editor has been around for quite a while, he has very little experience relative to his time here. I firmly believe that an admin needs to be much more active in the project than mondo has been to date. I am going to assume on blind faith that this RfA is a sign that he has decided to become more active in building the encyclopedia, and will be around more often to take care of sysop chores. The bottom line is that this is a good, solid editor who can be trusted with the tools and will use them to help WP rather than hinder it. While he does need more experience and to show a greater level of dedication, I'm willing to assume that he will. faithless (speak) 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will put the tools to good use and another person interested in ancient history is a good addition to the admin rolls. Carlossuarez46 06:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experience is a bit lacking but seems capable enough to learn. Neil ム 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to questions. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Good answers, I was particularly impressed by number four. – ornis⚙ 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support with only 116 wikispace edits. I wouldn't be opposed to you becoming an admin, but I think that more experience with wikipedia policy would help you greatly. •Malinaccier• T/C 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — I agree with Pedro: quality > quantity. But, honestly, the quality of your edits is not so impressive. Your recent participation in the mainspace is just OK. Your participation in the Wikipedia namespace is truly disappointing. The last (only?) time you participated in an AfD was in June. Also, after reviewing your participation in the talk namespaces (talk, user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc.), you don't seem to be very involved in discussions with other users. I really can't trust you with admin rights right now. Sorry. Also, I disagree with Walton. "No need for the tools" is a perfectly good reason to oppose; why request access to certain rights if you're not going to use them; that's called power hunger, not that I'm accusing the candidate of this; your edits are appreciated. They're just not enough to convince me that you'll use the admin rights wisely. I totally agree with a policy used at the Wikimedia Commons, as well as several other Wikis, that inactive admins should have their rights removed. We give users admin rights so that they can use them to help the project, not have them hanging around and displaying it to all of your friends like a trophy. Again, sorry. Finally, I would like to state that I have not checked this candidate's edit stats; I rarely do. Edit count alone should not be used to evaluate the quality or importance of an editor to this project. --Agüeybaná 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that having admins that do not generally used the tools can be good because as long as they are available to others. As a newbie I go to the admin page and look for active editors to leave them questions. Thus, not needing the tools in my eyes, is not a strong reason to oppose provided that you make your self available. I agree with you, thought, that the user lacks experience that may prove useful when guiding newbies with questions regarding wikispace issues.Brusegadi 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack over overall experience. Jmlk17 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Per your answer to question one. Reverting vandalism and helping new users, doesn't require the tools. Sorry but no. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Nothing in the answer to #1 indicates a need for the tools. Vandalism monitoring/reversion to a select category of articles can be accomplished with a watchlist and tools like Twinkle or Popups. No contributions to XfD, AIV, RPP or any of the places where we need sysops the most. Caknuck 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - due to low mainspace edits. And, per Random. M.(er) 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Doesn't seem to understand what adminship is. He thinks it's about reverting vandalism and helping new users. Od Mishehu 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very very weak oppose - should have more edits Bigglovetalk 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *cough* *splutter* *choke* Please tell me I'm going blind. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, not enough edits. -jj137 (t • c) 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Not enough projectspace edits. -Lemonflash(do something) 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose as not quite having enough edits (total under 2,000) and especially WP edits. I'd support in a little while. Please use the edit summaries. Bearian 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I don't mean or want to be harsh, but considering the large amount of time you've been active on Wikipedia, not so much has been achieved in that time. Lradrama 08:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Not active enough to have really dug deep into what is required of an administrator. --I already forgot 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Very Very Very Very)x10-12 Weak Oppose I don't think you really need the tools, but contribs are apreciated. I would be very well inclined to support back here in a month or two --Benchat 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral - Long term editor, but the answer to question one doesn't require the tools. Experience is limited. I can't oppose at this time because I don't think there would be an abuse of the tools here, but I can't support for the lack of experience. Broaden your focus a bit. You say you want your main focus to be fighting vandalism, but you have less than 2 edits to AIV. Project space edits are also low. LaraLove 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To comment in response to Pedro. I'm not throwing out the "you don't need the tools" argument. I don't think one should necessary need the tools. However, when answering question one, I think it's important that one intends to do some admin work. Otherwise, what's the point? And, also, I wasn't edit counting as there were no edits in that particular area to count. ;) LaraLove 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Lara, sorry that wasn't aimed at you at all - I was still reviewing the candidates contribs. when you commented, and didn't look at your comment before posting mine - looking at them together now I know it could be seen as trying to counter your comments, but trust me - it's not! Being totally honest, when I see sub 2k edits I start getting a sinking feeling of a doomed RfA (no debates on that please everyone!) and I do agree edits show experience, and without experience I'm nervy on supporting. But here I honestly think it is quantity not quality. Any how, please be reassured I was not in any way poking at yourself, but more at some wide spread practices coming into RfA these days. Pedro | Chat 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To comment in response to Pedro. I'm not throwing out the "you don't need the tools" argument. I don't think one should necessary need the tools. However, when answering question one, I think it's important that one intends to do some admin work. Otherwise, what's the point? And, also, I wasn't edit counting as there were no edits in that particular area to count. ;) LaraLove 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand (and respect, and for the most part agree with) your attitude towards edit count not being a direct indicator of the quality of your edits. However, you really don't seem to be particularly active, with just 81 edits last month alone. Ideally, an administrator would be around a bit more, and I'd like to see more activity from you, especially since you're saying that you'll use your admin privileges to better police high-traffic Egypt articles (despite the fact that, for the most part, you can do that now without the tools). I don't think you'll make a bad admin, which is why I'm not going to oppose, but I do want to give you some food for thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that I am allowed to comment (well, I am anyways), I know where LaraLove and EVula are coming from, and I realize that becoming an Admin necessarily means devoting more time to the matter (a factor which has stopped me from asking for an Admin role earlier) and actively broadening the scope for the articles under my direct purview. Captmondo 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was torn between Support and Neutral, until I saw Captmondo's comments just above here. While not a bad editor by any stretch of the imagination, the fact that he's so unfamiliar with the RfA process that he doesn't know that he's allowed to comment on the comments of others shows me that he doesn't have the overall experience required of administrators. Also, as others have pointed out, while he is a solid, consistent contributor, he's been here for more than two years but hasn't yet amassed 2000 edits. Not meaning to get edit-county, but those numbers suggest an editor who doesn't put in the time an admin (ideally) should. Since I do think he's a fine editor, I can't oppose, but nor can I support until he becomes a more active contributor. faithless (speak) 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Just a note Faithless, but I'm personally not convinced that to be unfamiliar with the RfA process is the same as being unfamiliar with the requirements of administrators. However I do agree that more activity would be nice. I just don't feel it's essential. Blimey - I'm coming across like I nominated the candidate now! Thanks for your comment, and very best wishes. Pedro | Chat 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair I didn't see much by way of precedent for commenting on neutral votes as opposed to those opposed. Also, the requirements for becoming an admin have changed substantially since the last time I seriously investigated the topic, which was back in late 2005. (No matter how you look at it, a good thing). My default action is to first tread lightly based on what information is at hand, and then go from there. Captmondo 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Pedro, I'm afraid that's just where we differ (and I absolutely respect your right to disagree with me). While Captmondo is a perfectly fine editor, it is just my belief that an admin should be much more active in the project. Perhaps this isn't fair, perhaps this disqualifies many very capable potential admins. And Captmondo just reinforced why I can't support him at this time, by basically admitting his unfamiliarity with RfAs. While 2000 edits certainly wouldn't disqualify him in my eyes, when you break it down he only averages about sixty or so edits a month. Personally, I think that an admin needs to be much more active than that. If he steps up his editing, becomes more of a presence around the project and participates in a wider range of areas, I believe I would support. Again, I'm not opposing, and I do think he's a valuable contributor. I just want to see mor ecommitment from potential admins to the encyclopedia. faithless (speak) 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning toward support. I think the work he's done so far is very good, he's not active enough for my taste. Wouldn't be as available as I think an admin should be. It's just a personal opinion that admins should be logging a couple hundred edits per month. If that's editcountitis, then so be it, but I'm not opposing, as the work he's done has been excellent. Useight 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I too was tossing up between a support and a oppose, but there are too many conflicting arugments for both so I choose neutral. Another minor point I see is that the editor does have solid contributions, but edits in the various talk namespaces is a tad low, yes I realise there are a lot on some Egypt articles, but I personally would like to see more discussion with other editors, not just in article talk but in user talk as well. Further participation in vandal fighting would be good too, if the editor wishes to use tools for blocking et al. Is that a fair point I have raised? Phgao 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know a lot of the candidates that come through RfA either, but that's not a reason to oppose or be neutral. Acalamari 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I respectfully suggest that if you do not know an editor, and feel that you need to do so in order to make a value judgement, then if you are not prepared to study his edits and hence to get to know him then making no comment at all in RfA is preferable?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know a lot of the candidates that come through RfA either, but that's not a reason to oppose or be neutral. Acalamari 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral a good editor, but with the low level of project space edits I can not support him at this time. -Icewedge 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I have never seen a edit count like this; consistently (just) less than 100 edits per month over a couple of years... plus, barely any discussion on talkpage considering the timescale... yet, good quality of contributions means I shall not oppose. Needs to up contribution rate, and wikispace edits, to enable evaluation of admin potential (should this request fail). LessHeard vanU 23:53, 21 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Fabrictramp
Final tally(50/1/1); Ended 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fabrictramp (talk · contribs) - Fabrictramp (old username: KApplebaum) is one of Wikipedia's quiet contributors. He She has made about 24,000 edits, including 19,000 edits to articles, at an astounding rate of more than 1,000 edits for each of the last 12 months. The edit count perhaps overstates Fabrictramp's investment of effort: these are mostly minor edits using tools such as Twinkle and AutoWikiBrowser. Fabrictramp has focused on two large projects: (1) Updating all-time rosters within Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, including Chicago Cubs all-time roster and St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster; and (2) cleaning up the vast graveyard of Wikipedia:Dead-end pages.
Fabrictramp has more experience dealing with Dead-end pages (i.e., articles without links to other articles) than anyone else, and this experience has familiarized him her with essentials of the deletion policy. Among his her recent contribs and talk page comments you can find evidence that he she has listed many pages for proposed deletion. Though he has limited familiarity with other administrative functions, such as vandal-fighting and dispute resolution, I am not worried about this, and I trust that he she will learn whatever he needs to know to serve Wikipedia effectively as an administrator. I think Fabrictramp may be particularly willing to help clear administrative backlogs at CAT:PROD and CAT:CSD. Shalom Hello 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.--Fabrictramp 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to address a few issues that seem to come up in every RfA. One is main space editing. The vast majority of my edits are main space, but many of them are small edits. (While I use AWB extensively, rarely are these edits automatic. Instead, I use AWB more as a list manager and a macro tool.) While major article contributions are the foundation of wikipedia, I'm not comfortable writing large blocks of encyclopedic prose and instead prefer to write stubs and to do minor rewrites on articles others have started. I have done some translations of articles, including work on Claude Nobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Nobs&diff=80519533&oldid=77759347). I feel that a large volume of small amounts of writing does give me a good grasp on what editors are up against in the quest to make a good encyclopedia.
- Another issue is reporting vandals to AIV. I have made very few reports, but that is due to the nature of the articles I work on. Between DEP and new page patrolling, most of the warnings I issue to vandals are the first entry on their talk page, or the first entry in a long while, which does not qualify for an AIV report. When I have encountered a vandal who qualifies for an AIV report, I have not hesitated to do so.
- (And for the record, I would like to state that I'm a female.)
- Sorry about that. (A female baseball fan?? Ha ha...) Shalom Hello 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem! (And to think I was going to wish your Red Sox well in the postseason. *grin*) --Fabrictramp 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. (A female baseball fan?? Ha ha...) Shalom Hello 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I have been actively involved in nominating articles for speedy deletion, prods, and AfD discussions, and as an admin I would like to help with the workload in those areas. There are also some page moves for name standardization in the baseball player pages that need an administrator. Because I am not heavily involved in vandal fighting, that is not an area I see myself doing much work in for the present. Because page deletions and editor blocks can have far-reaching consequences for Wikipedia, I will only be involved with work that is within my comfort level, or work where someone can coach me until I reach a comfort level.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My two best contributions are the Dead End Pages project and my work on the baseball all-time rosters.
- In the DEP, I do a mopping up around wikipedia. I find a lot of articles that need to be deleted, and a lot of articles that need some basic improvement. We see ourselves as doing basic triage, but I also try, where time and patience allow, to improve each article as much as I can, through wikifying, rewriting introductory paragraphs, and other cleanup. Although I use AWB for much of this work, it is certainly not automated. I handled the last regeneration of the DEP list, and am currently working on the next regeneration of the list.
- I am particularly proud of my work on the all-time rosters. I have worked with WikiProject Baseball to develop consensus on what information should be included in these pages to strike a good balance between useful information, clear presentation, and not being a duplicate of existing categories. Once that standard was developed, I have worked to implement it. This means checking the information against other sources, formatting pages, checking every blue link to make sure it is going to the right page, checking the existing categories to see if there are incorrect entries there, and writing a number of baseball article stubs and disambiguation pages to clarify which players belong to which roster(s). For the most recent one I completed, check Detroit Tigers all-time roster. This revision shows what the page was like before I started working on the project.
- 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: Working extensively in the Dead End Pages project, I do get the occasional conflict with editors who are upset about maintenance tags or deletion recommendations. I have two methods for dealing with this. First, I try to diffuse any conflict from the start. I remind myself that it is a real, live human I'm dealing with, who has feelings as I do, and who can make mistakes as easily as I can. I assume good faith (until shown that I shouldn't), and part of assuming good faith is assuming that the other editor is trying to improve wikipedia just as much as I am. I find that pointing editors to links to relevant guidelines and asking for clarification if I'm not 110% sure what the issue is, will diffuse most tension before it can get started. And, if I feel anything escalating, I walk away from the computer until I've had a good night's sleep. There is no sense typing anything I might regret later, that would unjustly accuse someone of something, or that would hurt feelings that don't need to be hurt.
- I have not had a conflict that escalated beyond this point so far, but if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to ask a neutral party to mediate.
- 4. I notice you don't seem to have an email enabled for use with the Special:Emailuser feature; especially in situations where you may be blocking users, some people may find they have little means of contacting you, except via email. Historically, there's been a bit of an expectation that admins will have email enabled. Would you be willing to enable and confirm an email address? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Fabrictramp's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Fabrictramp: Fabrictramp (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fabrictramp before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support. Indeed a quiet editor. I believe she will be constructive if sysopped. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't see any problems. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was acually thinking about nominating
himher as well. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support — excellent work at WP:DEAD. Good luck! --Agüeybaná 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sound answers and a look at
hisher deleted contributions shows good familiarity with the deletion process. Good quiet gnome and should be a good quiet admin. And in case anybody feels like opposing on grounds of low vandal-fighting, low contributions to article writing or high semi-automated edits, let me preemptively note that a) the candidate is well aware of the fact thatheshe'll have to learn the ropes ifheshe wants to start blocking vandals and b) you can't wikify, categorize, deal with dead-ends, fix templates, etc for a full year without developing a keen sense of what Wikipedia is. Pascal.Tesson 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No worries here. ScarianTalk 03:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid contributor. Phgao 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen Fabrictramp around before, but I'm sure (s)he would use the tools well. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Happy to give my support. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; probably not mental + could use the tools = a yes from me. Neil ム 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Neil... --DarkFalls talk 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as one of the people who follows her mopping up the slime trail of deadend tags, I feel she would make a great admin because of her edit history and overall contributions to cleaning this place up! Spryde 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Amazing edit count! •Malinaccier• T/C 16:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regular contributor with over 1000 edits per month. Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sterling contributions to cleaning up some of Wikipedia's worst pages. Espresso Addict 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a fine editor. Number 57 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. Backsigns 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to the questions and nothing to prove (s)he would abuse the tools. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enthusastic support Nothing but positive interactions with this editor over at WP:WPBB (although the name change threw me off at first). As a self-admitted wikignome who specializes in baseball articles, I fully endorse the mopping of other self-admitted wikignomes who specialize in baseball articles. Caknuck 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid candidate who will not misuse the tools. — Wenli (contribs) 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Female baseball fans are sexy. Wikipediarules2221 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? At a quick glance I see nothing that would lead me to believe that this person would abuse the tools. On top of that, this user has plenty of constructive edits. Good luck!:)--SJP 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think the work on dead pages is very helpful, and I liked her comments about how she deals with conflict there. Bigglovetalk 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good history, good to go.--Sandahl 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Helping it snow. I agree with all that she is a great editor and deserves the tools. Keep it up! Brusegadi 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support appears to be a well-qualified nominee. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport - looks like a good editor, no problems, trustworthy. Bearian 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fabrictramp seems fine. She will be a great administrator. Acalamari 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I do not believe this user would abuse the tools, and wish her all best in what I hope will be her new role. - Philippe | Talk 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definitely. Looks like a great future admin! -jj137 (t • c) 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor. -Lemonflash(do something) 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Fine editor, no reason to oppose. Good luck Fabrictramp! GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good contributions and experience. You need the tools. Carlosguitar 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - we seem to be having a trend of absolutely brilliant RfAs at the moment. This user will be yet another valuable addition to the Wikipedia admin team. Lradrama 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks fine to me. Another candidate with a proven track record and reasonable knowledge of policy - Alison ❤ 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I spend a fair amount of time at WP:DEAD as well, and Fabrictramp's contributions there are definitely appreciated. JavaTenor 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've encountered Fabrictramp at several AfDs. I'm impressed by her answer to Q3, and her interactions on her talk page show her to be patient and friendly, even when her visitors are difficult to understand, as at User_talk:Fabrictramp#text_copyrighted_problem. Her recent PRODS suggest she is prudent and thoughtful with nominations and keeps an eye on them (see, for example Mystic Angel and Forensic network). I think there's little reason to doubt that she will, as she says, "only be involved with work that is within my comfort level". She doesn't seem to be hacking & slashing away at good content. :) Her contribution history indicates dedication to the project, and I think she'd do well with the mop. --Moonriddengirl 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Reedy Boy 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks fine, good luck! Melsaran (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks like she knows what she's doing... WjBscribe 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks very good. --Kudret abiTalk 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to suggest she will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- M.(er) 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak Oppose Awesome house keeping skills. No doubt a very dedicated wikipedian that is an absolute benefit to wikipedia. My only compliant is I would like to see more user interaction such as enforcing policy and mediating controversial edits. --I already forgot 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Addhoc
Final (talk page) (58/1/1); Ended Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:15:04 (UTC)
Addhoc (talk · contribs) - Addhoc has been an editor on WIkipedia since July 2006. Addhoc has been active in Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and has been seen improving articles across Wikipedia. I am making this RfA (my first RfA nomination) because on a recent visit to User:Addhoc, I was surprised to find Addhoc was not already an Admin. An active editor who is often seen working on difficult and challenging tasks and shows strong potential to continue good work as an Administrator. Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: humbly accept. Addhoc 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Helping with image backlogs at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is an area that I'm reasonably familiar with, at the moment I frequently add rationales to images tagged for deletion. Also, I could help with articles tagged for speedy deletion - again I have some familiarity in adding references to articles tagged for not asserting their notability. Otherwise, I have a reasonable familiarity with the admin process and could assist where needed.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Probably my involved with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, I've mediated several cases and I'm currently a coordinator, which mostly involves minor clerking type tasks. I've written a few articles relating to construction trades, including Construction worker, Concrete finisher and Steel fixer.
- 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: Last year I was blocked for edit warring concerning the Religion and the Internet article, however this was when I was very new and since then I've mostly stuck to 1RR.
General comments
- See Addhoc's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Addhoc: Addhoc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Addhoc before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Ok, here goes. I think Addhoc has a pretty good edit record, with a wide variety of edits. According to EC, his main work is mainspace and unique pages. However, having been blocked is not a good thing, but Addhoc's honesty and edit record more than make up for this early nuisance. Another really good thing is the edit count, currently 17265. But his best record is the amount of time and edit summary record. There are no edits without a summary October 2006 on. Finally, I support him because of his wide variety of work. Cheers, Laleena 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very experienced editor in a wide range of areas; no reason to believe that he would misuse the mop. Useight 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have become an administrator long ago. Lots of edits, much experience in image-related areas, and helpful as a mediator. Melsaran (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support overdue Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was very impressed with a mediation Addhoc did a while back at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle. Dealing in such an even-handed and fair manner with such a contentious and dispute-prone subject indcates Addhoc should make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. MatthewFenton trolling RFA with another facetious (literally and figuratively) reason for opposing is always a sign that the user would make a decent admin. Neil ム 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — [ aldebaer] 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of my bros from the AMA, who helped make that organization a credit to Wikipedia, though we both left before it became overwhelmed and had to be discontinued. Ameriquedialectics 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen plenty of him around before, and I know he'll kick ass! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — about time. ~ 01er 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No reason not to. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He raises no red flags, and as H2O says, I'm sure he'll be great! Best of luck. Love, Neranei (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- great WP:MEDCAB work. CO2 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am strongly in support of this nomination; Addhoc will be a great administrator. Acalamari 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No doubt a supurb Wikipedian, will contribute more with the tools. Phgao 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Without a doubt, he fits the bill by my count. He additionally is savvy in dispute resolution, which is a very good sysop trait. Vassyana 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support' Good user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most certainly. Daniel 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A down to earth, level headed user who would make a great admin - support Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid all-rounder with an impressive editing record. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per
Matthew(oops). More than meets my Standards. Med com is always a plus with me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Addmop. Reasonable candidate. >Radiant< 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without question. Every interaction I've had with this user has been positive. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Support - I first got to know Addhoc when he helped mediate and resolve a particularly contentious dispute on the Halloween article last year. Since then I have seen him handle many admin-level tasks and situations with calm, patience and skill. I have no doubt he'll be a fine addition to the team. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another case of "Ithoughthewasanadminalready" -David Fuchs (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People who are opposing don't say anything I find particularly bad. Backsigns 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am shocked this user is not already an admin! I am going to support this person because I do not believe that there are any real reasons to oppose. Good luck!:)--SJP 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per SJP and overall track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yeah mate. Dfrg.msc 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for giving support to maintain the neutrality of Sri Lanka related articles. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very active, good contributions and experience. You need the tools. Good luck. Carlosguitar 11:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Contributions demonstrate solid policy knowledge, civility, article editing and discussion building. Ticks my boxes! Best. Pedro | Chat
- blah blah blah yeah. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support much varied experience and understands policy well. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While this editor made some (admitted) mistakes in the past, since that time, has made a huge number of constructive edits, so can be trusted with the mop. Bearian 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support I have had numerous positive experiences with him... :) already thought he was an admin. Sethie 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keep up the good work! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this is an absolutely brilliant RfA! An excellent candidate. Need I say more? Lradrama 08:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support . yandman 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - proven track record, hard worker. I've never seen issues with BITEiness - Alison ❤ 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I quote this editor on my user page (although I have read a couple of comments where it is described as abusive--it is a compliment)!!!!! Like I wouldn't support this candidate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Filll 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Neil. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – what, not an admin already? Excellent attitude to tagged images, no problems in my experience. .. dave souza, talk 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blah! per Sir Nick. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. · AndonicO Talk 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should handle very well the extra tools.--JForget 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate, no evidence they would abuse the tools. VanTucky Talk 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks okay to me. The action for which he was blocked doesn't seem to have had any malicious element Deb 10:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WjBscribe 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, very good contributions, everything seems to be in place. --Kudret abiTalk 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Jeepday. E104421 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions. I checked some of his postings to WP:AN/I. He seems to be patient and have good knowledge of policy. I wasn't persuaded by the data given by the Oppose voter about his AfD work. EdJohnston 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose — I'm not sure I have faith in Addhoc's judgement, for example this. The topic (Harry Potter movies and films) is clearly notable and it's quite clear the article is encyclopaedic (whether it belongs on Wikipedia is open for discussion). I've also ran into you before on another article, you stated every article must have secondary sources (when you know primary sources are perfectly acceptable), when in fact it's every article must have reliable sources. I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you. Matthew 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the above statement because it appears to be nothing but trolling, the 1RR? -Icewedge 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)(see below)[reply]- You have struck the above comment because it appear to be nothing but trolling? Please tell me why you believe my comment to be "trolling" ("Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."—Wikipedia:What is a troll?). I'm inclined to believe you are trying to start a dispute... (oh, do not alter my comments again). Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's likely trolling, crats decide if it's valid or not. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Matthew, because you disagree with his views on deletion, you oppose him as a candidate for adminship? I, as an inclusionist, personally agree that the pages should be kept, but there's certainly a valid case to be made for deletion. This was not really an obvious lack of judgement, it seems more likely that you simply disagree with his opinion. And it's true that articles should preferably include multiple secondary sources to verify the claims made in the article, as primary sources are often biased. See also Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. (original emphasis) Melsaran (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with his deletion views (I also don't agree with them.) My point is that his deletion comment wasn't supported by policy/guidelines, when the policy/guidelines actually seem to support inclusion (ergo my belief is that he would be deletehappy). And preference isn't the issue, it's that he issues a blanket "only" statement (again, causing me worry he'd use the administartive powers to force his opinion). Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you" - While he does say he will, there's no reason to change to 3RR if the need arises. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stated reason given in the AfD was that the article's subject was already adequately covered by Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Differences from the book. You may have good reasons for disagreeing with this view, but this doesn't seem to be the sort of concern that would result in questioning a prospective admin's judgment or fitness. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about this trolling business, it appears I have made a genuine mistake. I had not read the part in the Admin hopefuls answer about the 1RR so when I saw you talk about it in you oppose vote it seemed to me you were forcing random excessively unreasonable expectations upon the editor, coupled with the slightly combative tone of your post I made the overly hasty decision to strike out you comment as trolling. I am sorry, I realize it was mistake. -Icewedge 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stated reason given in the AfD was that the article's subject was already adequately covered by Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Differences from the book. You may have good reasons for disagreeing with this view, but this doesn't seem to be the sort of concern that would result in questioning a prospective admin's judgment or fitness. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you" - While he does say he will, there's no reason to change to 3RR if the need arises. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with his deletion views (I also don't agree with them.) My point is that his deletion comment wasn't supported by policy/guidelines, when the policy/guidelines actually seem to support inclusion (ergo my belief is that he would be deletehappy). And preference isn't the issue, it's that he issues a blanket "only" statement (again, causing me worry he'd use the administartive powers to force his opinion). Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral - I will forgive Addhoc for his poor judgment in many articles I work on, (as I know he doesn't know the subject matter and does not know any better), and I will forgive him for his poor support of me as my AMA Advocate (as I know he did not recognize the six sock puppets and I guess was intimidated by them in the Mediation), and I will forgive him for one last thing, if he will just stop! He seems to follow me around and change all my <references/> to {{reflist}} for no reason (it is not on long lists of references but often on very short ones) and I cannot read the small print very easily. So, Addhoc, if you would just stop that, I will withdraw my Neutral --Mattisse 02:34, 21 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Nehrams2020
Final: (48/0/0); ended 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) - Nehrams2020 is a user who I've seen around plenty on Wikipedia. In fact I nommed him some time ago but he declined. Still believing he's be a valuable admin, I tried again, and he seems to have accepted this time. He is an extremely productive editor in WikiProject Films, his edits to the list of films numbering over 1000, I believe. He's a great article contributor, helping make Samuel L. Jackson and many other film-related articles good articles. He helps out with Good Articles in general as well, and has helped keep that running at least somewhat smoothly. He contributes to many namespaces, has a ridiculous amount of edits (30k+), and based on my interactions with him I see no reason not to make him an admin. Wizardman 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and appreciate Wizardman's nomination. --Nehrams2020 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I've always enjoyed helping with various backlogs on Wikipedia, and there are several that I can assist with as an admin. I've recently discovered Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old, and will plan on assisting in deleting oversized fair use images. I could also take part in Category:Replaceable fair use images and Category:Images with unknown copyright status. I have put up many articles and images up for speedy deletion in the past, so I would want to help tackle Candidates for Speedy Deletion and Images and Media for deletion. Reverting vandalism has been a large part of my edits, and I have reported multiple IPs to Administrator intervention against vandalism. I believe that I would be able to assist in blocking users/IPs that have legitimate claims against them. At this point, I don't see myself getting too involved with Articles for deletion, as I prefer working with images and vandals. The great thing about Wikipedia is that different people can work in areas that appeal to them, and I think there are other areas that I could improve with my assistance. If given the tools, I'd would also slowly expand out into other areas of the admin tasks. Although being an administrator will be useful to me for its tools and allowing me to lend a hand in some of Wikipedia’s larger backlogs, my primary focus would still be on helping to improve articles.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'd say that my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my improvements of various articles to bring them up to good article status. I really enjoy scouring the Internet looking for sources for information and adding it to articles. As noted above by Wizardman, my first GA was Samuel L. Jackson and I have branched out to improving films, other actors, a space mission, and the terrorist attack, the Oklahoma City bombing. I would like to bring this up to FA eventually, (I'd appreciate any assistance down the line if you're interested!). I am very involved with WP:FILMS, helping to run the Spotlight, Assessment, and Outreach departments by assessing thousands of film articles and contributing to the monthly newsletter, along with greeting new film members. I joined WP:GA in February, and have enjoyed reviewing articles by helping with the backlog (it would be great that if whoever is reading this would head over there and help review an article or two, it would be greatly appreciated!), and currently am a part of the Sweeps project quality task force. I have also uploaded many images, both free and nonfree for a variety of articles, which have helped me to better understand how the upload process, the licenses, and fair use requirements work.
- 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 have been fortunate in my year and a half on Wikipedia to not have been in any major conflicts. However, this does not mean I do not know how to handle situations that I may come into conflict with. I have of course had some disagreements and have not accepted everything that I see, but I always look at the other side of the argument and attempt to determine their rationale for their objection. I have observed multiple edit wars, arguments, and multiple-editor conflicts on article and editors' talk pages. I have seen how some editors have acted inappropriately, uncivil, and not assumed good faith, which allowed the conflict to escalate further. I've found the best way to prevent disagreements from escalating into conflicts is to remain polite and assume good faith. If anything, the only problems I may have had is giving too strict of vandalism warnings to IP addresses when I first began using them. Now, I know not to bite the newbies, and allow for several warnings before I report them to AIV. I hope that my first year and a half here has allowed me to build trust with fellow Wikipedia contributors, and I would like to stay here as long as I’m able. I’m here almost all day, continually checking my watchlist (probably when I should be doing homework), and am usually up late at night (Pacific zone) so can help with any issues at that time. I am not here to harm Wikipedia in any way, so if you see something that may appear negative, it was not my intention and make sure to point it out to me to prevent it from occurring again.
- 4. I notice you don't seem to have an email enabled for use with the Special:Emailuser feature; especially in situations where you may be blocking users, some people may find they have little means of contacting you, except via email. Historically, there's been a bit of an expectation that admins will have email enabled. Would you be willing to enable and confirm an email address? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I don't see that being a problem. I never saw it necessary to have it enabled until up to this point, but if I do run into the situation that would require unblocking, I want to be accessible to those that need help. --Nehrams2020 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Nehrams2020's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Nehrams2020: Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator. Wizardman 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still considering co-nomming. I wanted to nom you months ago! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support over 32K edit count and see no reason to oppose.Rlevse 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a prolific contributor with lots of experience, especially in mainspace. Was surprised to see that he is not an admin yet. Melsaran (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course! :) Majorly (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Plenty of experience and dedication to Wikipedia. κaτaʟavenoTC 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought you were an admin. Certainly trust you with the tools. --Aude (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- + From my experiences with Nehrams, I implicitly trust him and know he will use the tools well. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cleaning out the imges is a good thing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 05:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will do good with the tools. Not just the same "I wanna block as many vandals as possible and delete articles" T Rex | talk 05:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Top quality contributor. Phgao 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good luck! --Benchat 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - If I've ever met you, I don't recall it, but you seem to understand images, you're involved with good and featured articles, and heavily involved with WikiProject films? Yes, I think you could use the tools : ) - jc37 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be a fine candidate for the admin tools. Can't see any reason not to support. :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Incredibly experienced editor who knows what he's doing and will do excellent things with the mop. Useight 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've never seen you before, but all your recent contributions seem sensible & you seem to know policy inside-out — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're such a good contributor, I could hardly do anything but support! -Lemonflash(do something) 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Should have been an admin awhile ago. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Significant contributions to the Good articles section and 100% edit summary and excellent overall contributions.--JForget 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great editor. LaraLove 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Of course, no doubts here! :-) ScarianTalk 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good experience and contributions, I think you will be a admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nothing but good work on WP Films. Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hard-working, long-term editor with many positive contributions. Espresso Addict 20:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support you :) Backsigns 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A good user. Acalamari 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contibs, good history. Needs the tools.--Sandahl 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportContributions are very good and level of editing very high no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 08:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor. props department - a mop and bucket, please! Carlossuarez46 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportSumoeagle179 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Assumed he was one. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A tireless contributor at WP:GAC reviews. Johnfos 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Shyamal 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - we have here one of the more elite RfAs. You will definately make a very fine admin indeed. Lradrama 08:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Support Wikipedialuva 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, good manner with other contributors, no reason to assume he will abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STrong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A strong editor with heaps of experience. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - That many edits and a clean block log sure does indicate someone we can trust with the tools. Your work with oversized non-free images will certainly be appreciated. --Pekaje 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support M.(er) 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as being an active GA project member. He is patient enough to teach people about GA process (including me). OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Edokter
Final: (26/3/1); ended 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Edokter (talk · contribs) - Edokter has been on Wikipedia since Sep 2006. I have encountered on several pages and find him to be calm, competent, and level-headed. He has been active on WP:AN and WP:ANI since almost the beginning and has experience with templates and scripts. He has quite a range of interests, including movies, cooking, and animals. He is also quite involved in the Dr. Who project and in reverting vandalism. Wikipedians, I present Edokter. Rlevse 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rlevse for nominating me. I am Edokter, a 37 year old Dutch guy. After some IP editing I registered in september 2006, but only started actively editing since early 2007. Since then I have taken interest of the running of Wikipedia, so I often hang around the admin noticeboards and the technical village pump. Though my daily edits are not as high as others, I am certainly present every day reading and watchlisting. Most of my edits are copy editing, which include reorganizing articles and fixing citations, reverting vandalism (I hate that word, as most of them are actually done in good faith), as well as maintaining some navigational noticeboard templates that need regular updating. I'm not a man of long speeches, so please ask questions. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: First, I intend to keep doing what I do best, which is general housekeeping. I often come accros pages that needs deleting to fix redirects, page moves and disambiguation issues (SCD G6), so often I am confined to putting a DB tag on the page. Next to that, I expect to be busy in CAT:CSD myself, first to facilitate other in general housekeeping, then move on to other categories as well as honor protected edit requests. While these are mostly deletion related tasks, I do not regard myself a deletionist (or an inclusionist for that matter), just someone who wants to keep things organized. Other then that I haven't really planned a roadmap for other administrative tasks yet, but will jump in whereever there is a shortage of hands. The rest will come naturally.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Content-wise, I don't have anything to be superproud of; my main contributions are usually copy-editing. My 'biggest' article would have to be The Black Stallion (film) which was just a stub when I found it (and I still feel I need to finish it). As my intrerest also lies in the technical aspects of Wikipedia, I've created some small templates, just to learn how everything works, and this gives me the knowledge to fix broken or misbehaving templates, especially the protected ones.
- 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 only remember two occasion that were a little stressful; one minor issue was with an admin over the naming of an article, the other was with an editor which was behaving quite WP:POINTy. In that case though, I simply decided it was not worth the stress and simply walked away and let others deal with him. I have the tendency not to get involved in an exsisting conflict if I can help it, though I may step up as a mediator.
- Optional questions from Melsaran
- 4. How would you treat single purpose accounts/meatpuppets in deletion debates? Would you fully consider their arguments, give them less weight, remove their comments, add {{spa}} tags, semi-protect the page, or ...?
- A: If their argument has merit, their opinion should have some weight, but considerably less then those of other trusted editors. SPAs will only try to tip the scale in their favor. If an SPA actually has some solid arguments, they wouldn't need help from SPAs or meatpuppets. Ultimately, decision should be based on original arguments, and SPAs rarely have any in my experience.
- 5. Do you still stand by this edit?
- A: Yes and no. No, because I did admit to the editor afterward I should not have called his nomination bad faith, and yes becuase he did state his account was created for the single purpose of nominating {{unreferenced}} for deletion.
General comments
- See Edokter's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Edokter: Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edokter's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Edokter before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator.Rlevse 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A great vandalfighter - but I'm a bit concerned that you haven't been at AIV in a while. Get back there, and you'll have my full support :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to Q4 shows a good understanding of the XFD process, and the answer to Q5 shows an ability to admit mistakes. The diff above was my only concern; other than that, I am confident that Erwin will make a fine administrator. Melsaran (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CO2 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support Adminship != big deal Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WT:RFA#A_model_of_editcount_inflation Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not a big deal. Looking through the contributions may turn up a lack of experience in some areas, but not too concerning and I have all confidence the user will not abuse the tools. It ain't no big deal, y'all --Benchat 05:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Mike. T Rex | talk 05:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. Glad to give him my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not sure how much the candidate really understands about adminship, but it's not that complicated. No major problems; no big deal. Shalom Hello 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Edit count is fine, and the editor won't abuse the tools. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no good reason not to. Neil ム 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and strongly protest the notion that less than 3000 edits is a sign of inexperience. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I see nothing to indicate that this user will execute the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature manner. Not that I'm implying you're a "mature person" at only 37...erm...you know what I mean ;) --Haemo 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a lot of edits! Backsigns 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We'll need admins like him if the Cybermen try to take over. Nick mallory 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Having had the pleasure to edit a number of articles with this user, he has my full confidence that he would use administrative tools with maturity and consideration. And he's a jolly pleasant chap, too, which would be handy in situations when diplomacy is required. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems here. Acalamari 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — [ aldebaer ] 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would normally oppose candidates with less than 3,000 overall edits, but what you've achieved in both the mainspace and Wikipedia-space is just excellent. :-) Lradrama 08:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, candidate can be trusted with the tools. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cannot see anything to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support solid contributor. Tim! 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I simply think Edokter will be a fine admin.Sumoeagle179 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Knowledgeable, articulate in answering RFA questions, good contributions, and no evidential diffs provided to convince me of the merits of opposition. A strong candidate. VanTucky Talk 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per VanTucky and no concerns nothing wrong in track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to the questions, and I found myself not being convinced by any data given by the Oppose voters. The uproar at Talk:Compact Disc (evidenced from one of the Oppose votes) would suggest that Edokter might have a fresh example to add to his answer to Question #3 above. I see that he participates at some of the admin noticeboards, and has good knowledge of policy. EdJohnston 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of overall experience? He has nearly 3000 edits, and has been active since 2006. I don't think that this would be an issue. See also WT:RFA#A model of editcount inflation. Melsaran (talk) d23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, I am a stickler for edit summaries, and Edokter, while using them more often than not, sometimes doesn't, and I disagree with an admin doing that. Second, while I know I am going to get hit with editcountitis, -3000 edits is not a lot, and I don't feel comfortable supporting an editor who hasn't quite edited prolifically, and widespread enough (2.72 edits per page with 2914 pages is the 1071 unique pages number we see). I believe admins should have a much more widespread area of editing. Don't get me wrong; Edokter is a great editor, and is well on his way. If this RFA fails, I will almost certainly support in the future, but I am not able to now. Jmlk17 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3000 edits is a lot. Ultimately, when we decide whether to support or oppose a candidate for adminship, we decide whether we trust them. I don't think that Edokter has a lack of experience that makes him unsuitable as an admin. Melsaran (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the trust issue. I just believe I personally cannot decide to trust or not based off of what I have seen. Jmlk17 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Would you care to point out some of the edits that make you distrust this person? --Kim Bruning 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point that Jmlk17 is trying to get across is that there aren't enough edits with which to prove/disprove that the editor is trustworthy enough to get the tools, so he wouldn't really be able to answer that comment. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spot on DM :). Thank you. Jmlk17 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I remember when I thought 1000 edits was an unreachable goal. I also remember opposing an admin nom for only having 2500 edits. That nom turned out to be a very good admin. I think the point of Adminship is no big deal is that we can presume a nom with around (arbitrarily set at first but now time tested) 2500 edits who has not demonstrated an inability to use the tools will use them constructively. Most of the defrocked admins seem to have gotten into trouble not out of ignorance, but because of making inexplicable decisions that went against consensus or angered a large number of editors. So, unless I see someone has been rash or maybe did not exercise due care, I tend to support. I'm more likely to support now than when I first participated in RfA. That's not to criticize anyone else's choice to oppose at some other edit count level. We all have to decide for ourselves where we feel comfortable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Would you care to point out some of the edits that make you distrust this person? --Kim Bruning 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the trust issue. I just believe I personally cannot decide to trust or not based off of what I have seen. Jmlk17 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3000 edits is a lot. Ultimately, when we decide whether to support or oppose a candidate for adminship, we decide whether we trust them. I don't think that Edokter has a lack of experience that makes him unsuitable as an admin. Melsaran (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, I am a stickler for edit summaries, and Edokter, while using them more often than not, sometimes doesn't, and I disagree with an admin doing that. Second, while I know I am going to get hit with editcountitis, -3000 edits is not a lot, and I don't feel comfortable supporting an editor who hasn't quite edited prolifically, and widespread enough (2.72 edits per page with 2914 pages is the 1071 unique pages number we see). I believe admins should have a much more widespread area of editing. Don't get me wrong; Edokter is a great editor, and is well on his way. If this RFA fails, I will almost certainly support in the future, but I am not able to now. Jmlk17 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of overall experience? He has nearly 3000 edits, and has been active since 2006. I don't think that this would be an issue. See also WT:RFA#A model of editcount inflation. Melsaran (talk) d23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - not enough experience. GreenJoe 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of experience are you looking for, noting your support for a candidate with only 1000 edits? — Edokter • Talk • 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenJoe, this is indeed a good question considering it's only a few days ago, and looking at this and this, particularly since you mention experience in both RfAs. — [ aldebaer ] 09:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - bias and cavalier attitude toward contributions (e.g., deleted Compact Disc Logos section). (And mangled numbering of this Oppose section with his response, now fixed.) --John Navas 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at that. He was merely trying to enforce wiki policy.Rlevse 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. He exhibited the kind of rush to judgment that has turned off quite a few would be contributors to Wikipedia. His assessment was clearly debatable. No authority was cited. There was no meaningful discussion. --John Navas 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- John, this is hardly the place to bring a content dispute. However, I have pointed you to Non-free content criteria which states that use of copyrighted images should be limited to a minimum. None of the logo's actually apply to the Compact Disc, but to their derivatives, and (most) articles for those derivatives already have their respective logo (if not, add them). Listing them all on Compact Disc merely functions as a decorative gallery in my opinion, and other editors have agreed with me. I removed the logos once, as did
twothree other editors. I agree policy is sometimes discouraging to new editors, but choosing to follow policy is not optional. And I don't think I was rushing to judgement. You have been trying for months to get the logos posted; Compact Disc logos was already deleted once for being non-encyclopedic, why should including them in Compact Disc be any more encyclopedic? I ask you again, please read WP:NFCC thoroughly, it is a key policy. — Edokter • Talk • 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- This isn't a "content dispute" (and your attempt to mischaracterize it as such does you no credit) -- this is an objection to your actions in this matter, in summarily deleting material without prior discussion, even when I've responded in substantive detail and asked you not to, WP:DR be damned.
- I have read WP:NFCC thoroughly, and have responded to your specific objections in detail, with no further response from you. I believe the Logos section meets all of the criteria in WP:NFCC. All of the logos do apply to Compact Disc, each one to a specific and different physical or logical format.
- Your comments strongly suggest that you don't really understand the subject material, so how and why then are you presuming to debate it with me? I suggest you take the time to properly inform yourself before rushing to judgment.
- (As for history, these logos were moved to the Logos section in response to a specific recommendation to do just that. A big part of the problem on Wikipedia in my experience is conflicting and contradictory advice. I'm now revising the Compact Disc article to remove bias toward audio CD and make it much more complete and balanced, matching the logos with relevant text. Yet even that is running into flack from overeager wikicops. No good deed goes unpunished.)
- --John Navas 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be continued at Talk:Compact Disc. — Edokter • Talk • 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content discussion is at Talk:Compact Disc.
This discussion is about your actions.
--John Navas 20:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content discussion is at Talk:Compact Disc.
- This discussion should be continued at Talk:Compact Disc. — Edokter • Talk • 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- John, this is hardly the place to bring a content dispute. However, I have pointed you to Non-free content criteria which states that use of copyrighted images should be limited to a minimum. None of the logo's actually apply to the Compact Disc, but to their derivatives, and (most) articles for those derivatives already have their respective logo (if not, add them). Listing them all on Compact Disc merely functions as a decorative gallery in my opinion, and other editors have agreed with me. I removed the logos once, as did
- I respectfully disagree. He exhibited the kind of rush to judgment that has turned off quite a few would be contributors to Wikipedia. His assessment was clearly debatable. No authority was cited. There was no meaningful discussion. --John Navas 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at that. He was merely trying to enforce wiki policy.Rlevse 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "There you go again." [with apologies to Ronald Reagan] Even though we are actively debating the Compact Disc logos issue; even though I'm actively editing the Compact Disc article to appease you; and even though I've asked you to discuss things with me in advance, you removed the thumb attributes from my logos without a word of warning, explanation, or reason, wiping out the borders and captions. I thus renew my opposition here. --John Navas 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. It seems likely you will pass, and I think you will probably do fine. I can't quite support based on the diff given in question 6 and your response to that question. I can understand your initially thinking the nom was bad faith, but I think you should have done more to retract or apologize for that statement once you learned otherwise. I think we ought to deal strongly with true bad faith, yet also be cautious about making the accusation. However, I won't oppose and I wish you the best of luck.--Kubigula (talk) 21:01, 23 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Amire80
Final: (25/4/1); ended 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Amire80 (talk · contribs) - I've been on Wikipedia since early 2005. I edit articles on several topics - Linguistics (I am studying Linguistics in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem), Israel, Russia, other countries. I do backlog work: disambiguate links, fix red links, close merge discussions. I add sources when I can; I am particularly proud about the case of Bryansk (see the talk page). I nominated several pages for deletion, so I am familiar with the deletion discussion process and I also consider the deletion policies of the English Wikipedia very logical and fair. I revert vandalism and warn vandals, although I do my best to assume good faith. I have experience as a sysop in a public Wiki - the wiki of Jerusalem Perl Mongers. Amir E. Aharoni 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: First of all, blocking users who are performing blatant vandalism. I usually don't have a lot of time to monitor Recent changes, but I often see that vandals are warned by users and it takes many minutes until an admin actually blocks him and in the meantime he does more harm; so intend to help with that when I see it. I also think that I shall be more efficient doing backlog work with administrator rights - merging pages, moving pages to redirects with history, etc. I also intend to respond to requests at Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention - good, non-controversial requests should be carried out quickly and sometimes there is a lag.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: In terms of encyclopedic content - I created several articles about Israel, including Eviatar Banai, Giv'at Ye'arim and Matte Yehuda Regional Council. I sorted and cleaned up List of Romance languages according to reliable sources, and other related articles and categories. I contributed to many other articles - added sources, removed dubious information or marked it as "citation needed". I adopted the disambiguation pages Belarusian and Progressive and I keep the list of links to it empty most of the time. I am slowly, but surely, emptying the list of red links. I also made many contributions to the Hebrew Wikipedia: I created many articles and I essentially lead a project that aims to have as few as possible pages without interwiki links.
- 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 didn't have any significant cases of stress in the English Wikipedia. The worst case of stress that I had was on the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I got into an argument about the article on Scientology with a user who was overly critical of the organization. It happened in late 2005. In that case I learned how to handle a revert war gracefully. I was also involved in a somewhat heated argument about the deletion of one article (deletion review here). In that case I did my best to remain fair and assume good faith, and in the same time stick to the policy of verifiability. My most controversial action was probably the involvement in the Siberian Wikipedia project, which is frowned upon by many Russian editors. I was curious about it as a linguist, so I helped set it up and I still have administrator rights there, however I am disappointed about its non-constructive direction and I am not active there for a long time. It taught me to be much more careful about the issues of notability and verifiability.
General comments
- See Amire80's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Amire80: Amire80 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Amire80 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support a very good contributor to WP:RFA and the general reaction to him on his talk page appears to be positive. I am slightly worried about his edit rate fluctuation though. -Icewedge 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing jumps out at me to raise any concerns. Talented, diversified, and long established editor who interacts well with the community, and has shown excellent dedication to growing the project. Hiberniantears 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Experienced editor who clearly won't abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --Yeshivish 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although you haven't been very active of late, I see no reason to oppose --Benchat 05:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've only seen good edits from you. Valentinian T / C 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User can be trusted. Acalamari 01:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A keen eye for vandals and devotion to a project. You fit the bill. --iriseyestalk 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bit of AfD there...not excessive, but we don't always need excessive admins. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no good reason not to. Neil ム 08:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. A little inexperienced in projectspace, but that isn't enough of a reason to oppose, IMO. WaltonOne 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I see no indication this user will execute the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature fashion. --Haemo 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have only seen good things from this editor. Number 57 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has only done good things for Wikipedia. Nick mallory 04:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support more inclusionist than the norm, but knows what the policies and should use the tools well. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — [ aldebaer ] 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See User:Amire80/Nominated for deletion. Originally oppose, but Amire proved it through this. •Malinaccier• T/C 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On balance should not abuse the tools. Davewild 07:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sumoeagle179 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Nick mallory has nothing wrong.Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to have the qualifications, background and experience to serve as an admin. Alansohn 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An admirable editor. How much experience do people want?--Bedivere 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Weak Oppose. I generally like about 500 projectspace edits. This editor has almost 400, which means that they may not know enough about policy. If anyone could prove this knowledge of policy, please notify me on my talk page as well as here. Other than that, I have no other oppositions. Thanks!•Malinaccier• T/C 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- You measure knowledge of policy via percentages? Why not actually look through his edits? I officially declare this oppose deficient because the user made 7 votes in 25 minutes, at an average of 3.571428 minutes per vote. As we all know, a good vote requires at least 3.714285 minutes of deliberation. Being judged based on a couple of numbers sucks, doesn't it? Picaroon (t) 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Picaroon, whilst I understand and indeed agree with your position please can you argue the argument and not the arguer. Malinaccier is entitled to set an arbitary level if he wishes, and his contributions are not the issue of discussion here. Best. Pedro | Chat 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, I generally won't support an RFA without 500 WP space edits. Just because I didn't take 10 extra seconds per vote, doesn't mean that I didn't get a good idea of whether the editor would make a good administrator. Plus, less than 500 edits to the WP space not only shows a possible low knowledge of policy, but it also shows that the user hasn't designated enough time to helping the other side of the encyclopedia. 500 WP edits is not an extremely high standard, and I just don't think that people are ready for adminship without them. Being judged on some numbers does suck, but if we didn't use numbers to help decide, there would be problems. I guess we should all support a user's RFA when they created their account 13 hours ago and have made 4 edits, but acted in a kind and generous manner. Those are numbers that nobody would support. You're also "officially declaring my oppose deficient," based solely on numbers. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that with 400 WP space edits, that the user is ready for adminship. It's my opinion, and you should accept it even if I didn't spend 10 seconds looking at a couple more edit summaries that only state "minor spelling fix." •Malinaccier• T/C 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Picaroon, whilst I understand and indeed agree with your position please can you argue the argument and not the arguer. Malinaccier is entitled to set an arbitary level if he wishes, and his contributions are not the issue of discussion here. Best. Pedro | Chat 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was familiar with nearly all of Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list long before I nominated myself for adminship. I don't think that without knowing it I would be able to do AFD properly. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You measure knowledge of policy via percentages? Why not actually look through his edits? I officially declare this oppose deficient because the user made 7 votes in 25 minutes, at an average of 3.571428 minutes per vote. As we all know, a good vote requires at least 3.714285 minutes of deliberation. Being judged based on a couple of numbers sucks, doesn't it? Picaroon (t) 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose You say you want to help fight vandalism and block, but I don't see any edits at AIV. I like your editing, but I don't see much experience in areas that are admin-task related. Jmlk17 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of AIV, but I never had to use it. I warned quite a few vandals, but they either disappeared or were blocked before I had to use AIV. Some of them were so blatant, that I would block them on sight and save Wikipedia a few minutes of continuing disruption. I did use a similar page in the Hebrew Wikipedia (he:בקשות ממפעילים), if it makes any difference to you. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to insufficient mainspace English WP edits, per Malinaccier, and User page (although I'm not sure the image is intentionally silly). Bearian 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- What would be a sufficient number of English WP edits?
- And what is it about my user page that makes you think that I'll be a bad administrator? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3,000 edits, or work on images, is a generally accepted minimum. Take a look at the ambiguously insulting image on the user page. Bearian 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I had 3365 edits in the mainspace when the discussion started and I have 3556 now, so I don't see a problem.
- As for the image - I had this image on my user page for a very long time and you are the very first person that finds anything offensive in it. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3,000 edits, or work on images, is a generally accepted minimum. Take a look at the ambiguously insulting image on the user page. Bearian 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - as of yet, Wikipedia-space experience is too low. Lradrama 08:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Because of the way he defended the Siberian Wikipedia in the closure move on it. "I hate it when dialects die". Sorry, but I hate it when people die. I cannot do anything about it. And neither should Wikipedia try to stop dialects from dying. In other words, I am sure this guy has an agenda which I do not like. There were other things said then, about the POV and OR inherent in the Siberian Wikipedia. I gather that he now claims to have learnt his lesson, but he is still an administrator there. There is an expression in Englsih: you cannot have your cake and eat it. Now that the Siberian Wiki, is about to be closed, it is time to reflect on the bot wars (over the filthy link to Siberian Hamlet and the racist link to Siberian Ingria) and the aggravation it caused, all of which could have been better spent at creating articles. Sorry, no AGF in this case. --Pan Gerwazy 08:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that it will come up in the discussion, so I didn't hide it - see the answer to question 3. All I can say is this: It was a mistake and I learned from it. I haven't edited sib-wiki in a long time and my administrator rights there can be revoked for all I care. You are welcome to check the record of the AFD's that I lead since then and you'll see that my agenda is quite different now. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that could be part of the problem: your crusade against Slovio can be interpreted as an attempt to get rid of a competitor, because some people still want to preserve this Siberian political enterprise as a part of Wikipedia. "for all I care" - Zolotarev may think the same, now that he has found pastures greener, where he can both compete with and parasite on Wikipedia. If (probably better: when) Siberian Wikipedia gets closed, it does not make much difference whether you or he care or not. But you are here. That is your infortune, indeed. Do you really not resent the time you wasted on that project? --Pan Gerwazy 10:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do resent about the time wasted, but I am also glad about the lessons learned.
- My "crusade" against Slovio (and İQTElif) is not an effort to get rid of competitors, but an implementation of those lessons. It is an effort to enforce the policies of Verifiability and No Original Research, because now I firmly believe that they are the right policies for a project of this kind.
- It is not an "infortune" that I am here. It is my choice to do The Right Thing on the right project and not be a part of a fringe community. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good answers, even though you misunderstood "infortune". I meant that you now are taking responsibility, but others are not. However, I still think it may be too early. You know that every contributor to Russian subjects on English Wikipedia voted on that project, and with the notable exception of Petri Krohn (who could have saved Siberian Wikipedia if he had been made sysop there, instead of the guy who threw Verifiability and No Original Research through the window from day one) they voted against it. How are you going to maintain neutrality in a conflict involving one of them? You could of course excuse yourself, but we have very few admins who know the East European scene and who can see through the silly tactics (like false flag and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend) employed there. How will you react when you are asked to settle a dispute between User:Molobo and User:Ghirlandajo, or worse even: between User:Petri Krohn and one of the Romanians who voted against Siberian Wikipedia?--Pan Gerwazy 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that that unfortunate affair left a very strong impression on you and I can understand why, but my involvement with Zolotaryov's group is a thing of the past.
- An editor doesn't have to be an administrator to settle disputes. An administrator's work is to delete unneeded pages and to block vandals. So you can rest assured that if I shall see that someone recreated the Siberian language article, I will delete it and when I'll have to block a vandal, my judgment will absolutely not be based on his "votes" in the related discussions. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good answers, even though you misunderstood "infortune". I meant that you now are taking responsibility, but others are not. However, I still think it may be too early. You know that every contributor to Russian subjects on English Wikipedia voted on that project, and with the notable exception of Petri Krohn (who could have saved Siberian Wikipedia if he had been made sysop there, instead of the guy who threw Verifiability and No Original Research through the window from day one) they voted against it. How are you going to maintain neutrality in a conflict involving one of them? You could of course excuse yourself, but we have very few admins who know the East European scene and who can see through the silly tactics (like false flag and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend) employed there. How will you react when you are asked to settle a dispute between User:Molobo and User:Ghirlandajo, or worse even: between User:Petri Krohn and one of the Romanians who voted against Siberian Wikipedia?--Pan Gerwazy 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that could be part of the problem: your crusade against Slovio can be interpreted as an attempt to get rid of a competitor, because some people still want to preserve this Siberian political enterprise as a part of Wikipedia. "for all I care" - Zolotarev may think the same, now that he has found pastures greener, where he can both compete with and parasite on Wikipedia. If (probably better: when) Siberian Wikipedia gets closed, it does not make much difference whether you or he care or not. But you are here. That is your infortune, indeed. Do you really not resent the time you wasted on that project? --Pan Gerwazy 10:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that it will come up in the discussion, so I didn't hide it - see the answer to question 3. All I can say is this: It was a mistake and I learned from it. I haven't edited sib-wiki in a long time and my administrator rights there can be revoked for all I care. You are welcome to check the record of the AFD's that I lead since then and you'll see that my agenda is quite different now. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose The candidate's other contributions, and their answers here, are strong. However, you say that your foremost duty as a sysop would be in vandalfighting, but I see no edits to AIV. If you can demonstrate to me that you understand the AIV process, I would be glad to change to support. VanTucky Talk 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that I shall fight vandals 24/7 and I am not planning to patrol Recent Changes in search for vandals, as I mostly focus on expanding articles, fixing red links, disambiguating etc. and I think that I can be more efficient doing these things with the permission to delete unneeded pages (I know the deletion policy well).
- By saying "First of all" I mostly meant this: I often see vandals that go unnoticed for a long time without being blocked or even warned, so stopping them is probably the most immediately important thing that I shall do. I have a pretty large watchlist and I have a good eye for spotting stealth vandalism, so when I shall see them, I'll be glad to have the tools to smack them right on the spot (after warning, of course.)
- As for AIV - I am very much aware of it, but somehow never used it myself, because either the vandals that I warned didn't continue doing their thing or they were blocked before I had to use it. I almost used it with User talk:Reiccanilam recently, but someone got there first. I will certainly have AIV on my watchlist if I am promoted.
- If you want to know that I know the procedure - AIV is intended at drawing the administrators' attention to vandals that keep vandalizing after the last warning. Using AIV without warning the alleged vandal first is wrong; blocking a user that was reported on AIV, but not sufficiently warned is wrong. I have a pretty good knowledge of WP:WARN, too. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Espresso Addict
Final (60/0/1); Originally scheduled to end 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict (talk · contribs) - Espresso Addict is a calm and approachable editor who is particularly active in AfD, "Did You Know" and categorisation. She has created over 100 articles and is an expert and knowledgeable copy-editor. I've known her on Wiki for over a year and she has always been a very helpful collaborator. I have no doubt that she would use admin tools responsibly and carefully. An excellent editor and a genuinely nice person. Tim Vickers 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I first edited Wikipedia some time early in 2006, and found it highly addictive, although I didn't get an account for a few months. For those who bother about numbers, I've amassed almost 5500 logged-in edits since then, with around 50% being in mainspace. I should probably mention that I took a partial Wikibreak from November till July of this year, after injuring my back. I spent many months lying staring at the ceiling, which made using a computer physically difficult and tended to exacerbate the inevitable stresses involved in editing. I feel that the time away and discussions with non-Wikipedians have given me a better perspective on the project, which has made my editing stronger.
Although my main experience lies in article writing and editing, I've taken on repetitive tasks such as assessing articles for the recent Biography Assessment Drive and the Cheshire WikiProject. I take a considered approach to editing, weighing carefully the effect of my edits not only on the article but also on other editors. I believe that editors are the most precious resource this project has, and I try to bear this in mind in all my interactions with others. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Being entirely honest I doubt I'll ever be the most active admin on the project. My recent work updating the template for Did You Know? relies on an admin to upload it to the main page, and as it's often backlogged that's one place I would see myself starting. I'm also experienced at AfD, and I would begin to determine consensus and close discussions, starting with cases where I had no strong personal feelings. Beyond those areas I would take it very slowly. I have a background in publishing, so investigating textual copyright infringements would seem a natural extension, although I haven't done much in this area of the project to date. I'd also like to get involved with mentoring new editors who share my focus on article creation and editing, though I'm aware that I don't need the tools to do this.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I've created over a hundred articles on topics from science and medicine to local geography. A sample of my favourites might include William Gaskell, a prominent Unitarian minister and educationalist; Richard Partridge, a surgeon best known for missing a bullet in Garibaldi's leg; bovine papillomavirus, a model for cancer caused by papillomaviruses; and Churche's Mansion, a half-timbered Elizabethan building that was one of the few survivors of the Great Fire of Nantwich. A good example of my collaborative work would be Peak District, which has been a long labour of love for several editors attempting to give England's first National Park the quality of article it deserves. I spend a fair amount of time copy editing articles, often by editors whose first language isn't English, and trying to find sources. I'm also always pleased when my research helps to save a notable topic from deletion at AfD.
- 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: It's impossible to avoid conflict in a large collaborative project where everyone brings different experiences. I always discuss problematic issues on talk pages, and try to be proactive in bringing issues to the talk page before any conflict develops. Usually, I've found, differences in opinion can be resolved amicably in this way, calling on other interested editors if necessary via the WikiProjects. On one occasion, however, an editor repeatedly added a couple of examples to fan fiction that I believed to be unnecessary (eg [12] & see Talk:Fan fiction#Links/ref to Hardy Boys & Tom Swift) and I wasn't able to find any consensus among other editors to the page. After a few rounds of reverts and an obvious solidifying of our respective opinions, I had to walk away. There's always another 2 million articles to edit, after all.
General comments
- See Espresso Addict's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Espresso Addict: Espresso Addict (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Espresso Addict before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support - No concerns. I believe this user would not abuse the tools, and also seems to be quite experienced with Afd. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support out of the gate, glad I watchlisted this and very glad that EA accepted the nom. A trustworthy, thoughtful and reliable user who will make fine use of the mop. ~Eliz81(C) 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support known to me for a while now. Useful, consistent, thoughtful editor. Can definitely be trusted with the tools --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will be an even bigger asset w/ the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more caffeine-addicted admins who can stay up late. Melsaran (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I saw EA was approached with the idea of becoming an admin, and I'm very happy to see that a nomination has now been made. I wholeheartedly support this nomination, as I have been impressed with EA's work so far, and think it would be further enhanced on becoming an admin. DDStretch (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — finally; someone with satisfying contribs. Comments like this, this, and this (to name a few) are exactly what everyone should do at AfD. Good work, man! --Agüeybaná 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am happy to give my support to this user. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow the contributions of this user are impressive, and I especially like the fact that she values editors and subsequently deals with all in a friendly manner. Phgao 13:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely a good user and definitely one that should have adminship. Captain panda 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —[[Animum | talk]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Y not? 14:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Surprised I haven't run into you before. Looks good — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user, good contribs. GDonato (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Christ, I go to bed for a few hours and you guys all pile in before I'm ready. Typical. Tim Vickers 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go and nominate a Brit, you have to expect us all to start partying before you get up ;) Espresso Addict 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. Marlith T/C 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid participation in Wiki-related pages particularly the WikiProjects, Afd's and editor review pages (being several being among the top Wikipedia edited pages by this user).--JForget 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This is a great editor. Someone I would have nominated, and I never nominate anybody. --JayHenry 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A strong candidate with valuable contributions. VanTucky Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have had good interaction(s) with this user. Jmlk17 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Tim Vickers. — [ aldebaer] 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the_undertow talk 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap, I was going to nom and completely forgot...sorry mate, but you have my strongest support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well, my head's spinning. Why, you may ask? Because for the first time in awhile, after going through someone's edit summary, talk page entries, and such, I can't find a reason at all to oppose. (And I love the fact that her first talk page edit included a reference citing where she retreived her information.) Everyone's human, of course. But this person is such a natural at WP:EQ, that I don't think she even has to try. I guess it's just nice to see considering how much faux civility we may encounter. I'm pleased to support for admin, and really hope she goes into dispute resolution : ) - jc37 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (yay Cheshire) - no problems as far as I can see. Neil ム 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think she has done a great job. Creating over 100 articles is not a joke. RS1900 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, really no reason not to be an admin. Wizardman 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good enough for me. - Philippe | Talk 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lots of good work creating new articles and at AfD. Bearian 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No problem. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have seen this editor at Afd's - knows what she's doing and can be trusted. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent mainspace work (and I do mean excellent), excellent AfD work, and I completely trust the nominator's opinion :) You'll make a top-notch admin; I just hope the mop and bucket won't lead you away from article work, which would be a shame. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent editor whom I trust.--ragesoss 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Long live DYK Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very much appreciate the answer to question one. LaraLove 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Tim Vickers' nominee. @pple complain 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great you are back and contributing after a back injury and your track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - sensible and good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Like the below mentioned User:Matthew Richardson, I am also concerned about talk page participation by admin candidates. This user has about a .3 article talk to article ratio. More discussion generally leads to less use of admin tools. --Rocksanddirt 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per nom Bigglovetalk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an excellent, conscientious, reliable editor, with a devotion to quality. DGG (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support quality editors make for quality admins. — Zerida 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this user is just about ready. I think enough experience has been gathered in the correct areas now. Lradrama 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A year is long enough, as long as the user appreciates that there's lots to learn in the first few months as an admin. "Espresso Addict is a calm... editor" does seem a bit of an oxymoron though ;) --Pretty Green 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- M.(er) 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. ♠TomasBat 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Húsönd 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems. Sarah 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any problems, the editor seems experianced enough and doesn't seem like one to abuse the tools. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A fine user who will make good use of the tools. Acalamari 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Ronnotel 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A productive, highly literate, even-tempered and constructive editor is being considered for admin? What a tough call. Guess I'll go along with the crowd. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Known him for awhile. Has what it takes to be an admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
anybody addicted to coffee will make a good admin;) um, that is, never seen this editor but the oppose votes are poorly constructed and there is really no reason not to support. :) Good luck. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support - Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:60. -- Jreferee T/C 07:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose. Fails my criteria. Matthew Richardson 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked. Wizardman 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no exact edit count in any space required for adminship. Saying a candidate must have "40 edits" in any arena is unacceptable, but is especially so when considering you require 40 Category edits. I humbly suggest you base further RFA judgements on the criteria which have been vetted by the community at large. VanTucky Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict:) It is my opinion that Category Talk edits are crucial in the RFA process. Just like other people say that you need to have X edits to counter-vandalism areas, or X edits to deletion discussions. Feel free to disagree with me, but respect my opinion. Matthew Richardson 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing based on an exact number of required edits in any area is not something I have seen any !voter do but yourself. Suggesting someone needs more edits and experience in a particular realm is not the same as an arbitrary number which must be exceeded. VanTucky Talk 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, then I say: this candidate has only nine edits in the Category space and four edits in the Category Talk space, and therefore I believe that he may need a little more experience in this area in order to become an admin. Happy now? Matthew Richardson 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I disagree with the criteria of 'the community at large', I may not voice my opinion? That's silly. Matthew Richardson 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not in any way suggest you should not participate in RFA, I only suggested that you refrain from basing your comments in a criteria which was not created through consensus. VanTucky Talk 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there is no message on top of the RFA page that says "Thou shalt not voice thine opinion if thine standards for supporting are higher than the average community standards". Matthew Richardson 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not characterize your criteria as too high. I said that we are directly discouraged from setting an arbitrary threshold of edits for adminship. VanTucky Talk 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That page says at the top: 'It is not intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it.' Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, well, I'll say this: "Thou canst be blocked if thou disrupts the RfA prfocess." —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my User Talk page for what I think about threatening with a block when you disagree with someone. Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thouith shouldith denith him...:P (bad Medieval saying)--PrestonH 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That page is on how to block vandals and ignore them. I am not a vandal. I dislike destroying the work of others. Matthew Richardson 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No troll feeding. Mr. Richardson, if you make another oppose based on those erratic grounds, you will be blocked for RfA trolling. End of story. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I blocked, that was his second edit, no editor ever met that crteria, sees like a account only used for RFA trolling. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great minds think alike, I guess. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the block of User:Matthew Richardson, which was unjustified. No one seems to have followed WP:AGF in this case. This user's RfA criteria may have been somewhat outside community norms, but they were actually backed up with a rational argument (on his now-deleted criteria page) and possibly weren't as stupid as they sounded. "Troll" is a subjective term, and I don't think anyone should ever be blocked simply for expressing an unusual opinion on an RfA (especially not one which is going to pass anyway). WaltonOne 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great minds think alike, I guess. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I blocked, that was his second edit, no editor ever met that crteria, sees like a account only used for RFA trolling. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No troll feeding. Mr. Richardson, if you make another oppose based on those erratic grounds, you will be blocked for RfA trolling. End of story. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That page is on how to block vandals and ignore them. I am not a vandal. I dislike destroying the work of others. Matthew Richardson 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what just happened? An "RfA troll"? Pssh. In most cases, the only people who disrupt RfA are those who badger the opposers, by saying, "You can't oppose because of that", or "You don't have X, so you can't demand X". Instead why not try to understand the opposition by asking, "Why do you think X?" or even better, "Who do you think the ideal admin would be, and why would X contribute to that?" Ya know, discussion, consensus, all that kind of stuff.
- On his or her talk page, Matthew asked to be unblocked so that he or she could contribute elsewhere. I second his or her request. --Iamunknown 07:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While the point of account Matthew Richardson was clearly to participate in Rfa's, I expect is was only due to the normal trolling of opposes and neutrals by various admin candidate supporters. The rfa process seems to be primarily a trollfest, and as such, Matthew Richardson was no more disruptive to it than many. --Rocksanddirt 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Putting both sides into account, I would have to sit on the fence but leaning onto the Support side. Very tough call. Aflumpire 09:02, 17 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Penwhale
Final (67/20/5); Originally scheduled to end 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Penwhale (talk · contribs) - I am glad to submit Penwhale as a candidate for adminship. He has been an active contributor since 2005, and has lots of edits and experience. As evident from his talk page archives, he is often helpful to other users and he remains civil. Penwhale is a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, and has contributed to various arbitration cases and made the process run smoothly. With this much experience and familiarity with Wikipedia customs and policies, I am confident that he would make a great administrator. Melsaran (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I graciously accept the nomination. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to contribute further into AfD and DRV, as well as RFPP/AIAV work, which I did for a period of time. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an additional note, before WP:AIV, I also posted to WP:VIP (which served as WP:AIV's purpose). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I intend to contribute further into AfD and DRV, as well as RFPP/AIAV work, which I did for a period of time. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My editing could be seen as in phases. I started of contributing to various articles here and there. Then for a period of time, I did RC patrol. Lately I've been mostly focusing on assisting the Arbitration Committee with arbitration cases. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (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: My biggest "conflict" was when I was caught during this RfAr case, which is rather interesting because of the fact that it was a case where I would've supported a viewpoint but did not actively participate in the actual conflict. For the record, my involvement in the linked case was only to provide factual evidence on the case. Otherwise, my conflicts are generally with editors who repeated vandalize pages. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional Question(s) from LessHeard vanU
- 4. Do you anticipate a greater presence in article space than in the past?
- A: I edit articles that interest me as I have information about them (example being the 2004 Tour de France), however, my interests rapidly shift sometimes, and as such, I do not have a lot of edits/page. I do plan to work on doing more translate work (Chinese/Japanese -> English), but regarding articles, I prefer to layout a foundation for others to work on and then collaborate with them(my non-native English sometimes prevents me from improving articles).
- 5.Assuming that the answer to Q.4. is anything other than, "Yes, I have decided to forgo ArbCom clerking and want to make good use of the free time now available" why do you feel you have the need for the tools? Please note that while I recognise that need is not a criteria for possession of the mop, and I certainly deem you trustworthy, I am interested in why you accepted the nomination.
- A: If you haven't noticed, regarding ArbCom clerking, I generally take on the cases that other clerks have recused in (noticed the 2 latest ones) which are generally touchy subjects. In fact, during the last few months I've clerked a very limited number of cases. That aside, apart from the "me having mop = I'd be able to help more" typical response, mop would help be further regarding the occasional ArbCom cases that do come my way as well as the VIP/AIV/AfD presence (which I admit I have not been a regular contributor to lately). It isn't so much as me "needing" the mop, more as "mop would help me do my job better". - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from User:White Cat
- 6. Although you have answered a similar question on your Wikipedia:Editor review, has your time as an ArbCom clerk helped you grow as a wikipedian? Do you think you would be able to preform difficult admin tasks involving conflicts such as dealing with content related tasks? How has your time as an ArbCom clerk help prepare you for adminship?
- First, my answer from WP:ER was First, being an ArbCom clerk means that people sometimes have heated arguments on your talk page depending on the case in question. It certainly helps me, as an editor, to remain neutral and not get swayed by the parties in question. Also, it helps to see that "oh, this argument started from this, maybe I should try to avoid getting in a situation like that" ... Now, with that said, I do believe that people need the chance to look at an argument from an outside point of view (as administrators should perform their duty with neutrality, abiding by the NPOV policy). Since I tend to avoid editing in the areas that I have firm beliefs in (I've stayed away from China-Taiwan issues since this RfA), I believe that my views wouldn't be clouded by prejudice. ArbCom cases appear because people's application and understanding of policy is different -- and serving as a clerk has the advantage of seeing how people trusted by the community see the policy has (which is how the majority of the editors view most of the time). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Penwhale's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Penwhale: Penwhale (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Penwhale before commenting.
Discussion
- With regards to "need for/use of tools": Penwhale's arbitration clerking would be benefitted by him becoming an admin for several reasons. First, when cases close, parties often need to banned for certain periods of time. Also, sometimes articles that have been placed on article probation or had their main edit warriors banned can be unprotected, at least experimentally. In addition to this, occasionally personal information added to the case pages needs to be deleted from the history, and quickly. As one of the people who has made blocks for Penwhale, I assert that it would be very helpful if he had admin tools to aid in his clerking. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Lets hear it from the candidate's own keyboard... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - I'm not particularly familiar with the role of arbitration clerks, but from the above comment it sounds like they act as bailiffs as well as court clerks - that is, they implement bans etc. imposed by the ArbCom. To be honest, my instinctive reaction was "why does a clerk need the admin tools?" but the above clarifies the reasons why. WaltonOne 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to some of the editors below regarding my inactivity, I should mention that I am an international student and my editing level does go down when school is not in session. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as nominator. Melsaran (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Marlith T/C 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Your mainspace contributions are disappointing, but there is no reason to believe the tools would be abused. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I would like to see a greater range of more traditional edits, but do not believe the nom will abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate's demonstrated commitment to the project over a period of years coupled with his experience as an arbitration clerk convince me that there is no risk the tools would be misused. I trust that the candidate would begin by performing administrator actions primarily in his current areas of expertise even as he continues to grow as an editor and expand his range of activities. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's been said before, adminship is no big deal. Penwhale looks extremely unlikely to abuse the tools, and even if use of them is not constant, it doesn't adversely affect anyone. Good luck! --Benchat 23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm not concerned that this admin will abuse the tools. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with Ryan below - I think 30+ edits to RPP and AIV, none of which resulted in a murder-suicide pact, is enough. He has my support, and anyone who can do arbitration clerk work must have a good adminship attitude :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Penwhale has consistently showed hard work and dedication to our project, and I have no doubts that we can trust him with the tools. --krimpet⟲ 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Not just because we're both clerks, but because it is so incredibly obvious that Penwhale wouldn't misuse the tools. See also my comment in the discussion section. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by Picaroon's, Newyorkbrad's, and Krimpet's comments, this is a decent editor. My observations of this user are positive too. Acalamari 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't think he will go mental and block me. Tim Vickers 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per NYB and Picaroon - no need for tools/inexperience is nonsense. Majorly (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust this user to use the tools properly. Keegantalk 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Picaroon pointed out above, being an arbitration clerk is a need for administrative tools. Simple checklist. No concerns about incivility, no bad decision-making, appears level-headed, seems to be a good guy, has clue (blatantly stolen off Riana), seems to be familiar with policy, and is dedicated into improving the encyclopedia. As he has all of the above, support. And for the editors who wish to see more mainspace contributions, please keep in mind that the basic reason for this is to know an editor is familiar with content based policies. As an arbitration clerk, I gather that Penwhale will be familiar with this, as he had experience with content-related disputes. --DarkFalls talk 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From what I can see, there is definitely a need for the tools. Captain panda 04:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I'm surprised he's not one. He should be. Being selected by the Arbitration Committee as a clerk shows their trust of him, and I personally trust him; he is a valuable contributor, if not in article space. He has a need for the tools. — madman bum and angel 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Requiring XfD participation for every admin hopeful seems unnecessary to me. Strong editor, long-term editing implies experience. Nothing alarming noted in contribs. No reason for me to oppose. LaraLove 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Ryan has a point that he does not have much experience in admin areas, but I do not believe this user will abuse his tools. The one thing I look for in an admin is reliability; can he be trusted with the tools. Since this user can be trusted, I am supporting his Rfa. I would have a stronger support for him if he was more active in admin areas though. Good luck!--SJP 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't feel strongly that he shouldn't become an admin.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 07:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per NYB. But more mainspace if you get a chance; you do write well, and it would be great to see you contribute to articlespace. As W.marsh said below, you need experience with articles in order to be able to judge content effectively -- Samir 08:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although there are valid concerns raised by other editors, I believe this user can use the tools in the areas they are most familiar. With AIV and vandal fighting, more participation in future would be good. Phgao 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Obviously trustworthy, thus should have the mop. LessHeard vanU 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trustworthy editor. Has clue. Sticks around despite witnessing the madness at RfArb everyday. Not big deal. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Noting the comments in the discussion section above, an ArbCom clerk is not just analogous to a court clerk, but also to a bailiff; that is, they implement bans and other remedies imposed by the ArbCom. Admin tools would seem to be necessary, or at least very useful, in that field of activity; as such, I suggest that he be given the tools, regardless of his mainspace editing. WaltonOne 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support There is just enough in other areas to outweigh the lack of mainspace editing, in my opinion. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikihermit 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust Penwhale with the tools. Cbrown1023 talk 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The candidate operates in a steady and sensible way. Tyrenius 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hell not? I mean, I understand mainspace contributions are important, but cripes, this is ridiculous. I trust Penwhale with the tools, and given his limited mainspace contributions, I trust he won't be using them too often in mainspace. Seems simple enough to me. Ral315 » 05:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - His activities at WP:AIV seem to show he knows what he'sa doing there - the last 6 users he reported were all blocked the same day. In addition, his activities as an arbitration clerk, per User:Picaroon, seem to indicate that making him an admin is highly important. Od Mishehu 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - while virtually no actual editing could be considered a problem, this is a special case. I don't think Penwhale would misues the tools, and there's a genuine need for them. Neil ム 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably trustworthy. Moreschi Talk 12:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of all the people who I've seen nominated here that I thought was an admin, Penwhale is the biggest shock of them all. Go you! Kwsn(Ni!) 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's been here forever, has the requisite experience, and admin tools for an ArbCom clerk are useful. Shalom Hello 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a long-time editor. No problems. Bearian 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I look forward to being blocked by Penwhale in the future. SchmuckyTheCat
- Support - I see no indication this user will misuser the tools. --Haemo 03:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen them around before and looks unlikely to abuse the tools. Resurgent insurgent 06:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to the opposers, I believe that Penwhale's experience and usefulness at AE will justify the tools. I fully trust Penwhale to have enough experience with disputes to be able to handle anything content-based that comes his way. Daniel 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No big deal. AKAF 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no doubt Penwhale would make an excellent admin. Good luck. --Grandmaster 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Penwhale is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, would surely be an excellent administrator. E104421 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Newyorkbrad and see no concerns in track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - he should be just fine. I see no substantive issues here that would sway me. His non-mainspace track record is overweighed by his stellar work at ArbCom and other areas. I've seen him filing prot. requests at WP:RPP, also - Alison ❤ 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He will be a good admin, I have convidence in him Baku87 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I thought he was already. Time in grade is a very weak reason to oppose an otherwise perfectly fine candidate. --Rocksanddirt 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Already working at the level of an admin in many ways. Asked for and given one of the most difficult jobs on the project, ArbCom Clerk. Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Interacts well with users. A fantastic team player. All new admins learn on the job. He clearly is smart enough to be an admin and is cautious enough to ask for help if needed. Not giving him the tools while he makes some arbitrary number of edits to articles makes no sense at all because he can make good use of the sysop tools now. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support The opposers have some legitimate concerns, but there's no risk of abuse and the limited prior experience in DRV, etc. suggest low risk of unintentional misuse.--Chaser - T 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, after reviewing Penwhale's contributions and concluding that, although contribution to article space is desirable, it is not an absolute must when a candidate has shown deep knowledge of policy as he has. Trustworthiness doesn't appear to be an issue here - now that is an absolute must to me. Phaedriel - 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to give him the bit. - Merzbow 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. I'm not convinced by the opposers' arguments. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support I'd like to see more mainspace work, but I trust PW to use the tools wisely. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Do I trust Penwhale with the buttons? Absolutely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The job of an admin is to administer wikipedia which basically is the enforcement of policies. By spending a decent amount of time as an ArbCom clerk in my view has taught the candidate all about our policies and guidelines and how it is interpreted by ArbCom. So I feel this demonstrates that the candidate is more than qualified for the job despite having a less than ideal article namespace edits. ちい! -- Cat chi? 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support based on my experience of this user, SqueakBox 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. Having been a member of Wikipedia for a long time, I believe enough experience has been gained (despite periods of not much editing) The tools would help him as a clerk, so why not? ♠TomasBat 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good, hard-working contributor with no reasons to be concerned. Ronnotel 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Likes manga. Darkoneko 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I share the concerns of many of the opposers - ideally admins should have experience of article writting and content disputes. That being said, I believe Penwhale has shown himself to be trustworthy and responsible. I think he'll confine himself to acting as an admin in areas where he is experienced and avoid doing so in those where he is not. WjBscribe 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Mainspace editing isn't the be all and end all of being an administrator, it's really just a fad RfA is going through, a few months ago, Penwhale would have breezed through with only a couple of Opposing comments. Anybody with half a clue can delete shit and protect stuff, resolving editing disputes is more difficult, but there's no real suggestion people with huge mainspace edit counts are any better at resolving editing disputes than any other administrator. Nick 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has an excellent 16-minute adminship record; seriously, I don't see why to not trust an Arbcom clerk. Arbcom is very time consuming, IMO, and Penwhale has done mainspace work in the past. I trust Penwhale to admin. Maxim(talk) 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced candidate who there's every reason to think will make a fine admin. Chick Bowen 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I usually don't !vote on RfAs of users I don't know, but I find much of the reasoning in the oppose section so ridiculous that I need to express my opinion. There is not a single reason to suspect he would abuse the tools listed anywhere on this page, and there is none I can find in his contribution record. Prodego talk 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I'm sorry Penwhale, I really can't support you at this time. You do such a great job as an arbitration clerk, but that's all that you do. You have very little experience in area's that require admin tools. I've tried to tell you a number of times before that you need to broaden your editing if you wanted to go for adminship. I'd suggest you may even stop your job as a clerk for a while and branch out. Get involved in AfD's, comment at AN/I and do a bit of vandal fighting and you'll pick up things a lot easier. Hopefully, if you take this advice, you'll be ready in a few months. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he has 34 edits to WP:AIV. Melsaran (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And 34 more to RPP. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't exactly a lot guys, and that's not saying every single resport ended with a protection or a block. I share the same sentiment as Agueybana below, that if this passes, I'm sure you'll be fine, I just don't think the experience is there at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And 34 more to RPP. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't about trust, but first hand experience, why is this an oppose rather than neutral? LessHeard vanU 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is about trust, if he hasn't got the experience in admin areas, then I can't trust him using the tools effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he has 34 edits to WP:AIV. Melsaran (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Equally sorry here, man. If this passes, I'm sure you'll make an admin, but I just don't think you're ready for the tools at this moment. I believe that mainspace editing is important in the administration of this site, and your participation in that namespace is almost non-existent. Please participate more at XfDs and WP:RA, and, if this RfA fails, you'll have my full support. Please do keep up the clerking, tough, as it is excellent. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Agüeybaná, little mainspace contribution in past 3 months. T Rex | talk 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my question to Ryan, above. LessHeard vanU 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per [13]... admins concern me most with how they work with articles. Says he wants to work with AFD and DRV, but someone who edits articles so infrequently doesn't have my trust in dealing with them as an admin... sorry. --W.marsh 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Your mainspace contributions do not inspire me, rather they worry me. Frankly this trend is becoming a bit tiresome (the "get in with a gang"). And perhaps I'm the only one, but this whole "clerk" business is pretty funny (we just need RfA clerks now ;-)).
- Oppose and I really am sorry about this one; you have only 10 mainspace contributions since June (and your mainspace history shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes a minor edit), I can't see any significant article-writing/editing experience and you don't give any examples in Q2. I believe that unless an editor's experienced for themselves just how hard it is to write & research valid articles without violating policy, they're not in a position to empathise with users having content challenged/deleted — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Iridescent mainly. I feel strongly that admins need to have a decent background in editing articles. Some of the most discouraging conflicts I've seen happen between editors that are steady content creators and admins that don't spend much time outside that role. I'd like us to stay as close to the editor/admin model as possible and try to avoid developing separate "classes" of user here. Iridescent puts it really well so I won't repeat it. RxS 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Irdescent as well. The fact that you haven't contributed recently could pose a problem. Your inactivity for roughly a month is a red flag when you decide to come back and apply for adminship. Sorry, but please come back and try again once you improve your mainspace edits. Icestorm815 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm sorry, generally I don't like to oppose based on mainspace edits - my own RfA was vulnerable to that - however, in this case I think the contributions are sufficiently low as to fail to clearly show that the user is in touch w/the community's norms. I appreciate and honor the work that Penwhale has done w/ArbCom, but think it would be best to spend some time doing 'pedia editing for a while. There is no question in my mind that I would support this user in the future. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. The number of mainspace edits and their frequency is dissapointing.
You don't have enough AIV edits either, but it isn't like you would abuse the tools. I just can't support with the lack of mainspace experience. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- To be fair, the amount of time spent reporting people to AIV is pretty much irrelevant to removing them because you've dealt with the problems. Some people just don't to RC patrol very well (such as myself; every time I attempted it, someone beat me to the punch), and massive amounts of AIV edits are usually tied to doing RC patrol. I'm not saying your argument is invalid, I'm just giving you something to think about. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you are right about the AIV edits...RC patrol is the main source of AIV experience, but if you know the general policy, you won't need AIV experience...I've removed them from my reason for opposing. I still believe that the user needs more mainspace edits, however. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the amount of time spent reporting people to AIV is pretty much irrelevant to removing them because you've dealt with the problems. Some people just don't to RC patrol very well (such as myself; every time I attempted it, someone beat me to the punch), and massive amounts of AIV edits are usually tied to doing RC patrol. I'm not saying your argument is invalid, I'm just giving you something to think about. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I think that had Penwhale wanted to use the tools for arbcon clerking functions s/he would have mentioned that in question 1. Evidently, s/he wants to use them in Afds and DRVs and in vandalism and page protection duties where there is a lack of experience that could normally be mitigated by extensive article editing, but alas there is much less there too than would give comfort. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per last 50 mainspace contributions going back to June. This doesn't enhance my opinion either. -- Y not? 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Because of two post closure strike outs? I have made the same mistake myself - it isn't obvious from the guidelines that the vote is open until closed (sometime) after the indicated time. Oh, well... I suppose we all have our differing reasons for making our decisions. LessHeard vanU 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose based on lack of article work, sorry. I'm willing to deal with somewhat of an imbalance toward project space editing, but not that much. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. You need more experience editing articles. --- RockMFR 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose simply not enough mainspace, not many edits and the edits that are there are skinny. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy and we have nearly total disinterest in article building. Experience in main space is needed so concerns in the process are understood and that tools are applied correctly. --JayHenry 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per User:Y. --John 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Ryan P and Y. --After Midnight 0001 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with deep regrets per question 2. Seems a fine person but admins should have some interest in article writing in order to be able to make a sound judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --Irpen 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Dead Neutral - Ryan has a point there. I don't really want to emphasise editcountisis (which some people might think of me as a hypocrite), but I'm not really too sure about this user's knowledge about admin tools. However, I'm definately sure this user won't abuse the tools, so I stay dead neutral. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about how people perceive you, just make an honest determination on whether the candidate can be trusted with admin tools. With regards to his knowledge of the admin tools, all I can say is that I've interacted with Penwhale a lot, and he's a smart fellow. I'm sure he's picked up on an admin's role, even though he doesn't have as many articles as some, and the numerous pages regarding adminship are always there to fall back on. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Ugh, I so want to support. It sounds like he could use the tools for clerking. And while I don't doubt his intelligence, or ability to learn, being an admin means making decisions of discernment. WIthout the experience of such discussions (such as XfD discussions, or even just general talk page discussions), I don't know... On the other hand, as a clerk, I would presume he's had to read over mountains of such text. Hence, I'm split and stuck in neutral. - jc37 09:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - good arbcom clerk, but I can't support now due to the lack of mainspace edits. M.(er) 05:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, fine judgment and interaction with others, but we shouldn't have admins without article-writing experience IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neutral - Wikipedia-space participation is simply excellent, although the mainspace participation is dwarfed in comparison. You need more article experience for me. Lradrama 08:31, 20 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
JForget
Final (73/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JForget (talk · contribs) - JForget has been a Wikipedia contributor since March 2006. He is a prolific editor and has created over 300 articles. For those interested in numbers, he has made over 17 000 mainspace contributions (24 000+ edits to Wikipedia in total). His main areas of contribution are articles relating to Canada (he is a member of WikiProject Ottawa) and Tornadoes. He has shown the full range of editorial skills - adding well written and referenced content, categorisation and general cleanup. His interactions with other editors appear to be calm and civil at all times.
JForget is an efficient vandal fighter and has made over 100 reports to AIV. He gives appropriate warnings and his report can my experience always be relied upon. He has also requested page protection on over 100 occasions and, again, I believe he does so in appropriate cicumstances. JForget's contributions to AfD discussions are thoughtful and show a thorough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. His deleted edits show a good knowledge of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. He had a previous unsuccesful RfA from March where issues were largely lack of Wikipedia-space experience, low edit summary use and little need for the tools. These concerns have evidently been addressed and I think that, given the wide array of admin-related work he is now involved in, JForget now not only has a need for the tools but would be able to make sensible and skillful use of them. WjBscribe 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination.JForget 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As an admin, I would intend to work in several areas, including deleting articles issued from AFD or TFD discussions as well as candidates for speedy deletion - I also started to do some new page partols via the recent changes. Since after my first RFA nomination last winter, I have also been more involved in discussions regarding to article deletions, and more recently at a lesser extent templates and categories for discussion/deletion which is why my number of Wikipedia edits have nearly ten-fold since February.
- Of course, being a vandal fighter for several months, I intend to clear up possible backlogs when it happens on WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:3rr and thus blocking offenders of vandalism, personnal attacks, offending user names or edit warring as well as protecting and unprotecting articles (the latter one seems to have several being protected for an extremely long period of time). I could also intend on working on WP:RCU and WP:SOCK if I improve the understanding on the sockpuppet policy which I believe I've mixed the two at times when I made reports.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have worked in numerous domains throughout the encyclopedia since I started to be a member in March 2006 and thus it is the reason why I'm involved in multiple WikiProjects (although the main one been WP:OTT). So far I have created over 350 articles related to politics in Quebec, as well as local and geographical features, Quebec Provincial Highways, Quebec artists and singers and just recently Quebec municipalities - the most recent ones being as of today. However, it is difficult for me to pinpoint what were my best contributions so far since I have made so many especially since I have made 13 000 edits since my RFA.
- Although among those that I have created, and/or participated a lot, are the articles about Meteorology/Severe Weather events, because they are the ones that had the highest assessment-class including a GA article for the February 2007 North America winter storm as well as a likely-future GA or possibly higher rank-article being, the May 2007 Tornado Outbreak (waiting on conformation on some of the content). What contributes to the quality of those particular articles, is that many were currents or historical events, that meteorology is a domain that I am very interested of following (although not for a career) that sources are more available via multiple parties (like the NOAA in particular) and that many veteran editors are also involved.
- Two other articles, (although clean-up and splitting would be needed soon) is both the Foreign policy of the Harper government and Domestic policy of the Harper government articles which, much like the George W. Bush sub-articles, discuss about the policies made by the current Conservative government and are extremely rich in sources and elements. Although not assessed, after a clean-up, it may be close to a GA-class article.
- 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: Obviously, when I had to do vandal fighting I had disputes sometimes with various IP or users which resulted in edit warring (most often on the user talk page). Following policies, those disputes if it persisted generally resulted in a report to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP or WP:3rr depending on the case, generally without being too stressed.
- However, the biggest dispute has been with the editor that I called the AOL vandal (the 172.xxx) who has been vandalizing, via numerous computers at the AOL headquarters, several articles on left and center-wing politicians (the vast majority Canadian ones). After giving repeated warnings, he started to make-up/posted personal attacks again and again until I finally decided to stop warring with him. While I did not experienced a lot of stress, I did requested a RFPP and haven't issued warnings anymore to the vandal after some time (although I had reverted a lot less of his vandalism - mostly due to the timing (or maybe he got caught at work). Maybe in the future, I can wait more longer before protecting my page and also maybe I should also try to not feed too much the trolls which I have also been told in my talk page.
- Outside of vandalism, I have been not very often involved in major disputes - as I am not necessarily someone who wants to start or doing a dispute. However, I do sometimes participate in some of the dispute discussions by giving up my point of view and remained WP:CIVIL. If someone criticizes something, I often do some fixes suggested or at least some compromises (like the Quebec Road Templates). In my earlier months on Wikipedia before I became more familiar with some of the policies on notability, I had sometimes short-term disputes on local articles which were in AFD's due to lack of notability but I had fixed most of them per more experience obviously.
General comments
- See JForget's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for JForget: JForget (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JForget before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nom. Impressive and thorough question answers too - all looks good to me. WjBscribe 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't overlap with you at all so have dip-sampled more thoroughly than usual into your contribs, and I can't see a word out of place — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — excellent participation at AfD and the main namespace. --Agüeybaná 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have come across him a lot, always satisfactorily. A very good editor with a thorough grasp of the policies. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I wanted to nominate... JForget is a brilliant editor with a great deal of experience here and a lot of common sense. Will be an exceptional addition to the admin crew -- Samir 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - WJBscribe covered it perfectly. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yes, looks excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will be excellent. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good candidate to me. CitiCat ♫ 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen JForgot around a good deal, and I'm sure he'll do just fine. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate is obviously ripe for adminship. Not to call you a fruit or anything... VanTucky Talk 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any problems here at all. Good luck, ELIMINATORJR 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All interactions so far have been positive.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Oxymoron83 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ON WHEELS! Excelllent editor, thought he was an admin already! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate for the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another RfA-cliche moment! Obviously skilled and trustworthy. Xoloz 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support civil editor with lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. He will make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Major concerns here. I'm majorly concerned he's not an admin yet. Bo-yah! Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Shoo in. Recurring dreams 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reasons to turn down.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no obvious problems here + the nom from WjBscribe sealed it! --Chris G 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great contributor. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the questions raised last time have been strongly addressed in the answers and the extensive contribution to WP. Beware the troll-feeding, though your past experience will probably make this less likely going forward. Euryalus 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Excellent vandal-fighter. — madman bum and angel 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read through the user's edits and it is impressive. Phgao 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As with anyone wanting to do speedies - I look at deleted edits to see whether they understand the criteria. S/he does. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good to me, and if WJBscribe trusts 'em.... - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor. Good luck!--SJP 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editing, the tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. excellent work at WP:AFD and many good articles. Fantastic number of edits. Bearian 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per co nom WjBscribe. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Decent editor. Acalamari 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Qualified. -Sharkface217 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looking forward to welcoming you into adminship. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great Wikipedian! I think he will do a great job as an admin. RS1900 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent editor. R O A M A T A A | msg 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't mean to pile on, but I have to support. Editor seems to have addressed all issues raised in previous RfA, plenty of experience and a top-notch contributor (over 300 articles!). faithless (speak) 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'll pile on. What the heck. I've seen quite a bit of his work and have been impressed by it. Into The Fray T/C 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of the above. Marlith T/C 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We can always use more new page partollers. Great editor, as far as I'm concerned. Caknuck 00:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. In addition to the answers he gave above, I've had opportunity to work with him (probably on AIV). And he left a positive enough impression that I saw his name and said, "I need to weigh in with support here." So I have. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' - No concerns. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think your well prepared to be an admin. Good Luck! Icestorm815 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is an editor I am familiar with and would trust with adminship. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After a trip to Ottawa, I became interested in reading more about the city/local attractions/culture. JForget has made some superb edits in this regard.--Hokeman 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Yes, of course, can be trusted and is well liked. ScarianTalk 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, don't see a reason not to. Wizardman 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ;) - More AfD! :P LaraLove 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (Yes, it's a support vote!)[reply]
- Strong Support This candidate is extremely familiar with many vital aspects of Wikipedia. JForget has been an excellent editor for well over a year, consistent in style and tone, with a highly impressive record of created articles. In addition to the editor's devotion to creating articles about places, the contributions to politics and weather are superbly helpful. With consistent contributions to both WP:AIV and WP:AFD and WP:RFPP, JForget demonstrates a knowledge of policy and procedure with ease, as well as the ability to properly communicate guidelines and policies to other editors. I am impressed by this editor's use of the appropriate warning level, and the use of helpful edit summaries, that specify what warning level was given and for what infraction, i.e.: (t2 Olivia Chow), as illustrated here. This is extremely helpful to other editors and administrators, and shows a respect for the process. Additionally, the editor seems to have experience with, and good judgment regarding WP:SSP, identifying and appropriately tagging several suspected alternate accounts of Puppetmaster Jagjagjagjab, a particularly prolific abuser of the system, and My words can laugh. All of these things add up to someone who is not only careful and considerate, but an editor who would be a most valuable member of the community in the role of administrator, and I look forward to JForget's successful promotion. Ariel♥Gold 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent contributions, you have the experience to be an admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Excellent involvement in all areas of the project, great knowledge of policy, demonstrates a need for the tools, and Wikipedia will definitely benefit from his editing in an administrative capacity. Arky ¡Hablar! 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen this guy around and I like what I see - He's level headed, well rounded and would benefit well from the tools. I can't see him abusing them, and surprisingly, as far as I can see, he meets every single one of my RfA Standards. One big support from me. You deserve it. :) Spawn Man 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good judgement and amazing contribs. Just what we need in mop-wielders. No doubts here --Bfigura (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JForget is both a talented editor and vandal fighter combined. I've seen him around numerous times. I'm sure he'll make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everything looks great. Kudret abiTalk 04:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good.--Sandahl 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - has done superbly since last RfA. What a turnaround! No problems at all here - Alison ❤ 05:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I've seen ya around the wiki. You've always seemed civil, and, you seem to understand the policies. Do I beleive you can be trusted with the extra buttons? Yep. Keep up the good work! :) SQL(Query Me!) 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen this user around the project a lot and have liked what I've seen. —Moondyne 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—no concerns. --Paul Erik 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - definately a very fine candidate here - hardly any faults at all. This user is experienced and knows what he is doing and will make a great admin. :-) Lradrama 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hiberniantears 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
iridescent
Final (83/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
iridescent (talk · contribs) - Iridescent is a highly active Wikipedian with over 10k edits to his name. A veteran of the XfD processes, he has an advanced understanding of the deletion policies and would be invaluable at CAT:CSD and in closing XfDs, both areas which frequently become backlogged. He is also an experienced vandal-fighter, and has a number of content contributions in a variety of articles; he's particularly active in expanding and improving stubs. All in all, Iridescent is long overdue for adminship, and I urge the community to support this nomination. WaltonOne 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nom from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk)
I first encountered Iridescent in my first RfA, and even then he gave intelligent, knowledgeable comments. I've seen plenty of them since, and I've always wondered why he didn't want to be an admin. Anyways, good ol' Walton-boy finally managed to convince him to run for adminship (here), and I offered to nom soon after. I don't have that much to say about Iridescent, other then he's one of the most hardworking, and one of the best, users we have around here. If anyone deserves the mop, he does. So let's give it to him! Although he is English, which kinda weakens my support :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: To be honest, probably not a lot at first, other than closing the occasional unquestionable delete in the CSD/prod/AfD hoppers & blocking blatant vandals & spammers. (The "oppose, doesn't need the tools" posse may as well skip to the end now.)
- Since quite early on I made a conscious decision to pick a few particular fields & rotate between them, rather than either try to spread myself too thin doing a lot of things badly, or become obsessively focused on one particular area. The areas I currently rotate between are article creation/expansion, stub-sorting, RFF, AFD and RFA), with the occasional bit of recent-changes patrol, mainly when I'm on the phone or watching something on TV as there's less need to keep up a steady train of thought.
- Aside from the AfDs, the only one of those fields where admin tools would be any use is the stub-sorting, to get rid of some of the sorrier nonsense pages & blatant spam that Alaibot periodically dumps into Category:Stubs. As I get used to the buttons, I'd expand into further deletions & blocks. While there are some admin fields I know I'd never touch (I'd be terrible at editing the user interface, for instance) I assume there are other areas I'd find myself drifting into since (because I deliberately limit myself) there are large swathes of Wikipedia-space I currently don't have many dealings with.
- One area which I won't touch is deleting anything to do with fiction. My time loitering on XfDs and assorted article cleanups have shown me that I have a very different opinion of the notability of fiction to community consensus (without wanting yet another rerun of WP:POKEMON, I personally find it ludicrous that Chronology of the Harry Potter stories is 50% as long again as History of the United States), so I'm aware that any fiction-deletion I carried out would be controversial, even with a clear consensus.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Even though it's twice failed at WP:GAC, I personally believe the best thing I've written here is Broadwater Farm. (I take no responsibility for the POV-pushing & edit-warring trainwreck of its sister article, Broadwater Farm riot.) While the name might not be immediately familiar to non-UK editors, this is arguably the most controversial location in England, and I wanted to write a genuinely neutral piece on it that showed why it became such a byword for failed social engineering experiments (and how the underlying geography shaped the modern architecture, which in turn shaped the area's history), and to explain why the area's been on such an up-down-up-down boom & bust cycle compared to the surrounding area, without turning into either an attack-piece on or a puff-piece for the area, and I think I succeeded.
- Whilst it's a truly dull article, I'm also proud of how Metcall turned out. This was my first long article, and even in its current improved state it still betrays some newbie mistakes, but I think the article's as close to investigative journalism as it's possible to get in the tertiary-source model. For an organisation that performs such an innocuous and uncontroversial role, this organisation has a ludicrously paranoid level of secrecy (even the organisations own website doesn't even admit that the place exists) and it's ridiculously hard to find sources on it. While every fact in the article is legitimately sourced, it's all pieced together from occasional paragraphs here and there to build up what, I believe, is the only (relatively) complete description either online or in print of what the organisation actually does and how it functions. I know from real life (yes, I have one...) that law enforcement personnel do now use this article as a standard reference when trying to find out information about the organisation.
- I'm also pleased with some of the "glimmer of potential" articles I've fished out of the {{prod}} mulcher or AfD and built up into valid articles. While I've done a lot of these, the two that stand out for me are the rewriting that ended a nasty revert/BLP war on Beki Bondage, and the mega-expand-and-merge that took an eminently deletable stub from this to this.
- Oh, and I can't leave out the oddest character I've yet written on, Almeric Paget; while the rewritten article is very much a work in progress, has some extremely rough edges and still needs major expansion, my initial rewrite of the article has taken him from one of the dullest biographies on Wikipedia to one of the most unusual.
- 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've never been involved in a full-scale edit war. I've had assorted "how dare you nominate my article for deletion" posts (so many that I wrote a lengthy standard reply to people coming to my talk page) but they've never developed into outright arguments. The closest thing I've had was this incident back in April. As (I hope) is obvious, I didn't understand the accusations, and I think it was a case of mistaken identity. I was also very tangentially involved in the Arbuthnot Family business a few months ago, after proposing two members for the family for deletion (albeit !voting keep on many of the others), but I managed to avoid getting caught up in the arguments and recriminations that stemmed from it.
- I think I unnecessarily annoyed some people a couple of weeks ago, whilst assessing the members of Category:Streets in London for WP:LT, as I nominated ten of the articles for deletion prompting some editors to complain that I was nominating too much for deletion; however, I stand by it; the articles I nominated for deletion were only the absolute worst cases - mostly one or two line substubs. Should anyone really care, you can read the full debate on the matter here.
- A few days ago, I reverted this edit. I admit that I made a mistake in reverting it; I saw the first line of the diff & the edit summary, spotted it as either anti-American POV-pushing or a lame attempt at humour & reverted it without noticing that the remainder of the diff was a legitimate edit. I mistakenly tagged it as vandalism (which, since they hadn't received a warning about NPOV, it technically wasn't), and for the next few days received assorted abuse on my talk page from the IP (much of it since toned down) as a result.
- It may be because I tend to work in fairly obscure areas, and because I generally write pages to a certain level and then hand them over rather than continuing to work on them, but aside from the above I honestly can't think of a genuine argument I've had here. I've had plenty of disagreements (mainly at WP:UKT and WP:LONDON), but they've all been resolved amicably.
General comments
- See iridescent's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for iridescent: Iridescent (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/iridescent before commenting.
Discussion
- Support Knows what to do. 82.165.187.34 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow... out of the 3 people I've nominated for RfA, it looks like iridescent will be the 3rd to pass unanimously. This makes me think highly of my own judgment. :-) WaltonOne 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better luck next time. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe not unanimously, but 71 Support to 1 Oppose is close enough. WaltonOne 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The anon hasn't turned up yet - that'll make at least one more. Incidentally, that "the free world, plus other places such as the United States" is still on Nicorette if anyone else feels the urge to clean it up; I have no intention of getting into a 3RR war over as trivial a subject as chewing gum — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe not unanimously, but 71 Support to 1 Oppose is close enough. WaltonOne 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support beat the nom support - great work at AfD, obviously knows policy, will make a great admin. ELIMINATORJR 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support woohoo. Yes, good luck. The Rambling Man 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. Wizardman 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good reputation, broad experience. No problems that I can see. Should make a fine admin - Alison ❤ 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per contributions, civility, personal interaction, and (dare I say it) - trusted noms. I see all the hall marks of a great admin here, but particularly your reasoned and considered judgement, with a great knowledge of policy thrown in. Very Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Double-edit-conflict Support. a hard-working editor who will make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as (late) nominator. WaltonOne 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User's contributions demonstrate dedication to the project as well as a strong understanding of policy. No doubt this user will make good use of the mop. Figured this user was already one! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Great editor, with lots of fine contributions. Melsaran (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, since there's always stuff to clean up in CAT:CSD. I like the answers to the questions, and Iridescent's talk page shows a good ability to reason with people who aren't always reasonable. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I like seeing more active participation in the main manespace from admin candidates (not just fixing typos), but your other contributions are great, so I have no problems with you becoming an admin :-) --Agüeybaná 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do do things aside from fix typos; among other things, I've written four GAs from scratch or from stubs (the last one less than a week ago), written a long series of articles on the geography of North London (one of which, to my annoyance, is currently at AfD), the railway stations of East Anglia and numerous obscure-but-notable-in-their-subculture musicians. My recent edit history looks swamped with typo fixes as I sometimes leave AWB open in another window, running a check through my "extended watchlist" of every article that's come to my notice, keeping an eye out for any typos that have crept in since I last checked, and you can rack up 30 minor edits in the time it takes to make one substantial one. I dare say most people here have already heard my opinion on minor edits being kept on contribution lists — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. I checked :-) I just meant that you should focus on writing more of those wonderful articles you have already created. But, feel free to ignore this; typo fixing is important, too :-) --Agüeybaná 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The typo fixing doesn't really take up much time - I just leave AWB running in the background, and periodically flip windows, check whatever it's proposing is a change that actually ought to be made, and click the button. I'm surprised more people don't do it — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. I checked :-) I just meant that you should focus on writing more of those wonderful articles you have already created. But, feel free to ignore this; typo fixing is important, too :-) --Agüeybaná 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do do things aside from fix typos; among other things, I've written four GAs from scratch or from stubs (the last one less than a week ago), written a long series of articles on the geography of North London (one of which, to my annoyance, is currently at AfD), the railway stations of East Anglia and numerous obscure-but-notable-in-their-subculture musicians. My recent edit history looks swamped with typo fixes as I sometimes leave AWB open in another window, running a check through my "extended watchlist" of every article that's come to my notice, keeping an eye out for any typos that have crept in since I last checked, and you can rack up 30 minor edits in the time it takes to make one substantial one. I dare say most people here have already heard my opinion on minor edits being kept on contribution lists — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Wow, I thought you were already an admin! GlassCobra 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec2)Support A good editor with a good understanding of the project. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - And nobody informed me about the nom. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I really thought that you were an admin already! -Lemonflash(do something) 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep - thought he was one. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Massively belated support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate. Xiner (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No explanation is required, the evidence speaks for itself on this one. In other words: duh! VanTucky Talk 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This should have been done long ago! I have no doubts you'll make an excellent admin. Pursey Talk | Contribs 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suport Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Oxymoron83 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has made solid contributions to articles and should make a fine admin. Majoreditor 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have had some good expieriences with this user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Major RFA-cliche moment for me; abundantly qualified. Xoloz 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- I've had nothing but good experiences with this user, and I believe they will use the tools intelligently and fairly. --Haemo 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the_undertow talk 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I've seen him on XfD, and while I don't always agree with his stances, I've always felt he's a thoughtful, reasonable editor with a long record of excellence. RGTraynor 06:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Get on it. :) Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor who I genuinely thought was already an admin. Support, Sebi [talk] 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support more than able to be admin.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent contributor; will make a great admin. -- Chris B • talk 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers and plenty of experience in WP policy. It's not a particular factor in discussion but the Almeric Paget article is both interesting and bizarre, and a credit to your research skills. Euryalus 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WjBscribe 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great answers to questions, no doubt will use tools effectively. Phgao 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Unqustionably. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I assumed you already were! Carlossuarez46 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, don't think he'll abuse the tools. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools.--Danaman5 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't remember a bad experience with this editor. J-ſtan!TalkContribs 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor, what more can I say? GDonato (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? Good luck:)--SJP 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is this redundant or pointless in supporting him after all this above? •Malinaccier• T/C 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent experience. Deletionist, but not extremist; straight but not narrow. Can be safely trusted. Bearian 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks to be another solid administrator, significant contributions to the Wiki-related pages and significant experience.--JForget 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It is inevitable. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to believe the user would abuse the community's trust. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Hopefully, I got in early enough on the support train so people don't think I'm just following the crowd. The candidate is highly qualified and has great user name. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportGreat Track no concerns whatsoever.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has all the right temperament to be an admin. It also says something about me when I thought (s)he was one and I have a script to tell users' rights! :-P —[[Animum | talk]] 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An outstanding user, with more than adequate knowledge in Wiki-cleanup. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Evil Spartan 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good answers, decent participation in discussions. Conscious 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SUpport, lots of expeoremce jere/ Marlith T/C 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epbr123 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will use the mop well. --Sharkface217 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - Ofcourse. --Hirohisat Kiwi 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per that water guy...or whatever his name is. --DarkFalls talk 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See that he's experienced with Wikipedia, no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Good luck! SirFozzie 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unnecessary pile-on. — [ aldebaer] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BIG THANGS POPPIN', and little thangs stoppin. Miranda 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and good luck to you :-) --Benchat 05:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of the strongest candidates I've seen at RfA. Particularly liked the comment about avoiding deletion re fiction articles - someone aware of their own POV issues is a goodie. Trustworthy? You betcha. --Dweller 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user who Im sure can be trusted with admin tools. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Admittedly, I almost wanted to go neutral since I'm not real sure what the "newspeak" issue is. But however much an "advocate" he may or may not be, I'm not worried he won't be throwing a wrench in the works. So he has my support. -WarthogDemon 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good. Kudret abiTalk 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pfft... Easy choice :-D ScarianTalk 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with your experience, definitely you will help. Carlosguitar 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen a lot of excellent work from this user lately, especially at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent contributor with a great track-record. I've met this guy again and again and it's always been good. I certainly trust him with the mop - Alison ❤ 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Already supported, see #4. I've struck this and left a note on Alison's talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should do well. Sumoeagle179 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be civil, sensible, smart, and, calm, with a great grasp on policy. Would I trust you with the extra buttons? Yesirre bob. :) SQL(Query Me!) 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, fantastic work at AfD, coupled with a hard working and friendly attitude. No reservations whatsoever to this excellent candidate. Phaedriel - 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom, seen them around and been impressed. --John 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose - definately a great candidate - I thought he was already an admin! Lradrama 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems very capable and has the right attitude. - Modernist 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very trustworthy! Hiberniantears 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any probs. Sarah 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Candidate is an advocate for newspeak. --Fljm 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you forgive my ignorance and elaborate? It doesn't sound to me like he's "advocating" anything. It seems like he's saying (this is an example I made up) something like: "Iraq seems to be having a bad connotation with terrorism. Does that mean Iraqs are all bad?" Though this is how I see it. If my view and comparison shows my lack of education here, please clarify for me. -WarthogDemon 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, most policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation; ask twelve editors how they interpret WP:IAR and you are likely to get just as many differing perspectives. Given this discrepancy, the last thing needed is to have those in authority spouting ideas which fail the duck test as fact. (I can just see it now — "...things will go easier for you if you will just repeat after me: RFA is not a vote; it is a !vote...") --Fljm 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that Wikipedia would be better off if it avoided giving admin responsibilities to anyone who disagrees with you on a minor wikipolitical discussion? How about perhaps sharing your thoughts in that thread of the discussion rather than bullying the candidate here? Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Fljm's entitled to his opinion. We're not going to change his mind by harassing him. Epbr123 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey hey! I don't see any bullying here. Let's just leave Fljm alone, surely we have better things to do? :) * Aillema 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I do have to say Fljm has a good point. It sounds like he's saying Iridescent is trying to quelch any politically incorrect language about voting (ahem, *!voting*). I do have to agree that it is a pain in the neck to put that exclamation point in front just to prove to anyone, "I know it's not a vote" (not to mention that, in fact, RFA really is a vote - tallies have to fall into the slim 70-80% margin for a 'crat to use his/her judgement). That said, I think that's not a good reason for Iridscent not to have the tools. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that Wikipedia would be better off if it avoided giving admin responsibilities to anyone who disagrees with you on a minor wikipolitical discussion? How about perhaps sharing your thoughts in that thread of the discussion rather than bullying the candidate here? Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Tanner-Christopher
(19/10/4); Originally scheduled to end 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC). No clear consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs) - Hello, this is my first time applying for an Administrator position. I first started out with Wikipedia editing articles for the WikiProject Wine. After finding the WikiProject Food and Drink which is the parent project of the wine project I decided my efforts were better spent there. In the time I have been with the project I have completely updated the project page for visual appeal and ease of use. I have moderated discussion on the project's talk page as well as worked with the project's upkeep. I have assessed and tagged many of the articles for the project and when I found I was overworked by doing that and working on articles and other items for the project I sought out new members to assist me in the task of tagging. I also created the monthly newsletter that goes out to our members. Since I became a member and spread the presence of the project through Wikipedia, our membership has gone from sixteen members to thirty-nine. I also update the Food Portal each month, which had been abandoned some months before hand.
My articles contributions are all in the realm of food and wine, but mostly food. My largest contributions so far have been on the French cuisine article and I am working on the Italian cuisine article amongst many others. I am also extremely diligent in reverting edits identified as vandalism and I attempt to warn and submit vandals when deemed necessary. I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia and feel that if I was given the abilities of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve the members of Wikipedia by being a definitive person that they can goto for assistantship with their personal work here. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to answering your questions. Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before the nomination closes and this page goes into archives, I just wanted to say thanks to the people who supported me and an equal thanks to the people who opposed as most of you gave me some great perspective into how I can be helping out Wikipedia even more. I truly support Wikipedia and would love to see it one day accepted as an appreciated academic source. As a graduate student one often hears how Wikipedia is not to be trusted, but it is those of us who work through proper editing and those of you whom are administrators that respect the tools you have that will bring Wikipedia to the level of our hard-copy encyclopedias. The advantage we have is that we have many more experts in many more subjects than they do. Thanks again and I hope to get to know more of you after this. If any of you are into food or drink, I kindly invite you to the WikiProject Food and Drink to help out. If the probable happens and my nomination does not got through, you will see me at the end of my semester applying again (I do more work during the semester, don't tell my professors).--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Numerous, including deletion of articles deemed to be not to the standards of Wikipedia, locking articles with excessive unregistered user vandalisms, blocking of users that are vandals after proper review, etc.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have revitalized the WikiProject Food and Drink and work toward keeping it active, I revise the Food Portal monthly which had been adandoned for quite a few months, Creation of WikiProject Food and Drink Monthly Newsletter, for articles French cuisine, Italian cuisine (A work still in progress) and others.
- 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 have had discussions over edits on a few articles such as Italian cuisine and my use of the Chicago citation format on the Chef article, but in each instance the discussion has ended in amicable terms. I strive to not get involved in conflict. When I first started I had an issue with an article entitled Wine country and learned from that initial incident that we all need to work toward the better good of the whole of Wikipedia, not just our own personal viewpoints and since then the issue has resolved itself.
General comments
- See Tanner-Christopher's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Tanner-Christopher: Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanner-Christopher before commenting.
Discussion
- Regardless of the eventual outcome, I want to commend the candidate for his mature and level-headed behaviour during this RfA. Unlike most candidates, he's responded to criticism calmly and reasonably, and in a few months I hope to see him re-apply for RfA. WaltonOne 10:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, one has to take it in stride, Wikipedia is fun and enjoyable to me. The thought just came to me the other day that I could help out more when I was doing something if I had some of the extra tools. If people take this too seriously, then that is why we end up with arguments all the time in regular life, let alone on Wikipedia. Working on Wikipedia however has certainly helped me to increase my academic knowledge as a chef and a graduate student. With or without administrative tools I wouldn't stop being a part of the community, thanks again.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Moral Support - As Pedro says, you need more experience with the deletion policy and other admin-related areas. Don't be discouraged, though; you're a good editor, and your careful and well-written nomination statement shows that you certainly have the potential and maturity to be an admin one day. This request will probably fail, but I urge you to try again in a couple of months; I'd be happy to give you any help and advice you need. WaltonOne 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem, I appreciate the support. Besides getting to know some administrators, this has given me some advice even to work on the project I support. Thanks again for the kind words, if my 16 credits of grad school doesn't get to me this semester, you will see me in a few months perhaps.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support appears to be a quality editor. Acalamari 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There is no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools, so there is no reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I agree. Deb 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Switched from oppose. The more talk page comments I read, the more I see a calm, polite person with the reasonable disposition suitable for someone who has access to a few extra tools. I don't think, based on what he's saying above, that he wants to delete things from CAT:CSD or WP:AFD, but rather articles he comes across in his normal editing on wiki, and probably those related to his subject area, of which he has valuable specialist knowledge. Even if Christopher takes a few moments to figure out the difference between hard blocks and soft, I can't see how the net effect of his adminship could be anything but positive. Per RyanGerbil10. --Chaser - T 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments, my intention is only to use the tools for articles in my "specialty" area as I am an academic chef and would honestly only be using them in the areas in which I am familiar with. It is my opinion that areas of Wikipedia are best addressed by people who have expertise in that area. I also would not use a tool unless I completly understood it, it would be detrimental to Wikipedia and myself as many new colleagues from the hospitality industry have met me through Wikipedia.
- Very weak support Although this is someone I'd usually oppose due to lack of experience, the very fact that he seems to have always confined himself to his specialist field gives me the confidence that he'd only stick to areas he understood — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you and yes, my intention is to only use the tools in my area of expertise.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unless there are incivility issues I've not seen, i doubt nom will abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any problems, looks like a quality editor. Tiddly-Tom 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Weak Support. Good editor, but has little admin related experience. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has barely sufficient number of edits, but has worked on many high-quality articles. He has learned to use edit summaries more consistently. Wikiproject edits are, in my mind, as good as AIV, XfD, or AfD work. It's possible that he doesn't need the mop, but on the other hand, will probably not abuse it. Bearian 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I normally would be more uncertain with a user with fewer project-space edits, but I think I will be more lenient here because of the good things I see. Captain panda 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hell not? Ral315 » 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even though this RFA may not succeed due to a lot of "lack of experience" type opposes below, I still want to offer my support per your valuable contributions as an expert in your area, as well as your calmness, humility and composition that you show here, including this very nice response above: "With or without administrative tools I wouldn't stop being a part of the community, thanks again.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ". Best of luck, Kudret abiTalk 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no evidence that this user will execute the tools in anything but a mature and level-headed manner. --Haemo 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While agree with those below that more experience would be desirable, everything in your contribs looks good. You seem calm and sensible and make good comments in deletion discussions. Vandal-fighting activity suggests you'd know when to use the block button. Not all vandals keep going past the last warning and need to be reported to WP:AIV and sometimes another will report them first - the reports you made were appropriate. Hopefully if this request fails you'll pass without incident in a couple of months or so - I suspect a bit more contribution in admin areas, and perhaps some experience of tagging articles for speedy deletion (Special:Newpages is a useful starting point) would address the concerns below. WjBscribe 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You may not have all the experience in the world, but your contributions and conduct during this RFA show that you have the temperment and restraint to use the tools appropriately. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User:Tanner-Christopher has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of food and drink, and I am confident he would make a good admin. --Daniel11 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In line with iridescent's reasoning. Hiberniantears 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose. You're a good contributor, and your WikiProject is doing great, but I'm concerned that you may have a bit of a lack of experience in the project namespace (with no contributions to XfD, admin-related areas or anything except WikiProjects) and that you may need some more experience before becoming an admin. Try to gain some familiarity with the criteria for speedy deletion and the notability guidelines. Voice your opinion in some XfDs. I'd be glad to support you in a few months' time. Melsaran (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments, I will follow your suggestions.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposeswitched to support You don't really have enough non-admin contributions in areas that you plan to use the admin tools to tell me about how you would use them. For example, you want to block editors, but I seethreeeight reports to WP:AIV and no requests for blocks elsewhere. You also want to deleted articles, but I don't see any WP:AFD discussion or WP:CSD tagging. I suggest you do a little new page patrol and counter-vandalism and re-apply. It's helpful to predict how you'll handle the admin tools. Best of luck with your WikiProject, which looks to be coming along nicely.--Chaser - T 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I usually discuss the deletion proposals on the pages themselves, but I see what you mean. As for only three reports to WP:AIV, I know I have reported more than that, but not recently. I'll keep up with you suggestions though, thank you.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose per above, try to participate at WP:XFD especially WP:AFD, you gain much experience about WP:PG. You are doing a good job to main space. Good luck. Carlosguitar 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposechanged to Weak oppose. Gross lack of experience in general is concerning - but contribs seem to be good. I hope to see you back here in a few months, however. --Benchat 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I agree with Melsaran. 8 AIV edits, but you want to block vandals...nada. More project space experience, and come back soon! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'd like a bit more expierience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose candidates has a good attitude, but more experience is required for me to fully support. VanTucky Talk 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You need more experience. In the meantime, do not be discouraged over this and try again after a few months. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of exp. I would suggest working for another month or two before returning. Thanks. Marlith T/C 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - more experience needed yet, although you are moving in the correct direction. Keep up the great work and in two or three months time, your RfA should look more attractive. :-) Lradrama 08:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above - let me know at your next RfA in 2-3 months, and I'll support then. For now I have to oppose. DS 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I see no reason to pile on. The concerns by others in oppose are very valid, and I really can't support this RfA. However I don't see anything that can't be "fixed". This is simply a question of gaining some experience in admin related areas, perhaps though more input at WP:XFD and via Recent Change patrol and New Page patrol with resulting contributions to WP:AIV and WP:CSD. Do not be discouraged and certainly do not think that your work so far is not appreciated. If you would like to discuss further my talk page is always open, as, I am sure, is that of all contributors to this RfA and wider. Very Best. Pedro | Chat 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the suggestions, thanks.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I am in agreeance with Pedro, user has demonstrated calmness, and experience in his area. But use of AIV is a tad low, but no doubt will make great admin in future. Phgao 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral In terms of civility and maturity I see absolutely no problem, but I'd be a bit concerned about experience. I can see you've made some great edits and contributed well but, unfortunately, experience is the key. Contributing to an area where you are comfortable in is a plus for me. I would definitely support in the future if you had just a tad more experience in admin related areas. Hooah. ScarianTalk 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but moral support. Would love to give support, but you're just too inexperienced in crucial policy areas, even for occasional tool usage. But I can't wait to support you next time. Please do drop me a line when you next run at RfA. --Dweller 15:41, 19 September 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.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Currently none.
Related requests
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.