Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 2

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

^demon[edit]

Final (80/1/0); Ended Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:06:46 (UTC)

^demon (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to be able to nominate ^demon for adminship. Although he had an RfA before and it failed to pass, he has grown and learnt a lot since then and is now a very valuable asset to our project. ^demon recently took the post of chair for the Mediation Committee, demonstrating that he is very much trusted by the community, particularly those within the committee. He has also mediated a good number of cases. ^demon has taken part in many administrative aspects of Wikipedia, from completing mundane maintenance jobs to helping to deal with vandals, to giving his opinion at AfD. Of particular note is when he did all of the work usually done by MedCom's bot throughout a period at the end of last year when it was unavailable due to the absence of its operator.

I am of the opinion that ^demon is someone who would find many uses for the administrative tools, and I believe that we can trust him to use his excellent judgement when doing so, and that we should therefore, as a community, grant him access. —Xyrael / 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co nomination by Martinp23. This is my first (co)nomination for a while, and I feel that ^demon really deserves it. He and his bot (User:^demonBot2) have been hugely successful helping out at WP:TFD by orphaning templates due for deletion, and have helped the category situation everywhere by replacing deprecated templates. The bot's work at TfD is invaluable - at a place where there is ofen a mounting backlog, anything which makes it easier for an admin to get rid of a template is a bonus, and ^demon's bot fulfills this purpose. By his noted devotion to templates, the community can be sure that ^demon will be of even greater use at WP:TFD as an admin, while, as we all know, helping out readily across the whole project. I urge you to !vote support, knowing that ^demon will work to surpass each and every one of your expectations. Martinp23 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I told myself I would only place myself up for RfA again if I was nominated by a user who I highly respect. In my time here, there are few users I respect as much as Xyrael and Martinp23, and with that being said, I graciously accept their nomination. ^demon[omg plz] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I want the tools to serve the needs of the community, wherever they need me to serve. Personally, I would prefer to concentrate my work on TFD and EPP. However, if the community needs me to come forward and deal with AE/AER, I will not be afraid to step forward and get my hands dirty. I believe blocks should only be handed out sparingly, and in situations where polite warning would have no positive effect. However, banning should be considered most severe, and should only be handed out by the will of the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the community at large. Finally, as MedCom chair, I will, as a sysop, never perform any action that could potentially damage the committee's repute.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: If we are given a place to brag, I suppose it would be this question right here. As Xyrael mentioned above, when Essjay made his sudden and unexplained departure over the summer, the mediation committee was left with no head and also no bot to run all of our case management--a tool that we had grown used to having do a good portion of work for us. Without access to the code I was unable to set up a new bot, so I proceeded to do the work of the bot by hand, which was very tedious I must say. I believe it was my work as the de-facto chair in his absence that lead to the committee's overwhelming support of placing me in the position of chair, including Essjay's personal endorsement as then current chair.
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: As a mediator, I see on a daily basis the conflict of other users, and I am thankful that thus far I have been able to (for the most part) avoid becoming involved in any major entanglements. Of course I've had my minor squabbles here and there, but I would think that the most major dispute I've dealt with would be dealing with the mediation case about Socionomics. It was a very grueling case to deal with, as both side felt they were right and it felt to me as though they both were looking to me for some kind of official opinion about what to do. In addition, I slowly began to develop my own personal feelings on the case, which made it hard to be impartial (however, I did my best). As you all know, this case later went before ArbCom. I think the one thing I learned most from this is that as a mediator (and in general) if you start to form opinions about something in which you are supposed to be neutral and as unbiased as possible, it would be best to recuse yourself from the situation and let a new person step in to replace you.

Optional Questions

4. Will you maintain your position as mediation chair if this RfA passes? -- Selket Talk 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I had planned on remaining the chair, regardless of how this RfA turns out. I hadn't seen any potential conflicts of interest in being either chair or admin, so I honestly hadn't thought too heavily on this. I do understand that there are situations in which serving in one capacity would make serving in another a potential issue (serving on ArbCom/MedCom comes immediately to mind). However, as most chairs of the committee have been admins while chair, I don't see any reason why I could not do the same. However, if there is some potential issue that you see with this that I'm overlooking, please bring it to my attention.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. —Xyrael / 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almost beat Xyrael in the IRC race support Martinp23 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IRC race support? That sounds... curious. Geez, apparently I am missing a lot by not being in the admin channel. -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the members of the admins channel weren't part of this little bit of fun, all conducted through private messages :) Martinp23 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support. Duh. -Amarkov moo! 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I saw this user handling a case in the Mediation Cabal (I was not involved), and he did so expertly and thoughtfully. I said on WP:ER that I'd support him for that reason alone, and I stand by that. YechielMan 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. would make a great admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. ^demon may not have the traditional spread of experience but there is no doubting his trustworthiness and knowledge of policy as demonstrated by his mediation work. He is calm and level-headed- will use the mop well. WjBscribe 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have to agree with Amarkov. "Support, duh" comes to mind here. – Steel 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, This is the current head of the Mediation Committee. Since being the head of the mediation committee requires a rather higher level of trust than an admin flag, I think we can easily trust ^demon with the latter. --Kim Bruning 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Kim Bruning. Majorly (o rly?) 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Considering that this user is in charge of WP:MEDCOM and runs a bot, there is plenty of reason to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Was thinking of nominating ^demon myself eventually.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sorry, but wtf support - you're not already one? WTF? – Chacor 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support About time for this candidate to become an admin. Gutworth 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per noms, answers, overall record. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Great volunteer to have on the project. I'm sure giving him a few extra buttons will only help both ^demon and the English Wikipedia. gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems overdue, per all of the above. I'm sure this user will get at least one editcountitis oppose (693 mainspace edits?) but he's fully qualified. Grandmasterka 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Kukini hablame aqui 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Thought he was one. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Why not. Khoikhoi 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support ^demon is already highly trusted by the community as the head of MEDCOM, so this is a no-brainer. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support qualified admin candidate.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Excellent qualifications... -- Scientizzle 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oh, hell yes. Daniel Bryant 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Daniel. – Riana shiny disco balls 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A mediator that haven't received adminship?! I feel that we committed a crime. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- Real96 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support John Reaves (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ^R ^F ^A cliche #1. >Radiant< 10:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, he's not one yet? I cannot believe it. Terence 11:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Given that ^demon already occupies several position of trust - mediator, bot-running etc. - it is clear that he can handle the responsibility of adminship. Rje 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Definitely! Runs a bot, mediator - has my complete trust. - Anas Talk? 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Excellent, well-rounded, experienced candidate. Xoloz 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 37 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per the nominations. S.D. 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above. Addhoc 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strongest Support Possible Kntrabssi 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I trust ^demon not to implode Wikipedia with a few extra buttons. Hand over the mop. ♠PMC♠ 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Prodego talk 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. ^demon has impressed me with his maturity and skills here, both as an editor and as a mediator on the MedCom. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support ^demon is a great editor who I am sure will do a fine job as an admin. Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, no concerns at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support very good editor, will be a good admin. James086Talk 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, and this is an "I-thought-you-already-WERE-an-admin" non-vote. Clearly responsible; already doing hard work well; and as for "needs-the-tools" (the question brought up in "Oppose" below), admin access would have let ^demon retrieve the deleted bot code rather than do it all by hand, and also would let ^demon see, undelete, and protect evidentiary text that anyone else had tried to hide by deleting. These tools clearly relate to the job ^demon is already doing. -- Ben TALK/HIST
  50. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Mediation and templates... Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Great candidate. Good answers. Moptastic. --Dweller 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Candidate's has done a great job at everything else. I have total confidence that will continue as an admin. --Selket Talk 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I have interacted with this user before, and while we do not always agree, he has struck me as level-headed and fair, and thus I would tend to trust his judgement. Good Luck! -- Avi 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avi, your support means quite a bit to me, as we have often crossed paths and not agreed. Thank you very much. ^demon[omg plz] 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support This user was particularly helpful in helping me get an older signature which I used to use working, he went the extra mile just to help, I definitely trust him with the mop. Good luck! Tellyaddict 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per above. Yuser31415 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Can be trusted with the mop. -- Jreferee 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Caretdemon seems to be an excellent candidate, and I can find nothing which indicates otherwise. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. -- Nick t 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Seems like a reasonable editor. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A fine user, who deserve my support. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I've crossed paths with this user several times and they seem to know what they're doing. Definately worthy of becoming an admin. // DecaimientoPoético 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Needs tools by all accounts. Bubba hotep 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support User can certainly use the tools.-- danntm T C 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support-Great user. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Approachable, dependable, helpful, experienced. —Psychonaut 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support certainly based on history, answers, and apparent kind nature. - Denny 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Dfrg.msc 09:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Very good user, as part of MEDCOM, he will use the tools at least for deleting expired medcom cases. Regardless, adminship is no big deal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Michael 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support — excellent work for the Mediation Committee, demonstrating a desire to achieve and retain consensus - a highly desirable trait in a sysop; anthony[cfc] 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Well demonstrated editor --Infrangible 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, almost forgot I !voted oppose the first time around, but this is the most "improvement" I've ever seen between RFA's! :) — xaosflux Talk 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I think Demon would make a great administratorLeprechaun99 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Someone whose work has made them a valued mediator will doubtless be even more valued with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. El_C 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Trust is high, no dearth of support, enthusiasm is fulfilled, sealed with a sig. Pigmandialogue 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per noms. Sarah 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support this editor is trustworthy, dedicated, and has what it takes to be an administrator. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. This person is a great user!!! I think that him becomming a admin is far overdue. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Not a whole lot of mainspace hurts your standing. Yeah, I had to take the strong out, sorry. But you're still a great user who deserves the tools.--Wizardman 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Seen good stuff from him. - Merzbow 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I don't think that this user needs the tools, and the answers to the questions don't do anything for me. A Train take the 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look. It's the I-don't-like-this-user-so-let-me-find-a-shitty-reason-to-oppose-him-even-if-it-is-vague-and-doesn't-make-an-ounce-of-sense vote. Haven't seen one of those in a while. PS: What exactly do you want the answers to do for you? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA. I am starting to sound like an echo I say that so much. Prodego talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. My apologies. It just bugs me to see votes like these. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It bugs you to see someone hold an opinion that you don't agree with? Good luck with that. A Train take the 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um what opinion? you haven't stated an opinion, except a vague "he doesn't need the tools" and the answers don't tickle my fancy. I don't even know what to call that. For someone who have been through the RFA process, one would think you'd know how to lend a proper comment to an RFA discussion. Anyway, I'm done. Let's not waste space here. You made you vote, I commented on it. full stop. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give an example of why ^demon needs the tools, if that means anything. The MedCom deletes rejected cases after x days, as a long-standing process. Rather than have to bug me, or tag articles for speedy deletion, he could delete them himself. Just one example. Daniel Bryant 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's not a vote, and A Train does need to solidly defend his position, else people might ignore it. On the other hand, User:Journalist does actually need to assume good faith. Politeness would have helped too. Finally, it might have been wiser to ask specific questions (such as: Which question was answered wrong, and why, and what can we do about that in future). --Kim Bruning 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't have said anything, but someone mentioned the v word ;-P[reply]
    (re-indent) My opinion is that the project would not be well served by ^demon becoming an administrator. I have my reasons, and hold nothing against the user - we've never even interacted, to the best of my recollection. I obviously hold a minority opinion here. I've been with the project for two years, I have almost 4000 edits under my belt and I am an administrator myself, so I hope that I will be forgiven for feeling that I'm entitled to keep my own counsel. There is no shortage of votes that say only "oppose" or "support" from editors in good standing, and no one presumes that those are discounted. Journalist seemed to take my oppose vote as a personal insult (which it clearly was not) and I invite him to apologize to me at his earliest convenience. A Train take the 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not offended by A Train's opinion. He is entitled to it, and he is under no obligation to explain himself. I would appreciate it if we could stop badgering him over it. ^demon[omg plz] 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I didn't take A Train's vote as a personal insult. I just thought it was time people moved past the kind of vote where there are no particular reason. If you can't express it in words, then you know there's something wrong. Also, this is a discussion right? If you're voting oppose, then don't you think its reasonable to provide the candidate with some sort of reason, so he can know what is wrong and work on it? Just a thought. And lastly, A Train, I don't believe I have anything to apologize for. Orane (talk • cont.)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%5Edemon_2&oldid=1147967442"