Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjelleklang

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.

Bjelleklang[edit]

Final: (45/7/9); ended 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bjelleklang (talk · contribs) - Well, what can I say? I'm (just another) wikipedian, I've been around since sometime during the fall of 2005, and have contributed in what I see as a wide area, also including the toolserver. I feel that I've gotten familiar enough with the various policies and practices here to become an admin. I might not be just as active as other people, mostly due to school and other commitments, but I try to contribute when I can. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

Jimbo (and others) have said that adminship is no big deal, and I tend to support that. However, not beeing an admin is not a big deal either in my view; it only means that I have to contribute in another area of Wikipedia instead.

Addition, 18th may: I fully understand that some people may have a problem supporting me as an admin due to fairly low activity compared to other users/admins. I know that Wikipedia contains quite a few policies for admins to be aware and updated on, and I also know that I probably won't be updated on everything at all times. This is also why I will try to focus on specific areas/issues (as mentioned in Q1), so I will have a better chance of staying updated at all times within these fields. That means that I won't necessarily be updated on everything else at all times, but I will have a general overview on the other policies. It also means that I have to be more careful if I should find myself involved with another type of issue. However, consulting a policy page doesn't really take that long, and if uncertain/at regular intervals, I will read through the relevant policies, just like other users, inactive admins deciding to become more active, as well as most other active admins as well. This is not meant to convince anyone of anything, but more to address an issue both supporting, opposing and neutral users have mentioned as important. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Hard to say, but most likely by keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Category:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Category:Proposed deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd probably have to say the IRC client, as it has proven to become a good tool in order to help new users not yet comfortable enough with Wikipedia. And possibly the work done to help new users getting started through the help desk and new user help.
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: No real conflicts as such; most of them have been with users not willing to accept policy and concensus. The closest thing to a real conflict would probably be over Hanging, where one or more people kept pushing their POV against Singapore, and most recently in the period when Saddam Hussain was hanged.
4. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? ··coelacan 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Not really, up until now I've never felt too strong for any Xfd's I've been involved with; I have no problems nominating or participating in them, and if the concensus is opposite of my opinion, I so far haven't had any problems accepting it. After all, the whole foundation for the project is to gather concensus for some or other action, and that also means that I have to be able to accept that concensus could be different from my own opinion.
5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? ··coelacan 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I look upon IAR as the last resort when dealing with editors obviously ignoring policies. Although I look upon this as more of a theoretical concept, I'd say that it could be used in cases where editors are unable to get assistance, either from other editors or admins, or in some cases where the bureaucracy seem to do less good for the project than the action itself. That being said, i believe IAR should be avoided as much as possible, as I think that it might cause more harm than good in some cases where discussion would be better.

Optional question fron PrestonH (talk · contribs)

6. There has been a recent problem with admin accounts being hijacked because of weak passwords. Is your password strong enough to withstand vandals/hijackers from hijacking your main account? (If not, please change in your preferences)
A: I'd say it is, based on experience from working on the IT-help desk at Agder University College, where we amongst other things administer around 9000 user accounts for the Norwegian research network. Hope this was a satisfactory answer :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question fron Xiner (talk · contribs)

6. Could you respond to TwoOars's concerns about your "minor" edits?
A: Sure. As a result of TwoOar and Goodnightmush's conern, I've read through the policy, and as a result (as my contribs will show) I've begun to mark my edits appropriately according to policy, especially "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word." Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bjelleklang before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • While clearly it'd have been better if Bjelleklang had more recent activities, I'd like to point out that I don't remember seeing Bjelleklang chit-chat much on IRC. He's really there to help, and ably so. Xiner (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. No valid reason to oppose has been brought up here. John Reaves (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have seen this user's work with the helpdesk and am confident that Bjelleklang knows what to do and will seek help when necessary. I trust this user with the tools and I believe that they will work in the best interests of the project. --After Midnight 0001 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, confident this user will not abuse the tools. --Phoenix 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. If the only reason to oppose him is his failure to maintain a superhuman rate of editing, he's okay by me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. He has shown consistent dedication to the project. Maintaining any level of editing for over a year is tough. Trust me, I struggle with it all the time.--Danaman5 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Call this an unfair generalization if you must but opposers are no good at everything. All jokes aside, there is a real concern here with how strict people are getting on voting for administrators. Just because there's more admins these days doesn't mean you should tighten the rope... what's wrong with having tens of thousands of administrators? It shouldn't be that far of a stretch, after all, this is no big deal. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Helpful, has knowledge of policy and very civil. No valid reason to oppose. As for the low activity, users need not dedicate their lives to Wikipedia. We should be happy with whatever help we can get from fellow volunteers. Also per Croat Canuck. - TwoOars (T | C) 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having said that, I checked why mathbot tool says your edit summary usage is so low whereas interiot's tool shows 100% edit summary usage for all recent edits. It seems you are marking almost all edits including conversations, inserting images and removing large parts of an article as minor edits. I think you should be more careful regarding this and label the edits properly even if they are non-contentious. - TwoOars (T | C) 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good user with a history of helping others. While the recent activity is a little low for an admin candidate, that's no reason not to support. Ten admin actions a day by this user frees up that much time for another admin. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maybe the admin tools will make him more active, maybe not. Either way there is no harm since we can trust this user. Support --Rettetast 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I feel that an experienced, friendly user who knows the system and is willing to help out should get the mop if there are no major concerns. Infrequent participation at times is not a major concern for me - even if the candidate logs in once a day and deletes one speedy candidate, that is helping out. --Spike Wilbury 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Definitely experienced enough to deserve the mop. However, user did not taken my advice into consideration in his editor review, which is to maintain an average of 200-300 edits per month if considering for adminship. Others have pointed this out below. Aquarius • talk 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per all above. It shouldn't be necessary to give up life and glue oneself to a computer screen in order to pass RfA. Walton Need some help? 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Change to support per convincing arguments -- Y not? 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Solid answers to questions. Inactivity isn't a real issue here, as the editor never left completely. If s/he now has the time to contribute to clearing backlogs, previous flirtations with having a life outside the wiki are easy to ignore! ;) Xoloz 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak, really weak support Honestly, I don't feel too comfortable supporting you. Your activity doesn't promise any much involvement as an admin. I'll assume you will not abuse the tools; that's what is most important after all. Good luck with your studies. —Anas talk? 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Will you abuse the tools? No? Good. I especially like answer to Q5. Abeg92contribs 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Contribs are balanced and show some interest in admin work. YechielMan 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support on the condition that you review what a minor edit is. (see TwoOars above) GoodnightmushTalk 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. you're not an admin? ~Crazytales [talk] 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've been waiting for this one since March last year when I encountered him reverting serial POV insertions in the hanging article. Resurgent insurgent 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The encyclopedia will be better, not worse, with Bjelleklang as an administrator. It is worth noting that he has stopped marking all edits as minor after TwoOars commented above. WODUP 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support No humongous concerns, all the bits working properly. Please do take some time to familiarise yourself with newer policies/ideas - cascading protection, the reformed speedy deletion criteria, new notability criteria - before jumping into administrative activity. Best of luck, – Rianaऋ 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good on you for coming back. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. It's always good to see someone willing to put time into helping new users. -Rjm656s 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I think it is a positive that this editor is firm about his/her priorities (such as school and work)--demonstrates that as an admin he/she would be able to balance responsibilities.--Xnuala (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, zero serious concerns. Deiz talk 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - sensible answers to questions and plenty of edits at the help desk. Addhoc 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Seems sensible and level-headed. Haukur 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Positive impression of this editor. Although adminship is no big deal, seeking it does imply intent to step up more actively than in recent times, which I assume is the case. Murghdisc. 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per Daniel's oppose. We need more glory days and more admins. Who cares if they have 3000 edits a year or 600. ZsinjTalk 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. While he may not spend all his time awake on Wikipedia (tut tut!), his continued contributions to helping newcomers, and his various Wikimedia-related software tools, not to mention, of course, his editing and housekeeping contributions, show that he would make a very good admin indeed. - Tangotango (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Why The Hell Not? I don't think lack of edits is a reason to oppose if I can trust the user, and trust that they'll read policy and follow it. Ral315 » 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support See no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I trust this user.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Going through edit history I find no reason not to trust this user with the tools. —Ocatecir Talk 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak support Daniel's concerns are those that are properly raised relative to inactivity (as against those that suggest that inactivity speaks ill of one's commitment to the project, one implications of which are that adminship is a trophy), but the candidate seems possessed of sound judgment, and I so will trust him to know whereof he does not know and to peruse present policy (or, if necessary, the discussion underlying the development/evolution of policy) before acting qua admin (although I would observe that the tasks of which Bjell intends to partake are not those relative to which policy has changed significantly of late); consequently, I feel comfortable concluding with at least more than a modicum of confidence that the net effect on the project of Bjell's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Actually, I don't think things have changed all that much in the last year. Requirements for fair use images are a bit more stringent, some CSDs have been expanded somewhat, BLP issues are enforced more carefully, WP:CP is no longer used much, and protection policy is always changing, but never in uniform or universally agreed-upon ways. None of that is all that big a deal, and I don't Bjelleklang will be at a serious disadvantage beyond any new admin. If you find yourself confused about anything, please don't hesitate to ask any admin (including me) for assistance. Chick Bowen 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I believe that the candidate has a good grasp of policy, so the lack of recent activities isn't enough of a reason for me to oppose. Xiner (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've been looking through some of the diffs that came out of the diff-generator (see the talkpage); the only problem that anyone's found with this candidate is inactivity on occasion, and I don't see why that's a problem. (I'd like to suggest to the candidate that reading through the archives of the Wikipedia Signpost may be a good way to get up to speed on any major changes that they might have missed during inactive periods.) --ais523 10:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Terence 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Inactivity is not a very compelling reason to oppose; nothing of great significance has changed in the past couple years. Nor do I think it's really necessary to make a lot of (or any) edits to stay abreast of what's going on here. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A review of his talk page shows that he is commonly approached by editors for help. This suggests to me that there is already a level of trust which we should recognize. The lowish numbers for his editing in no way suggests he will harm us.. JodyB talk 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, certainly. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Wrong time for RfA. You have not been meaningfully active since January 2006 - over one year ago. -- Y not? 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, I try to contribute when I can, but as I have to put school and work before Wikipedia, I don't often get too much time to contribute. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose: Lack of activity and low edit summary usage.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose you have been M.I.A. for some time it seems. Jmlk17 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from Wikibreaks, he's been editing around 3 times per day. If you consider that "MIA" I've got some editcountitis pills to give you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - you had tons of edits in 2005 and then nearly stopped editing all together, with just a few spurts here and there. You haven't even hit 150 edits for the past three months combined. While the actual edits don't seem to pose any sort of a problem, the inactivity makes me uneasy about supporting. Sorry. I do wish you luck though. --pIrish Arr! 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose- we need editors, not people who lurk on IRC. Errabee 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, most people who "lurk" in the bootcamp/helpdesk on IRC are there helping users become better editors. IMHO, this is a valuable service which is to be commended; helping others edit can result in more people creating content that one person would do alone. --After Midnight 0001 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Lack of recent activity. Dorange 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikipedia's changed a lot since you last edited recently, and things that are common-knowledge for administrators and administrator candidates you may lack the knowledge of. I really don't like noting this opposition, but I fear that a user who isn't up to date with the current everything on Wikipedia may make decisions which are now viewed as 'bad', which may not have been way-back-when. Sorry, but I'm not confident at this stage given your recent extended inactivity. Daniel 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose lack of activity as a general editor causes me to wonder why you need the tools right at this moment. I also agree with Daniel's perspective directly above--VS talk 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose Because of your lack of recent contributions, I must oppose. However, I am loath to do so since this is my only reason for opposition. Having more activity for about 2 or three months will make me support in the future. Captain panda 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral While I see nothing wrong with any of your edits, and your contributions into wiki-namespace are clearly satisfactory, you appear to have been fairly inactive for about a year. I will change to support after a satisfactory explanation as to why this is so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had around 600-700 edits for the past twelve months, and although not nearly as much as other editors, I've also spent quite a lot of time on IRC helping out other users, primarily new users, many of whom are unfamiliar with policies and practices, and prefers a real-time chat instead of using talk pages to communicate. I also have school and work to think of, and sadly I have to put those before Wikipedia. I try however to check in more or less each day, although I don't always edit. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I wouldn't say that it's sad to put things like school and income before a voluntary project. Lack of participation isn't a bad thing when it is balanced by hard work in those areas. You can try again when you can be more active with the project. (aeropagitica) 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You use to have many edits, but much now. When you get more active, then I would happily support your nomination.Lεmσηfιαsh(t)/(c) 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral No reason for me to oppose , but limited recent editing doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools.--MONGO 08:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Re Q4, XfDs are closed wrongly all the time, which is why we have DRV; it's just inevitable with so much traffic. Some DRVs are filed from a refusal to accept consensus, but not all closing disagreements can be characterized that way. Not a reason to oppose. But I'm not sure about supporting, as I also can't comprehend the first half of your answer to Q5. Daniel's point concerns me as well: I'm not bothered by the possibility that you won't use the tools often, but I'm not assured of your familiarity with current policy for when you do use the tools. I guess I'm leaning toward support, but I'm not yet persuaded. ··coelacan 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I know that some users disagree with the descisions made on Xfd's, but so far, I haven't been involved with an Xfd I didn't agree with, or one where I couldn't understand the other side of the discussion. As for Q5, my point is that since IAR could be used to override other policies, it should only be used as a last resort, and after careful consideration. Hope this could make things somewhat clearer :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, per Daniel and coelacan. Can't see anything wrong with this editor, but I'd expect admins to be more active - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Moved from oppose. You had many edits, and seem to be a very good editor, but your lack of edits as of late concern me. I could easily support a bit later down the road if you get back into the project a bit more. Jmlk17 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I think this user's sporadic edits are a bit worring, but I see nothing else to complain about. Gutworth 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, it probably would have been a good idea for you to edit a bit before having an RfA. But, lack of recent editing isn't grounds for an oppose, so I'm just going to have to stay neutral here. *Cremepuff222* 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Due to the inacitivity from 2006 Feb to untill this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:29, 22 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bjelleklang&oldid=1084301609"