Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CIreland

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.


CIreland[edit]

Final: (35/1/0); Ended 18:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CIreland (talk · contribs) - CIreland is an experienced user with an interest in a wide range of admin-related activities. He has been editing Wikipedia regularly since March 2007, during which time he has made around 9,500 edits. He is a great vandal fighter, with around 150 reports to WP:AIV, and has participated in about 80 AfD discussions. He spends much time performing administrative tasks at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and as a result, has speedy deletion tagged many articles with copyright vios. He has also made around 40 posts to the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I believe CIreland can be trusted with tools, and he would make a very productive admin. Epbr123 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. CIreland (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 chief reason for desiring administrator-ship is so that I can be more efficient in helping out at Wikipedia:suspected copyright violations and rely less on bugging random admins to fix things for me. In particular, it often happens that an entry with copyright problems also has other issues and can only be clumsily handled by applying standard templates requesting admin action. Also, Coren's bot often marks as copyvios new articles that have been created as a result of copy/paste moves and consequently I have become a bit of a regular at WP:SPLICE. Since fixing a copy/paste move potentially becomes more and more difficult the longer it is left unaddressed, it would be useful for me to be able to perform some of the history merges myself..
Related to the above, I would also like to begin helping a little at Wikipedia:Copyright problems which I have not done thus far as cases are only supposed to be resolved by administrators.
As well as WP:SCV, I am an occasional Recent Changes and New Pages watcher and would like to extend these to be an occasional WP:AIV and CAT:CSD watcher.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I was fairly "chuffed" with Letter to Chesterfield and with writing articles for the remaining redlinks at Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets; there is a list of my more recent article interests on my userpage, although the list is not exhaustive. I am also quietly somewhat pleased that I have (so far as I am aware) never made an AIV report that was rejected or had a speedy deletion tagging declined, despite having made many of both.
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 little conflict in my areas of interest with respect to content creation, largely because it is so sparsely populated with other editors. I have had a fair amount of dealings with newbie editors through WP:SCV, most are sufficiently unsure of themselves that they are rarely truculent and the trickiest aspect here is finding a nice way to say, "This text is stolen and it's going to be deleted but please keep contributing to our encyclopaedia".
I have contributed to a few fairly acrid debates that have appeared at WP:BLPN and WP:RFC but I have found that if you approach such things without blatantly taking sides and with a compromise in hand then most editors are pretty amenable, if not relieved when someone suggests a possible resolution.
Of course, I've had a fair amount of abuse from individuals aggrieved at the notion that someone would dare to revert their vandalism - I prefer to adopt a stoic and formal approach and not deliver the attention that is often their primary objective. I work in a job where I am told to "Fuck Off" daily (and much worse than that); I only wish real life had a "Revert" button.

Questions from User:Lawrence Cohen

4. If an admin adds themselves as available for administrator recall, should this be binding on them? What if they stated during their RFA that they would join the category?
A: Two part answer:
On the general matter of binding administrator recall:
There has been much discussion, on and off, concerning proposals for a compulsory community de-sysopping procedure. People opposed to such a process have typically argued that it would have the disadvantage of being open to abuse and frivoulous application.
On the other hand, we have administrator recall which largely avoids the potential for abuse by being at all stages voluntary (there's no point in making a frivolous recall request because it will simply be declined). However, it has the disadvantage of being an opt-in process which the individual can simply refuse.
The idea that administrator recall should be binding once an individual has committed his/herself to it neatly combines the worst of both worlds: An opt-in process with the potential for abuse. At best, it would simply lead to ever more convoluted recall criteria in an effort to avoid ill-founded requests.
On the specific matter of undertakings given in one's RfA:
One should always try to fulfill promises that one makes. However, although I would look darkly on someone who declared that they would be open to recall and then did not add themselves to CAT:RECALL, I would also be very uncomfortable with anything that forever prohibited someone from changing their mind - especially given the shifting moods that seem to surround this topic.
5. Do you feel that one admin should be able to reverse any one action by another admin once, if he believes in good faith that the reversal is the right decision to improve Wikipedia? If so, why? If not, why?
A: All administrators have talk pages; every admin action has a forum in which it may be reviewed. Although it is possible to construct hypothetical emergency scenarios in which one may justifiably unilaterally reverse a good faith admin action, all such scenarios are sufficiently improbable that our guiding principle should be not to undo the adminstrative action of another without a clear consensus to do so (and preferably simply the agreement of the original admin).

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CIreland before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support A review of talk page and contribs convinces me the nom is more than ready. Dlohcierekim 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This user had made good contributions to project-space pages. Also a great vandal fighter. Time to give this user the mop. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Clear-headed, concise, knows policy. No qualms here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good user, and good vandal fighter. Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seems a level-headed editor with strong experience in areas outside the usual suspects. Although there are some areas in which the user has less experience than I'd prefer, nothing I've seen in a fairly extensive trawl through his/her recent contributions suggests that s/he will abuse the tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Per Espresso. Nothing of any concern. A hard worker and a steady hand, with experience in places that could use more admins helping out. --JayHenry (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I support this nominee. I've reviewed his contributions and see no reason for concern. I am pleased by his smooth and civil dicussions with users. -JodyB talk 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems with this editor. --Sharkface217 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Familiar with the places they intend to use the mop - no evidence of intention to misuse... Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A good amount of successful WP:AIV reports. Timmeh! 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Always a pleasure to have him at AIV, I can't think of a single report he has ever made that has been too premature or made in error. It will only improve the asset that he already is to give him the tools. Trusilver 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Check on that, doctor. Keegantalk 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Don't normally vote on RfAs which are going to pass anyway, but am willing to make an exception here: an ideal candidate. Relata refero (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I like the fact you've actually contributed to articles. Please, please, please, as an admin keep your hand in as a writer/editor. All of our best admins are also at least part/time writers.--Docg 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good contribs. As a content editor myself, totally second Doc's comments, too. Orderinchaos 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looking in the overall contribs, he is very familiar for copyright issues and will make a good vandal fighter as well.--JForget 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Has been around since Sept 2005 and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - How could we oppose? Gromlakh (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support. I was actually thinking about asking the user about a nomination myself. I'll have less opportunities to perform history merges (which are my favorite kind of administrative work) but this user should have the tools. Copyright violations are serious problems, and user is an ace at them. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I think he will make good use of the tools. Lradrama 11:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - a good user who would use the tools wisely, I'm unconvinced by the opposes. 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support an all-round good contributor. RMHED (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Jmlk17 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Good contributor. Acalamari 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. The Transhumanist 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Impressive stats. :) GlassCobra 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Nothing wrong here, will use the tools well. --Hdt83 Chat 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. A review of the user's page and work reveals no issues, except for a pedantic style. :-) Bearian (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all admins need to get articles to FA status, wiki is way bigger than that. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Primarily, not enough time working on project pages, but also with writing content. Knock out a couple of GAs or DYKs, and you'll fly through RFA. Lawrence § t/e 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]
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/CIreland&oldid=1140184209"