Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eluchil404 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.

Eluchil404[edit]

Ended (59/3/1); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) - Eluchil404 has been with Wikipedia for over a year now; he filed a self-nomination for the sysop tools last year but withdrew early when he realized he was being premature. Despite that early 'haste', he carried himself in that discussion with courtesy and clear communication. I began to look over his contributions earlier this spring when I was browsing for users in just this situation: premature or barely failed RFAs that showed an ability to pass in time. I believe strongly that the project will benefit from granting Eluchil404 the tools at this time, and invite you to look over his contributions and support him along with me. -- nae'blis 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination and thank the nominator for his kind words. Eluchil404 18:16, 1 August 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:Closing AfD's and MfD's, using the bit to look at deleted revisions to inform my comments at Deletion review, fighting CSD backlogs, deleting expired prods, and other places (e.g. WP:RM) as I have time and knowledge. While I will probably not be hugely active, I think another set of eyes at CSD would be helpful and that the time I have spent reading (and to a lesser extent commenting) at AfD and Deletion review, gives me a good grasp of what the speedy criteria mean in practice, as well as theory. Eluchil404 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:There are a few things listed on my userpage. The one that probably excited me most was when WP:NOTFILM was tagged as a guideline in line with consensus. Though the current text is not very close to my original version, the fact that others found my page useful enough to edit and improve is very encouraging to me. Work there also gave me some insight into the process of finding consensus language and dispute resolution. On the article side there are little more than stubs (though plenty of wikignoming other articles) Vatta's War is the longest though I can't take credit for the recent expansion. I am particularly pleased by the fact that all the articles I have written recently are well sourced. I believe that reliable, nontrivial sources are important for wikipedia's reliablilty and credibility. Eluchil404 18:16, 1 August 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:I hae been in a few since my last nomination, still mostly minor. The one at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) was probably the most intense and stressful for me. In general when I experience wikistress, I take a break to relax and remember that it is just an encyclopedia and not the end of the world. In conflicts I seek additional opinions in hopes of finding consensus because I feel that two people with strong feelings are more likely to end up in a shouting match than reach a compromise if left to there own devises. A good example of this is Wikipedia:Semi-protecting policy pages where after my tagging as rejected was reverted (also notable as the only time I ever reverted back to my preferred version diff I went to the talk page where consensus on tagging was found. Eluchil404 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. (from nae'blis) Here's a little homework: pick one entry at candidates for speedy deletion that you think has been improperly filed, explain what you find to be wrong with the situation, and then make the edits needed to correct it (to the extent possible without the extra tools, of course).
A:After looking at a couple of marginal ones Ajijic seemed to clearly not be a proper speedy. It was only slightly spamming (which was the reason given) and articles about real places (which this is) are rarely deleted. I removed the tag and did some basic wikification. The next step is to find reliable sources which are not immediately apparent via google. Eluchil404 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by User:Vodak

5. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eluchil404 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support. User has enough experience with policy and a fair amount of time active. No reason to expect abuse of tools. I beat the nominator to voting! Bart133 (t) (c) 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This user seems to have dropped off in participation of late, and that bothers me slightly. However, his edit history is excellent and so is his communication with others. I see nothing to make me believe he shouldn't get the mop. Trusilver 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I reviewed all the answers, and I was impressed by the candidate's dedication, forthrightness, and willingness to learn. In particular, the answer to Q4 shows that the candidate will actually read the article before pressing the delete buttion. Another article is saved, and hopefully, another admin is added to the roster. Shalom Hello 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - Very Good Mainspace edits, A very high Wikispace edits and very experienced..hehe..Y? Not ..--Cometstyles 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've seen you around making useful and thoughtful contributions, and a look though your history shows much of the same. Good answers to the questions (esp #4) too.--Kubigula (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. The candidate helped write some articles. I see no reason to oppose. Majoreditor 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per nom and Shalom. —AldeBaer 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. seems to understand policy well enough. --W.marsh 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, solid and experienced editor. No problems trusting him to the extra buttons. Kuru talk 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Trustworthy, and in my opinion, no valid reasons to oppose. We all make the occasional mistake. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, good contributions, well-reasoned decision on Ajijic. Tim Vickers 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: has experience, good contribs, and a good answer to #4. — Bob • (talk) • 23:56, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support good time for the user to become an admin. -64.230.2.27 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. -Lemonflashtalk 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. You'll do fine. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support fine editor. Politics rule 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good editor with no POV bias.Harlowraman 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as per my nomination. -- nae'blis 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Garion96 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm sure Eluchil404 will do just fine. RFerreira 08:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, yep. Neil ╦ 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Ample experience, not likely to abuse tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - shows sufficiently developed skills in editing well. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - No evidence of problems. Concerns raised by Matthew are nowhere near significant enough to merit an oppose, or even neutral. WaltonOne 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support no major concerns. —Anas talk? 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Can clearly be trusted with the tools. Re Matthew's comments: the debate over whether someone needs the admin tools has been had. Whether or not a candidate seems to need the tools, if they seem trustworthy then they should have them. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Excellent editor; more than prepared for the mop. Xoloz 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. WTF really? This guy is one of the best we have on the Wiki. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per above. He has extensive mainspace edits, and seems trustworthy. I can't agree on everything with everybody. We can use more wikignomes. Bearian 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Good answers to the questions. Especially #4. IronGargoyle 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Kuru, 10oaT, Xoloz, Siva, &c. Surely time for Eluchil to get the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Competent user, and has been here for over a year (no problems with experience or level of activity). Recurring dreams 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support After reviewing your AfD comments and speedy deletion tags, I trust that you have the knowledge in these areas to make appropriate administrative decisions. Granted, I had to go back to Novermber 2006 to review your last 15 CSD tags, but they were all accurate. Leebo T/C 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A good candidate. Daniel→♦ 03:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom and above. PeaceNT 09:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support ... as per the usual. --xDanielxTalk 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I like the idea of someone looking beyond google - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support good user Pheonix 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support -- good candidate. --A. B. (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 404 error: reason to oppose not found. >Radiant< 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I have researched your edits over the past 6 months or so. I am quite pleased with your demeanor in discussions. Such calmness is a needed quality for an admin and I support you fully. JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support see nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. --Slgrandson 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No red flags here. Proven trustworthy. Let's give him the mop.  hmwith  talk 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - good contributions, good answers to the questions, over all a good candidate--Cailil talk 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support seems like a fine user. Acalamari 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - seems to have a wide breadth of experience. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Per Matthew ;) Giggy Talk | Review 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I haven't seen anything to alarm me from this editor, and no major concerns have been raised. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Fine user, no reason to oppose, so I support. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, have no doubt Eluchil404 will make a fine admin, have been impressed in my interactions thus far.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good user. ~ Infrangible 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support The answers are detailed and in good quality. I support you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Contributes like a bandit, has earnt the trust needed. Dfrg.msc 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. This RfA has my support, user history convinces me editor will make a fine administrator. --Fire Star 火星 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - looks fine —umdrums 15:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I see no outstanding reasons to oppose this editor. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I'm not convinced you need to be sysoped. Your activity is quite low, though your mainspace edits are good. You've also uploaded several images that fail the NFCC. Matthew 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? Opossing because he uploaded some book covers over a year ago, seriously Matthew you are becoming so disruptive, I never seen you supporting an RFA ever Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, play the "disruptive card" (note: I'm the one discussing, not simply voting.) Your simply slapping your lips because I opposed somebody you'd like to pass. Oh, and I recall I supported at least two RfA/B last month -- so don't give me that :).
    Secondly the images failed policy when they were uploaded and they continue to fail policy, so yea, maybe it was a year ago, he could of still fixed it. Matthew 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair my level of activity, especially since the new year, has been quite low for an admin candidate. And it may change again depending on my life and work schedules. However, I feel that I am active enough (especially in terms of reading though not commenting on discussions) that I can make a net positive contribution as an admin, or I would not have accepted the nomination. Eluchil404 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Well on your way, but just not quite there with the editing experience...yet. Jmlk17 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I don;t generally oppose on the basis of user edits before, but I am quite concerned by your answer that you activity is low, and likely to remain so. How can we judge on the basis of what you read, rather than what you do? I do not see how with limited activity you can keep up with consensus and discussions. For example, are you aware of any current discussions regarding the notability of university departments in general? That's one of the areas you have interest in. DGG (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I don't feel Matthew's points are quite enough for an oppose. T Rex | talk 21:10, 1 August 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/Eluchil404_2&oldid=1142576286"