Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fishhead64

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.

Fishhead64[edit]

Final: (47/3/2); ended 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead64 (talk · contribs) - Fishhead64 impresses me. He's been around since November 2005, he's on the Mediation Cabal, he started a WikiProject (on Anglicanism), he has over 5000 edits with a good blend of namespaces. I feel he is an asset to the project, and that it would be to the project's benefit were he an administrator. DS 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.


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?
A: I am particularly interested in preventing vandalism by patrolling new users and the 3RR noticeboard; helping to manage and execute candidates for deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm proud of my contributions to the history of British Columbia by creating articles on explorers and on the early colonial history of the province. Google searches demonstrate that they are heavily accessed, and I feel that I am contributing to the education of young people. I am pleased with articles such as Anglicanism and Anglican Communion (which I extensively revised) and Anglican sacraments, Anglican Eucharistic theology and Anglican doctrine (which I created), simply for the quality which I believe they evince. Finally, I'm pleased with the creation of the Anglicanism project which has helped improve articles on the topic.
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 had an extensive, months-long dispute with Vaquero100 over the proper use of the terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" in certain articles (e.g., Catholic spirituality). I endeavoured to follow the appropriate processes through extensive discussion, RfCs, mediation, etc. Eventually, I took an extensive Wikibreak, since the dispute was precluding any constructive editorial activity on my part and I felt I needed to take some time to put things in their proper perspective. When I returned, the user was no longer active. In all discussions, I endeavoured to maintain civility and avoided violating WP guidelines.
Completely optional question by Addhoc:
4. Looking through your user talk edits, I couldn't find any use of standard warning templates, are you against them? Also, is there a reason why you don't use edit summaries for user talk?
I think you will find that I've used them more recently. At first, I didn't know how to use them, where to find them, etc. Now that I've figured it out, I use them as standard practice. I've never thought about using edit summaries for user talk, I suppose, because I assume that the first thing users will do is check new messages, regardless of their content. I'm happy to begin doing this, however. Fishhead64 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Naconkantari:

5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What an excellent question! I honestly can't think of an example when it could be appropriately invoked in an explicit sense. From my perspective, the policy is inherently implicit, encouraging the use of common sense (pace WP:UCS) and highlighting the core principle of improving Wikipedia, as opposed to becoming bogged down in bureaucracy or obstruction by one user with a POV agenda. I personally like to know what the rules are, and for everyone to follow them, since this aids in consensus and building a reliable base of information. Reviewing the talk page yields no clear examples of its proper explicit invocation.
As to when it should not be invoked, my answer is "almost always." Particularly, it should not be used to foreclose discussion, evade consensus building and conflict resolution, or provide inequitable treatment of users or content, which - from my experience - is precisely when it is most usually cited. Fishhead64 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Richardshusr:

6. It has been mentioned that you are a member of the Mediation Cabal. How long have you been a member? Would you provide one or two examples of mediations that you feel you served as an effective mediator for? Also, for extra credit, are there any mediations where you were not able to be an effective mediator? If so, what happened? --Richard 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my mediation cabal membership counts for much, frankly. Ihave been a member for eight months (minus the five months cumulative total of two wikibreaks), but managed only one case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman). The participants did not follow through. Fishhead64 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • See Fishhead64's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I am honoured by the nomination and the confidence DragonflySixtyseven has shown and excited by the possibility of being able to broaden my activity to improve Wikipedia and enhance its reputation.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. As usual, I voice my support as nominator (albeit somewhat prematurely, since I'm pretty sure it's too early in his time zone for him to be online. But he did tell me he'd accept the nomination). DS 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, an excellent contributor, will make a fine admin. —Angr 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Has a lot of experience with Wikipedia and has contributed a lot. I can find nothing that makes me think he would misuse admin tools. Camaron1 | Chris 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Suupport, the honour would be all ours. Good luck! The Rambling Man 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Yeah, I don't see why not. Retiono Virginian 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Significant contributions, demonstrable integrity (especially transparency as evident on User:Fishhead64), polite, precise, much evidence of consensus and good faith.Joevanisland 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looking at Fishhead's user page and his answers here, I feel confident in trusting him with the tools. YechielMan 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support absolutely. Seems very level-headed and experienced. Give him a mop! —Anas talk? 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Answer to Q1 is not too descriptive, but I don't see why this user cannot be trusted with the tools. Also, his name bears a strange resemblance to that belonging to a certain someone. Hmm...I wonder... Fish rhymes with Nish. If you awkwardly pronounce "Head", you can make it rhyme with "kid". And we both have the 64 covered. This seems too coincidental. Nishkid64 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! —Anas talk? 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. This user and I have a few articles of interest in common, so I have seen his edits and comments frequently. Well-researched edits, civil comments, even when confronted by others who attack. --Anietor 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Good guy, civil and thoughtful. Understands process. -- Jreferee 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I think he is sufficiently open to others' point of view and to accepting their arguments, if valid. Lima 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - per nom and my own experiences of him as an editor. David Underdown 09:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Terence 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Sounds Good 2 me...--Cometstyles 12:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Can't see any reason to not support him. An all around good editor. Good luck! :) Kntrabssi 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Seems trustworthy and sufficiently experienced. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seems to be that rarest of things, someone who always talks sense. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I've seen him around, and he always seems to be making good edits. No reason not to trust with the mop, etc. Coemgenus 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - everything looks good. Honest answers to the questions. MEDCAB experience is a bonus. - Alison☺ 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support Adequately meets my criteria. Edit count usage is a little low, and Wiki-space edits are a tad lacking, but this is made up for by the otherwise great mainspace contibs. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per supporters' good reasons. Captain panda 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I do not see any reason to oppose. -Mschel 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Naconkantari 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I see no reason to oppose this RfA. Ninja! 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Zero Sum Support in support of potential admins having opinions, esp in userboxes. NeoFreak 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I have interacted with this user on the Roman Catholic Church article and, as he stated, he has been reasonably civil if perhaps a bit insistent on having his POV heard and accomodated. He should make a good admin. Would change to strong support if he would get rid of that guinea pig userbox. (that's a joke, don't take it seriously) --Richard 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Valuable contributions and level-headed dialogue.--Keefer | Talk 10:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Fishhead64 often contributes on articles and talk pages that are prone to cotnroversy, yet seems to always keep a level head and a civil tongue. -- Pastordavid 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per the other supporters. Acalamari 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, patient and conscientious. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Seems like good admin material. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Was slightly concerned by a fairly limited area of wiki mainspace focus but not enough to deny my support for this request.--VS talk 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Good nominee - I support has a full range of skills.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Terence 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Voted twice. Sigh. Terence 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I was also involved with the RCC vs CC debacle. While Fishhead had a POV, civility was always kept, and Fishead was willing to compromise in a situation that some editors took to be of grave moral and spiritual importance. I was very impressed by the talk page interactions during this heated dispute, and I feel that is a good indication of how Fishhead would perform under the pressures of being an Admin. -Andrew c 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. WjBscribe 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support roly, poly fishheads for adminship. RFerreira 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support seems like a fair editor with good expierience. Also started the wikiproject - thats an achievement :) —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 09:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Tarragon Support Dfrg.msc 11:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Weak answer to question 1, but the user is extremely civil and does seam to understand policy. Can certainly be trusted with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Seems to be a very solid candidate.Ivygohnair 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, seems good.--Wizardman 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - He had a strong POV in the RCC/CC naming dispute, but I don't get the impression that he would use the admin tools to push that POV. I'm going to trust he will use the mop for unrelated *FD work. Gimmetrow 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Polite, hard-working and comitted to the project - what else can we ask for? Phaedriel - 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose for divisive userboxes on userpage. Sorry. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Candidate has largely resolved this issue; opposition withdrawn pending further review. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I guess if I'm being nominated for adminship, I should take those down - which I will do. I think my edit history shows I'm not rabidly deletionist, but I do support weeding out vanity articles, listcruff, and the like. Fishhead64 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What's "divisive" about being a deletionist? Me personally, I'm an inclusionist but I don't see a "deletionist" userbox as being divisive. Now, that guinea pig userbox? Nothing less than divisive. Get rid of that one, man. --Richard 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully per low edit summary usage, 65% for major edits in the article namespace, and 25% for minor edits. I think that summaries matter a lot for edits, and even more for admin actions. I will gladly drop my vote if you would consider checking the option in the preferences which would remind you about using edit summaries. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done so. Fishhead64 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I withdrew my oppose vote. Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I have also dealt with this user on the the Roman Catholic Church and related articles and have seen him to be an unrelenting POV pusher. There are already too many admins who ignore NPOV. SynKobiety 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, weak answer to question 1, I doubt that his decision to remove the "deletionist" userbox was accompanied by any improvement in his attitude toward the project. I'm not impressed with his image uploads either. Do we really need a "fair use" image of to show our readers what three Melanesian nuns look like? What is your rationale? Does it help illustrate any concept in the Anglicanism article where it's used? Do you still think "personal and public non-commercial use" equals "public domain"? — CharlotteWebb 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response With regard to the deletionist userbox, I think my contributios speak for themselves. I believe that there is a lot of non-notable stuff posted on Wikipedia, but I believe that I am rigorous in following the guidelines and policies of WP in supporting or opposing individual deletions. With regard to images, the photo of the Melanesian nuns is from the Anglican Communion website. Given that it accompanied a press release, I believe it constitutes a promotional photo, which is a fair use rationale, and it helps illustrate Anglican religious orders. As for the Liard River photo, when I uploaded the image, my understanding was that WP is a "public, non-commercial website", in keeping with the permission granted by NRC, and the tag I used when I uploaded the image - which was when I was still a fairly green editor - reflected that belief. That tag has now been deprecated, and I realise that the image needs to be replaced with a fair use one. Fishhead64 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am not impressed with his non-neutrality. Naming convention for the Catholic Church vs. Roman Catholic is particularly glaring. Is there a rule on how you can request the removal of administrator privileges? Dr mindbender 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, I am a bit worried about his answer to question 1 looking at his contributions. While he seems to be okay with handling article deletions, I did not see any edits on WP:AN3. Also, I don't see him warning often when reverting vandalism. This makes me wonder how he would handle vandals if he had the tools. Would he use warns, go straight to blocking (fine if the vandal had just vandalized after final warning of course), or would he simply do nothing but revert the vandalism? Funpika 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I freely admit to some looseness hitherto in regard to warning vandals - frankly, I've found it much less trouble to do a simple revert of nonsense. As an admin, I would definitely be thorough and responsible in following WP guidelines by using the staged warning procedure outlined in WP:VAND. If memory serves, I have referred to vandals to WP:AIV in the past. Fishhead64 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, very experienced, also a member of the mediation-cabal and no issues with civility, basically a very good candidate. Neutral because answer to Q1 is slightly confused - would suggest clarifying. Addhoc 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it that "helping to manage and execute candidates" sounds confusing? Better wording would be "helping to manage and execute decisions relating to candidates." Fishhead64 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, I'm misreading what your saying, however, preventing vandalism isn't specifically a sysop chore and the 3RR noticeboard doesn't deal with vandalism. Addhoc 22:44, 12 April 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/Fishhead64&oldid=1144568811"