Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Prolog

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.

Prolog[edit]

Final (58/0/1) Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 21:18:19 UTC

Prolog (talk · contribs) - I hereby present Prolog for your consideration. Prolog has been steadily working to improve and maintain the encyclopedia ever since he started editing in last July. In addition to his article contributions, such as Henri Toivonen and Larin Paraske (more examples on his user page), he has worked tirelessly on maintenance tasks such as vandal fighting. Prolog has also participated in deletion discussions and other Wikipedia processes and has, in my experience, always been civil and constructive in discussions with other users. I believe he would make good use of the tools. KFP (talk | contribs) 11:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Prolog 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As I have a good amount of experience in vandal-fighting and speedy deletions, I intend to concentrate on WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. I also think I have a good grasp on our naming conventions and enjoy moving pages, so I would be helping at WP:RM by completing uncontroversial move proposals. Other than those, I will occasionally help out at CAT:PROD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In mainspace, I usually concentrate on certain topics that I feel are not yet well covered, such as currently rallying and 70's Italian "genre films". I do sometimes enjoy trying different areas too, as with Larin Paraske, mentioned by KFP above, and Tammerkoski. Of individual articles, I'm happiest with my work on Henri Toivonen, which was promoted to GA and might make it to FA-level, if it was thoroughly copyedited. Outside main namespace, I have worked on several WikiProjects. I helped in starting up the projects Finland and World Rally, and am quite active in Films and Metal.
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 don't really get stressed while editing. Disagreements in Xfd discussions and talk pages are probably my biggest "conflicts", although I remember a January case when I noticed that 18 bands related to Southern Lord Records were requested for speedy deletion. I contested applying A7 on these and everything was later solved in Afd's, but I must admit that I jumped to conclusions instead of properly assuming good faith. However, I think I have improved on this aspect since then.
Optional questions from MacGyverMagic.
4. It's quite coming for the time of administrators to be taken up with protections, blocks and deletions. How do you plan to avoid them overshadowing your article creation?
A: I'm not too worried about this, because I enjoy participating in many types of tasks and creating articles from scratch is quite different from most other work that I have done so far. It might take some time to find a balance of sorts, but I have a long list of articles I want to create, expand or just edit, and that will keep me busy too. Prolog 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. What do you consider to be your weak points?
A: In content writing, I have a tendency to start too many projects, while I should be concentrating on bringing more work online instead. A weak point related to admin work could be my lack of experience with images. Although I have uploaded many, tagged a few for deletion and know the basics of the related guidelines and policies, if I would get interested in helping with the image backlogs, I would probably have to do quite a bit of studying first. Prolog 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Naconkantari:

6. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - From what I have seen of this editor on this project, they would make a great use of the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Have seen this editor at work in many different areas. Reports at AIV are always spot on (almost to the point where you don't have to check whether they have been warned appropriately, because you know they have). Comments at AfD show a great awareness of current policy, and are always well documented. And this editor can write articles and participate in various projectspaces. This is almost a co-nom, heh? – B.hotep u/t• 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Looks fine. Good luck with the RfA. Adambro 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - When did you get desysopped?! I honestly thought you were an admin already!! Anyway, a very firm editor, will use the tools extremely well. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks like a good editor to me. Acalamari 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Prolog has been around long enough to understand policy and to demonstrate his understanding of policy. He has done just that. An ability to program in logic will aid him in making wise decisions as an admin. He is a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support- has certainly been around long enough to know the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and a well-rounded editor. Good show. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Prolog looks like a good candidate to me, no worries here. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No doubt he'll use the tools wisely. --Slowking Man 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I echo the others' comments of support and agree with them. Captain panda 21:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like he would make a very good admin. -Mschel 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support a prolific and positive contributor to the project. The Rambling Man 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 'Support' :- 'Excellent candidate', 'No problems'. 'Excellent candidate' :- 'Civil', 'Policy understanding'. 'Policy understanding' :- 'Spread of contributions', 'Wise judgment on XfDs'. ?- 'Support'. Yes Gwernol 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Hmm, if you're active in four Wikiprojects, does that mean you have a Wikiproject endorsement forthcoming? Now why would I be saying that? :). Anyway, no problem. YechielMan 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support He looks like an excellent candidate. — Wenli 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support. I've seen him around, and he's a very strong contributor, has a level head, and would make an excellent admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Although 17,000 edits seems a bit low... :) Prolog is an excellent contributor and can be trusted with the sysop tools. — Scientizzle 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support superb candidate.-- danntm T C 01:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, in return for Prolog's prolific support of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Just wanted to point out that while Prolog's prodigious edit count is appreciated, other admin candidates shouldn't feel a need to have anything like this many edits before being considered. Most of these edits are automated. While these are helpful in demonstrating knowledge and dedication, the smaller core of edits that show personal thought, judgment, and communication skills are what's most essential. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tuki totta kai.--Húsönd 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I support the candidate's request. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Very impressive record all around. Sandstein 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Another one I thought was an admin already. Awesome. Moreschi Talk 07:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - this is an easy decision. - Richard Cavell 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Terence 11:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support the quality of Prolog's work is that of an admin. Will do well with the tools. —Anas talk? 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Signs point to yes. >Radiant< 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Looks to be a model user, with a truly amazing amount of edits amassed in a short period of time. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per more than adequate experience. Addhoc 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I have nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools. Michaelas10 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. This user has been here long enough that I do not require WikiProject endorsement to tell me how he will handle the tools. Although the 7 image talk edits is worrying. ;) – Riana ऋ 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom. I've seen this user around a fair bit on RC Patrol and he obviously wouldn't be one to abuse the tools. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. Seems a fine candidate for the tools. -- Pastordavid 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support- Has a good record in Wikipedia and would make an excellent admin Thunderwing 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support -- Gogo Dodo 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I honestly can't think of anything to write that hasn't already been written above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: Has experience, seems civil, and deserving of the tools. I see nothing bad. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per answers, comments above, candidate's overall record. I note the absence of any opposition to date. The rationale for the neutral commenter's "withholding of support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. I strongly deprecate the practice of thrusting individual RfA candidates into the middle of larger debates about RfA reform and related issues, which inevitably will just make the RfA process even less appealing than some candidates find it now. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support John254 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I've seen Prolog around- appears he has done good work and has the necessary experience. No issues that I can see. WjBscribe 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support His answers to the questions and some discussion on our talk pages convinced me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Sure. Seen him around and I kinda thought that he was one. Don't see any reason to hold back. - BanyanTree 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support A.Z. 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, the endorsement swung it. --kingboyk 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Happy to have as admin with or without a path running down the middle to give the two-tier effect.--Alf melmac 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --dario vet (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. ElinorD (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. -- Y not? 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. No obvious problems; withholding support pending an endorsement from a WikiProject. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Michaelas10 14:58, 25 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/Prolog&oldid=1145835514"