Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TShilo12

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.

TShilo12[edit]

Final: (57/4/3) ended 18:27 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs) – TShilo12 (also known as Tomer) has been with us for years, and in that time he has amassed thousands of edits (I dont know precisely as kate's tool is down), and created many articles related to Judaism. TShilo12 is a fine contributor, and a helpful one too. He is also an NPOV warrior of note in mid-east related articles. I believe it is high time he was awarded the mop. Banes 13:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Banes. I humbly and gratefully accept. :-) Tomertalk 15:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case Kate's edit counter never comes back to life, last I saw (a few days ago), my edit count was something over 7k, of which like half were to articles (which is what WP:1000 counts)... Tomertalk 16:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7245 total edits, 3426 in the mainspace, and as noted below, 2593 total are in one of the Talk: namespaces. [1] --Interiot 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominator Support. Banes 13:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. D'oh!, assumed he was one. Strong support, lots of great contributions, thoughtful and intelligent edits. Will be a great admin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good User --Aranda 56 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good edits, good answers. -- DS1953 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Well deserved! Ramallite (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support and I also thought he was an admin.--MONGO 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. KHM03 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hell yes!!! BD2412 T 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; seems an excellent Wikipedian the few times our paths have crossed. I feel confident he would make a great admin. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strongest Support Possible. He does a lot of work, and so what if a lot of edits are to user talk? He still passes the bar in other spaces, what, would you support if he had 500 LESS talk edits? User talk edits means he interacts well. But anyways why'd he wait so long to run? He supported my RfA 4 and a haalf months ago and he already had 4000 edits! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, with pleasure. A very good editor and a nice bloke. Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Tomer's definitely worthy. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support- JCarriker 00:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Banes is my new hero, and if he says so... plus, Tomer is a great editor. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, clearly. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. User is a longtime and valuable contributor, and, after all, adminship should be no big deal. Crotalus horridus 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support good editor --rogerd 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support fine editor. Marskell 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Good editor, makes good use of Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Nice interactor (well at 95%). So I support. -- Svest 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]
  25. Strong support. Great editor, very considerate and funny, willing to seek compromise, and always able to lighten a tense atmosphere. He'll be a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Great contributor all around. HollyAm 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, a fine editor who collaborates well with others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems to be quite reasonable and mop-worthy. Carbonite | Talk 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Have seen some great contributions in discussions and in implementations. jnothman talk 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. SupportGood editor will make a good admin.--Dakota t e 07:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support seems to be a good editor --Orioane 08:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I have known Tomer since he came upon the scene, even though we do not agree about everything, nevertheless he has vast knowledge about many subjects. He is erudite and makes working on articles an enjoyable experience. IZAK 10:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per nom. Izehar (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks to have a good interaction with the community. Can not see a reason to oppose but, I see quite a few reasons to support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. One of those 'I thought he was an admin' cases, at least for me :) Mop'n'bucket power to him!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Who? Oh, Tomer! Definite support then! the wub "?!" 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Plenty of talk page interaction, and uses edit summaries.--Alhutch 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, likely to do good work. From what I remember, a little too much tendency to stir shit up for the heck of it on talk pages (I hope that's not a case of mistaken identity in my saying that), but I don't see that as having a bearing on being an admin, since none of it has been meanspirited. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Much good work already, more to come I'm sure. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Good user who could well benefit from the mop and bucket. Ambi 11:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A fine editor who actually explains what he is doing on the talk pages. gidonb 11:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Go for it D'n 13:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Fair and fine. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. Solid editor who has displayed a good sense of fairness in all situations I have observed. -- Olve 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support AnnH (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Gzuckier 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- Nahum 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - agree with those who thinks that discussing edits is a plus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support maayan 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose WTH Support I had to look too hard to find this user on the RFA page damnit!  ALKIVAR™ 09:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support - how'd I miss this before? Guettarda 17:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - keep up the good work! Dovi 18:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Free drugs! El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Most of your contribs are to user talk pages.Chaz 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very odd reason for opposing... NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Potential for abuse outweighs need. Rude and too closely tied to abusive wikiclique. Marsden 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. We don't need more admins. AfD's backlog is manageable - most articles that need to be deleted aren't so ugly as to be mission-critical, otherwise they'd have been speedied. Those that deserve to be kept can last a day or two with the AfD notice on them. Most uncaught vandalism would still go unnoticed even if every Wikipedian had the rollback button. Speedy deleting articles is not much of an issue - just tag and bag. The tagged articles are quickly deleted by our existing admins. 202.58.85.8 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --Orioane 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose—this is some incredible invective here, [2] as cited by Sjakkalle below. I had had no prior interaction with him at all, and I got hit with this flurry of personal attacks. A sample: "Yes, I've never interacted with you, and I should say, "Yes, I've never had the utter displeasure of having to interact with you, thank the good Lord."... but seriously. GET A LIFE." Everyking 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for reasons stated. I'm not sure this user is ready for admin status.Gateman1997 20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Gateman1997 Zeq 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. He'll make it anyway, but I'm still going to oppose based on the rude and offensive tone I see cited above and below. Proto t c 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The first time I saw Tomer it was on the Administrator's noticeboard making unfair (or at least excessively incivil) attacks at Everyking [3] . I also have a certain feeling that Tomer was quite rude towards those he disagreed with. I see some improvement over the past months, but I will prefer to sit this out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The several incidents of incivility are a concern, and even when made apparently in jest (such as Tomer's recent comment re "hairy-chested Spaniards" on Spain's talk page), demonstrate some poor judgement on occasion. I'd also prefer to see less in the way of POV commentary on article Talk pages. However, Tomer's other work and interactions seem to be on the whole relatively ok, and has also shown willingness to mediate and be mediated. Hence the neutral vote for now.--cjllw | TALK 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I cannot oppose, for the user's mass of edits and vocal support from respectable parties indicate he is generally of good character. However, I join with Sjakkalle in expressing concern over incidents of incivility. I urge Tomer, especially in his capacity as an admin, to exercise calmness and caution in making any analysis. Xoloz 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Because you mentioned your edit count above, but mainly to test out my new tool, you have 7223 edits. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only registered users can vote on RFA,s. Unregistered ip users must use the comments section on RFA's.--Dakota t e 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, anything else aside, that rant I cited in my vote is totally unacceptable. If he would apologize, and someone could vouch that he's behaved himself since then, then I could be convinced to withdraw my vote, but until then, absolutely not. I can't believe anybody is voting for him, unless they're unaware of the rant. Everyking 11:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • James, I registered my disgust with you on WP:ANI at the time because it's genuinely how I felt. I showed up on the page in question because of the conflict to which I referred in my response to question #3 here, and found your unqualified (by your own admission) support of incivil contributors to be counterproductive, inasmuch as you expressed (as anyone reading the full page upon which you offer the diff can determine for themself) support for basically "bad editors". Yeah, I readily admit, I believe there are "bad editors", in fact I'll go so far as to admit, I believe there are useless editors. At the time, I felt you were supporting, by your questioning of those opposing them, such editors. I readily admit that I am quicker to relegate such questionable editors to the garbage heap than you are, but have long since gained an understanding of your caution prior to doing so. I didn't apologize at the time, because I felt to do so would have unnecessarily dredged up what I regarded as insignificant wounds. (I reviewed, in detail, the many discussions between you and respected editors opposing your views, and decided the best approach was to just "let it go"...which is why I didn't respond to your opposition vote earlier. (In your case, I figured, let sour beans rot, and let the world move on"...) I realize your activities on WP extend far beyond your activities on WP:AN/I, as a result of my long-since subsequent study of your contributions. I wouldn't presume to lie and say that I'll agree with you nor, neither in the future, on how is or even what is a "vandal" nor on how to deal with a vandal, as defined by either of us. That said, however, I don't think that WP is strengthened by support or disapproval of a candidate based upon whether or not s/he'll agree with you on every or any particular issue. All of that said, you are correct to assert that the language I used in my initial interaction with you (which wasn't actually with you, but with the community as a whole, which probably makes it even worse), was completely inappropriate, and for that I apologize. Not only for my initial reaction, but for the approximately dozen responses I made wrt you that day on WP:AN/I. I realize the inappropriateness of my contributions during that rather vociferous exchange (in which, as it happens, you participated as I recall, not at all)...but feel at the same time that it's rather unfair to use that particular WP talk exchange as the one and only reason to oppose my nomination for adminship. Yes, I concede, I was incivil, but that can easily be dealt with if you're truly offended via User_talk (which you never did). At the same time, I feel, as I mentioned in my response to generic Q#3, I've figured out a rather effective method for avoiding becoming entangled in unnecessary irrelevant disputes (and no, by that, I'm not calling you a troll...just using Q#3 as a metaphor...) in the future. If you're willing to forgive my transgression, so be it. If not now, I hope you'll be willing to do so at some point in the future. Tomertalk 11:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thank you. I withdraw my vote, then. Everyking 11:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I anticipate helping with all sysop chores, to the fullest extent my WP time allows, especially upon specific request of other users. It's one thing to say "I want to help clean up the backlog" (who doesn't?!), but in my view, monitoring vandalism, pernicious or relatively "harmless", is ever-so-slightly more important. As an example of administrative functions I would have performed previously had I had the tools, I have helped with the backlog on VfD/AfD before, closing clearly failed deletion nominations, and witnessed some pretty clear deletions that were quite overdue that I would have liked to have been able to delete, not because I'm particularly power-hungry, but rather to help release the time required for an(other, if I am promoted) admin to have done other things. As someone said to me recently..."So many articles, so little time!" I acknowledge that a backlog exists and am more than happy to help relieve what additional parts of it adminship permits me to. Reverting vandals is a more urgent task though, as is blocking persistent vandals. Reverts any registered user can do, with or without a "revert" button, but blocking persistent vandals and/or v/protecting vandalized/contentious articles requires additional buttons (or increased axs to a different part of the WM server system than non-admins have).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The two that come immediately to mind are fixing up Isla Sala y Gómez with Ratzer and my ingenious solution to the editwar at Lincoln. As small a thing as it was, another thing that I regard with particular satisfaction was the small rôle I played in overcoming the conflict at Nablus several months ago. Why? For Sala-y-Gómez, just look at what we did in under a week! (An amazing example of collaboration, in my humble estimation...keep in mind, this article is about a miniscule speck of rock, and how little has been able to be done to improve the article in the 4+ months since then.) For Lincoln, the 4 or 5-way editwar there had reached the point where it was the subject of an (abortive) RfC and with about 2 hours of work, I took it and turned it into something that the warring parties not only agreed to settle with, but liked better than the versions they were fighting over (cf. the long discussion on Talk:Lincoln). Not tooting my own horn, just saying, those are some of my more satisfying experiences on WP. The dispute on Nablus was satisfying because a few editors (including me) managed to hash out a compromise in a POV-based edit war. So, I guess, overall, what makes me happy is consensus-driven well-written neutral (i.e., NPOV) articles. Tomertalk 17:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Other than the content dispute on Apartheid (well catalogued on Talk:Apartheid and here), I have not, to my recollection, ever been in any editing conflicts on WP, except in order to try to help resolve editing disputes. If my memory is failing to serve me on that matter, I apologize...clearly I didn't regard any other conflicts to have been sufficient to warrant significant notice. That said, several other users have caused me stress on talk pages and several areas of pediaspace. At first I dealt with it rather poorly, trying unsuccessfully to reason with them. That was before I read WP:DFTT. Since then I've done my best to avoid this unhelpful practice. Unfortunately, trolls don't wear flags saying "I am a troll", so you have to sort of feel these things out... the trick is to not let yourself become embroiled in an inextricably toxic argument. As the adage says, "Never argue with an idiot...they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." The trick is to realize when you've been dragged down and then figure out how to extract yourself from the discussion as gracefully as possible (without resorting to ad hominem attacks or post hoc ergo propter hoc... although that can be fun :-p). Tomertalk 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TShilo12&oldid=1089910318"