Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiFanatic

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.

WikiFanatic[edit]

Final count: (58/12/0) ended 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFanatic (talk · contribs) – (formerly known as WikiFan04) has been a Wikipedian for almost two years now, and has shown he will be a good admin. Objections from his previous failed RFA have since been addressed. Unfortunately for all you editcountitis sufferers, editcount is currently down. Wikiacc (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (although this alternative gives a total combined edit count of about 1400 edits) --Wikiacc (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Wow. I got nominated. I accept! :-) --WikiFanatic

Also, to editcountitis people out there, I have more than 550-odd edits. Counting my edits as WikiFan04, my count is more around 1.3k (1,300).

Support

  1. Support, obviously pending answers to questions. NSLE (讨论+extra) 01:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You're not allowed to beat the nominator to it! (**blocks NSLE indefinitely**) --Wikiacc (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support of course. MONGO 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. This user has greatly improved as a community member and I think he's ready for the mop and broom. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good User --Jaranda(watz sup) 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good user, active on IRC and would make a good admin. Will be easy to contact when an admin is needed. I think WikiFanatic will make a really good admin. Have a look at WikiFanatic's contributions and you will find many reasons to vote support like me. Also it would help if WikiFanatic could delete pages as WikiFanatic is involved a bit with closing afd's --Adam1213 Talk + 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hey, he nominated me. One good turn deserves another. He's improved a vast amount over the past few months, and he's always on IRC to help anyone who needs it. His only real weakness IMO is that he's too nervous, but after this start I think that'll be changing soon. karmafist 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse the admin toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --pgk(talk) 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support yeeeah. Grutness...wha? 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ayup. Good contributions. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support looking good, but ramp up the editing a notch would ya?  ALKIVAR™ 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. FireFox 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - ooh, how exciting! --Celestianpower hablamé 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support who cares about edit counts? Izehar 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Give that man a cigar! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. What the heck. You opposed me (the only one to do so), but Im not one to hold a grudge and I believe that you can do it. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I don't care how long he's been an editor or how many edits he has I have interacted with him quite a bit both on the wiki and on IRC and I trust him not to abuse the extra tools if given to him. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Merovingian 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Tedernst | Talk 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Everything seems in order ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support; Despite low edits, WikiFanatic has shown his dedication to the project, and improved significantly since the last time he was up for nomination. After talking to him on IRC, I have no objections to speak of. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:03
  26. Support. Never been a fan of editcountitis. Quality over quanity. --Martin Osterman 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ZOMGSupport —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 06:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, yup. -- RattleMan 07:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Definately. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support as per Ral315. Hamster Sandwich 21:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Robert T | @ | C 16:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Eh, sure. We had a long conversation on IRC about what he does, what he's done, and what he can do, and I'm persuaded. DS 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as a person, I know he can be annoying at times(especially on irc), but on wikipedia, He is perfectly capable of handling the admin tasks he's requested. Many of the oppose'ers are going on his edit counts or his actual edits. granted, they may not always be perfect, but for doing basic cleanup of people who put "OMG WHAT A FAG" on pages and closing AfD's I find him perfectly fit for doing so. --Appleboy Talk 05:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what? Did you just say "Many of the oppose'ers are going on [...] his actual edits?" Please see comments.
      brenneman(t)(c) 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support! Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Just saw how quickly he created the Wales interview transcript, his other contributions are good too. Jacoplane 23:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support. Contribs show no obvious signs of insanity, and reasonable judgement on AFD cases. Dedicated and enthusiastic, and not overly involved in controversy and so on. --Fangz 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. We're always in need of more young, knowledgeable, admins. Good times. --Liface 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - after a small interview with WikiFanatic, he appears to be capable of this administrator position. The best of luck to him. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. We need more admins, not less. —Guanaco 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. For a dedicated contributor to become an admin should not be a big deal. Stop worrying about it and be a good admin. silsor 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. WikiFanatic has improved a lot since I last looked over his contribs. WikiFanatic does have a few personal issues which have led to some issues relating to civility and interpersonal relations, but generally and for the most part he is a very good, well-meaning fellow, even though he does have (as we all do) our darker moments. Indeed, he has worked around those issues to an exemplary degree in recent times. He has, as evidenced by his contributions, done good work around the wiki on many occasions, and has more recently demonstrated a good level of responsibility and judgement. I do think that, since adminship is such a minor matter, it would be quite wrong to deny this user administrator privileges. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Looking over his contributions, looks like he makes good, helpful edits and would make a good administrator. --W.marsh 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. support, needs to RC patrol even more tho :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - no compelling reason to oppose. Lupin|talk|popups 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Dolpins 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak Support. I said I would support him several months later if he didn't flip out in the interim, and here we are. So... --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Definitely. KerathFreeman 06:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support He's a good user on the other wiki I go to. --Color Printer 21:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Same with me, good user on other wiki, awesome guy in general, very responsible..etc. Homestar Lover
  55. Support Strong edits, and same as the users above me. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Long history on Wikipedia, likely to use admin tools effectively. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. the wub "?!" 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, knowledgeable and helpful user, exactly what an admin should be. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 00:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The Ghost of Boothy. OOOOOOHHH!!!!
    lmao Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    damn someone beat me to it :(  ALKIVAR™ 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just plain disrespectful. Ral315 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody needs to grow a sense of humor...karmafist 18:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not like he is lying, Boothy's behavior toward Wikipedia and its contributors (including myself) was un ultraje!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, I removed the picture, since it's fair use only, and we have no legal right to post it here. Ral315 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
God, now you're resorting to legal threats in order to make Wikipedia a blander place. Way to go. karmafist 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a 'legal threat', any more than deleting copyright images or requesting fair use rationales are legal threats. We are not legally permitted to use fair use images on pages such as this, so could you please tell me what was so wrong with removing it? Raven4x4x 09:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A few things Raven
  1. That was ultimately put up there to help ease the nerves of the candidate, who everybody on IRC has learned is incredibly anxious about this. After that picture, he was not anxious anymore, or at least less anxious since he spit out his tea unto his leg and no doubt had 1st degree burns to deal with rather than feeling worried about what has largely become an honorary process except in cases where a candidate is obviously not qualified.
  2. If Ral had said "that breaks copyright under United States Code 'x'" or some International Copyright Treaty or something, I would have no problem. He didn't. I asked him on his talk page as well. Nada so far unless he responded there. I am not an expert on GFDL or CC or any of that, but if Ral is, I'd like him to enlighten the rest of us so he's not trying to pull a red herring so he can't say "Oh, that's copyright infringement" whenever there's something there he doesn't like, which seems to be anything joyful from my previous experiences with him. Being vague here is closer to censorship than trying to protect intellectual property
  3. Why is it a big deal otherwise? Several people laughed. Boothy was responsible for his own actions and eventually become an urban legend on RFA, and he no doubt understood the consequences of his actions since he had tens of thousands of edits before eventually getting an indef ban. That picture was not malicious, it was a joke at the expense of his WP:POINT vio.

Proto below has good advice at the end, but I detest situations where people try to fearmonger their viewpoint through (in this case with Ral and the copyright situation/morality police) If he explained the former and said something "I respect your opinion, but I ask you to please remove that picture", I'd do so. I'll wait a bit to see if this happens. karmafist 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And he just did #1 here while I was waiting. Thanks, Ral. Please, say what you said there off the bat in the future with similiar situations. Share your knowledge. karmafist 17:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Picture aside, contributions like the initial one above are both immature and petty. Again, just let things lie. Proto t c 14:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Karmafist for my rather terse comments, and further apologies for the lateness of this reply. I too should have pointed you in the direction of the appropriate rules, rather than simply assumed you knew them. Raven4x4x 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I could bitch and moan about how parody is covered under U.S Fair Use(which is true, to my understanding), but I stopped because getting into an argument with Ral and Proto about it. Arguments are generally unproductive, and especially here since my goal was to calm WF down and that didn't seem to work all that well. I prefer being constructive rather than argumentative when I can. You might want to check this in regards to it.karmafist 23:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - 1355 edits in over 18 months is not very much. I don't care if he's active on IRC. IRC is not Wikipedia. Proto t c 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - exactly what I was thinking, too little edits in over a year and a half. Quentin Pierce 02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The relatively low edit count relates to a period of about three months during my WikiFan04 days where I made practically no edits. This was because I was too busy in life to edit for a while. There's nothing I can do about those three months now. --WikiFanatic20:39, 1 December 2005 (CST)
    Furthermore, Wikipedia:Editcountitis states that "...it [edit counting] is not a reliable way of telling how experienced or worthy an user truly is..." It's true. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's 1355 edits in 15 months, which is still low. If judgements about someones suitability are being made via chitchat on IRC, I might start opposing more RFAs. Proto t c 12:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of policy is discussed on IRC, Proto. Not all of it is senseless, meaningless "chitchat". --WikiFanatic15:45, 2 December 2005 (CST)
    Have a look at the edits from the username that WikiFanatic used to use as well. Also I dont see any problem with that ammount of edits. 15 months is long enough --Adam1213 Talk + 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I just don't think he's ready yet. He's still going around with this "Well ... did ... to me, you should do ... to ...." stuff.. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nothing about my interactions with this user, who is an IRC regular, suggests that he is adequately prepared to handle the mop and broom. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having examined this user's contributions, they do not achieve the level required of adminstrators. For example, on History of Mississippi. While this was two months ago, and later edits show he now understands the basics, I am simply not seeing enough to convince me. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose. It feels to me like we are applying a lower standard to WikiFanatic because he is active on IRC. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but that feels really, really ethically wrong to me. We've rejected admin candidates with more edits and experience, and I feel like WF is getting a pass here because people like hanging out with him. We should judge people based on their contributions on the wiki, not based on whether we enjoy hanging out with them on a chat system. Collegiality is important, but I don't see the standard being reached here. Sorry. Nandesuka 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiacc didn't nominate me because of IRC. And if you look at my answers to the questions, I didn't mention IRC. I've created over 20 articles, have reverted vandals, and have patrolled RC in the past. WikiFanatic 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to mention it, but I did look at your answers to the questions. They were very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very short. Nandesuka 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "What Tony Sidaway said." J. Jones 16:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs)
    What interactions, MARMOT? The ones where you called me a "gay boy fag"? WikiFanatic 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "No comment." MARMOT 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's close to the only interaction we've had, MARMOT. WikiFanatic 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to lack of experience, needs more time. Silensor 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? I had 3 months and about 1050 edits when I became admin. I'm doing fine. I agree with not making him an admin, but he has plenty of time and edits. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Clearly a well-meaning and enthusiastic contributor, but unfortunately a bit unpredictable. The bulk of my experience with WikiFanatic has occurred on IRC, from which he is regularly banned for being a mild pest. I have no doubt that he has the potential to make a fine administrator, but he seems not to have reached that point yet. — Dan | talk 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as per Phroziac. FreplySpang (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per brenneman. -- JamesTeterenko 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not enough edits. And IRC is NOT Wikipedia. Probert 12:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral for now. Despite low edits, WikiFanatic has shown his dedication to the project, and improved significantly since the last time he was up for nomination. But I'd like to talk to you on IRC sometime this week before I support. Ral315 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to support, see above. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • As noted, Wikifanatic was formerly known as WikiFan04. The change to a different username was not done using change username functionality though, so if the edit counter tool comes up you may think Wikifanatic only has 594 edits. This is erroneous. Wikifanatic+WikiFan04 edits = 1355, and he's been editing since the ides of March, 2004. Maybe he's the soothsayer? :) --Durin 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Etu Brute, thus dies Caesar :) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFanatic says: "Everyking's shaking his rattle!" [20:08], #wikipedia J. Jones 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs) 20:12, December 4, 2005

  • Some caveats: First, I tend to be conservative when recomending someone for promotion, so my default position is oppose. Second, I try not to look at the other votes before I examine the nominee's contributions, prefering to make my own way. So that's exactly what I did here, began with oppose and looked for a reason to change it. When I then examined the support recomendations, however, I was a bit disturbed. Several mention IRC explicitly and one (as I've noted above) comes right out and says that they aren't going by "actual edits" of the candidates. This isn't intended to malign the candidate in any way, simply echoing Nandesuka's concerns. The mailing list isn't wikipedia, nor is IRC.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiFanatic, I'm noticing some support votes from editors who are not very active on Wikipedia (in addition to many votes from editors who are.) I'd like to know if you solicited votes on another wiki, a forum, or other website, and if so, could we have a links to places where you did this? I pass no judgments about whether that's inappropriate or not, I'm just curious to see how you framed the issue. Thanks, Nandesuka 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't solicit votes from anywhere. The editors are from another wiki (no, I'm not giving the link), but all I said was "I'm running for admin! Yay!" and they all vouched to support. I didn't solicit any votes. WikiFanatic 23:01, 6 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 would delight in helping out with closing out AfDs that have reached a verdict of "Delete" (I have already closed out some "Keep" discussions in my Wikipedia career). I would also appreciate helping to block vandals, and I might do some RC patrol.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm pleased in the articles I've created, such as WestCOT and Samkon Gado. I've also created a few as an IP (Kurt Busch, EA Sports and Hideki Matsui, and yes, I did create those.)
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.I have never been in a major edit conflict, other than possibly a few sockpuppet template reverts. I was in a minor one with Rktect, too, about rope stretchers, I believe.
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/WikiFanatic&oldid=1080286263"