Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor

The Random Editor

Voice your opinion (talk page) (31/0/0); Scheduled to end 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Random Editor (talk · contribs) - It is a honor to present to the wikipedia community The Random Editor. He has been with us since March of 2007, and has accumalated approx. 5200 edits. He has been very active at the Help Desk and reference desk. All though he tends to do gnomish work such as sorting, vandalism reverts, and welcome messages, he has a clear understanding of the policies, shown in various locations, such as Afd. We can also see his devotion to the project by creating the Portal:Roman Empire single handedly. His contributions should show better than I have described this hard working editor. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman: Hi, me again with yet another guy I think would be great for adminship, The Random Editor. I asked him about a month ago, and found out that I was adding my name to a list of a bunch of others who wanted to nominate him. Of course, this group of people wanting him to be an admin is well-deserved. For those concerned about edit count, he's got 5k edits spread out across all namespaces (Including portal talk :P). In all interactions I've seen or had with him, he's been courteous, thoughtful, and eager to make this encyclopedia better. He also helps out at the help desk, to reprove both above points. Not sure what else to be said, if you've seen him around you know what I'm talking about, he'd be an asset to the admin team. Wizardman 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Húsönd: The Random Editor is a very fine candidate for adminship. For a long time I have witnessed his dedication to Wikipedia and his willingness to learn how to be helpful in many different rooms of this house. Just to mention a few of his achievements, he is an excellent vandalfighter, a frequent presence at WP:XFD and he has created Portal:Roman Empire (which I believe is striding on the path to featured status). Random is a very trustworthy, friendly, experienced and communicative user, and would definitely keep up his already excellent work if given access to the admin tools. Húsönd 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Screw this, I'm nomming even if you can't wait for me, from Dihydrogen Monoxide (pre-written, for less contextual meaning!): It is with great pleasure that I present The Random Editor for your viewing pleasure. If the last few words of that sentence excited you in non-wikipedia ways, you should probably turn away now....

Now, before I go on, I must stress that Husond and me take RfA nominations very, very, seriously. That’s why we’re betting on which nomination is sexier; mine or his (feel free to take your pick whilst commenting in the RfA)! Husond mentioned all of his adminship criteria; excellent vandalfighting, great participation in admin areas, etc., in his speech, and now we will discuss my admin criteria. 28% sexier, guaranteed!

My criteria are brutal, oh so brutal. Amazingly, however, The Random Editor has surpassed them with ease. Basically, they are; a kickass signature, a groovy persona, and an amazing username. Think about it; could you trust an administrator named “Jimmy Wales” (not even going by the nickname of “Jimbo” is enough here), whose signature is simply “Jimbo Wales?” I’m not sure about you, but such a candidate would seem far too untrustworthy in my eyes.

On the other hand, The Random Editor meets all of my criteria much more successfully then Jimbo does. He has a non-default signature. In fact, his signature doesn’t even have the default font (ooh boy, I can spell a [[WP:100⁹⁹]] here). He also has a creative username, and one that summarises him perfectly. He’s an object, so the “The” is appropriate. Like all human life forms, his behaviour is not 100% predictable, so the “Random” is appropriate. And he edits Wikipedia, so the “Editor” is appropriate. Since he meets my criteria, it would be impossible not to nominate him, so here he is, the tastiest thing since Jimbo-jam on jelly beans - The Random Editor! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Beat THAT, Husond :P

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nom and thank Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond for their well written noms. Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate Optional Statement: I would like to thank all of you who participate in my RFA no matter what way you go. Just remember I don't have as much time as you do so don't get upset at me if I don't answer your question immediately. I will answer it as soon as possible. Happy Editting, Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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 do you intend to take part in?

A: If I’m promoted, I would like to try to become involved in several admin related activities. I would probably be the most actively involved would be at WP:UAA. I’m currently quite active at WP:UAA where I report WP:U violations and comment on questionable violations. I have been around that noticeboard enough to know that backlogs there are not uncommon, so I feel that this would be my primary administrative task. Dealing with reports at WP:AIV, Deleting pages that meet WP:CSD from C:CSD, and semi-protecting pages that have been excessively vandalized would probably take up the rest of my admin related work on Wikipedia.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I would like to say first of all that I feel my most rewarding edits are those at the Help Desk and helping out new users. As stated by Hirohisat and Husond, I created and maintain The Roman Empire Portal, which I believe is nearing feature status. I unfortunately have to say that I have not been the greatest article writer there is. However, I'm working the Bank of New York Mellon article which I have turned from being a stub into the beginnings of a future WP:GA. I have been quite a active unconstructive edit reverter, something that many editors avoid since it is less clear cut the vandalism. Overall, I quite pleased with the majority of my edits.

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: Conflicts, yes unfortunately I have been involved in some. Perhaps, the "worse" one I have been involved in was one concerning User:The way, the truth, and the light's username. The initial discussion can be found here. After that, I suggested that we bring it to WP:RFCN, as we did, and that was the real beginning of my mistakes. Well first of all the username was allowed, as it should have been. Second, I did not WP:AGF, quite the opposite, I WP:ABF. I also violated WP:CANVASS, and also WP:BITE. It was overall, a very depressing experience for me. However, it taught me the real meaning of a violation, and also has helped me down the road with other conflicts which I have handled much more appropriately.

Optional question from Phoenix 15

4. An AFD has been open for six days and a fifty users have voted delete, while non have voted keep. The article in question is definitely notable (A capital city , for instance) and meets no criteria for deletion. In your opinion, should the article be deleted or kept? (I know this is never going to happen but I would like your opinion)

A. Nice question Phoenix 15. Well first of all, a admin would have to look into who was !voting delete. Was it a bunch of new accounts. In that case I would suspect we had a case of Sock-puppetry on our hands. Also, In my opinion this would have been closed from the start as Speedy Keep by some other admin. However, to answer your question if all the editors were legit, and there reasons sane, and they were not making a point, I would have to say that I would keep it.

Optional question from Spebi

5. Why did you think that having 37 edits to a particular article will gain you "some opposes" on an RfA? ( [1] ) Do you think that having 32 edits to a different article will affect the outcome of this RfA?

A: I think it potentially could. I have seen it bring up a few oppose votes such as at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magnus animum. I don't personally vote oppose for that reason, but other editors have been known to do that before. Hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

Question from Majorly

6. I was looking at your earliest edits [2] and was wondering if there was a reason you joined and immediately knew what infoboxes/edit summaries/categories/redirects were. Unlike most new users who are very cautious, you seemed to dive right in and know things it takes more time normally to learn. Have you ever edited Wikipedia prior to creating this account?

A: Yes I have as a matter of fact. I previously used the account User:The Random Editore which was originally titled King of Anonymity. If you wonder why it was editing articles at the same time I was editing under this account, it was because when I was teaching my sister the ropes and so he could see how to do it I logged her on under my previous account. She did not enjoy wikipedia as much as I did and made the decision not to edit anymore, so I decided to change the name of my old account to The Random Editore so I could use it for security purposes. I know it seems like a crazy answer but it is what happened.

General comments

• See The Random Editor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for The Random Editor: The Random Editor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support I really did think this user was alredy an administrator. He is always civil and has displayed excellent judgement. He does not have the super-high edit count of some admins but I really don't see any reason to oppose him--Phoenix 15 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Might as well throw my support in early, since he should accept momentarily. Wizardman 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I don't usually agree with TRE, but I've never seen a post of theirs that I couldn't understand a sound reasoning behind — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nom.--Húsönd 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I have run across him/her a few times, and have found nothing wrong. A good, all-round editor with participation right across the project. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
6. (Edit conflict)Finally! I've been waiting for this for a while. I thought you already had an RfA though. Whatever. TRE has been a pleasure to work with closely in creating the CVU taskforce. No reason at all to believe he will abuse the tools. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support good candidate, although I don't know you, other than coming across your comments in random discussions. --Isis4563 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I don't normally participate in RFAs but this is a user I have come across many times across Wikipedia, particularly in counter vandalism and I am confident that TRE would use admin tools sensibly. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Good candidate. Majoreditor 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Absolutely Excellent candidate for the admin tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Wait a sec... - I honestly thought he was an admin! Random is very sensible and I'm sure he will do a fine job! Good luck! Neranei (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
12. I thought you were already an admin as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Doubly conflicted support – I know Random and he is the embodiment of the temperament and judgment needed to be an administrator. Good luck! —[[Animum | talk]] 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Strongest support ever possible - the man has got excellent communication skills, and always helps out new users. He is also active in admin-realted areas. Good luck :-) --Boricuæddie 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support This user deserves adminship. If I could, I would love to co. nom., but anyway, I wish you luck!! I also beat a few of the noms. Pat^{Politics rule!} 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Been waiting for this Rfa...of course! Jmlk17 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong support A very civil and friendly user who would never abuse the tools and would certainly make a great admin. ♠TomasBat 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - always impressed by 'pedia builders. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak Support, but a support nonetheless. Good luck mate! · AndonicO ^Talk 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    Do you have any specific concerns with the user? --Boricuæddie 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, but only minor things: no FA, quite new, and a bit of negative over-enthusiasm in the username dispute with The way the truth and the life. Aside from that he's a great editor, which is why I supported. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

20. Support - good contributions, civil editor and always helpful to others. Knows policy well. Yup! - Alison ☺ 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support No reason not too. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - I'm going to support. Good editor, a lot of experience. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Strongest support ever - Hell, School is evil. I'm supporting so late because of that; and as nom. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Damn! That's another editor I forgot to nominate! bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support To put in short, TRE is a great Wikipedian. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Weak Support ~ Wikihermit 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Weak Support - low project namespace edits concern me a little - but until someone points out a substantiated reason why not I'll go with support. --Ben^complain 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Supoort An excellent contributor, vandal fighter and civil editor. I see no reason to oppose. Random deserves an admin position. GeneralIroh ^{(Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.)} 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Seen him around, consistent, civil, helpful, lots of editing goodness; I think he'll make a fine admin. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Well DUH! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
31. This user absolutely deserves the mop (I swear I thought he already had it... I don't know much, do I?) and H2O's nomination absolutely is sexier (sorry, Husond). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman (talk • contribs) 04:54 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

While I think your a great, civil user, you don't seem to understand wikipedia's fair use policy.[3]. Neutral for now. ~ Wikihermit 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How? This one's fine. So is this one, and this one, and this one, etc. Which one of these images cause you to believe he doesn't understand the fair use policy? --Boricuæddie 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, Wikihermit, I find it particularly amusing that this comment was made, considering you've just nominated Betacommand and been far more forgiving in that review. I've had a look over those diffs and the contribs and can't really see any concern at all. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Which of those logos serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? None of them. Not that I think this in itself is reason to oppose, but the rationales are clearly insufficient when it comes to criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. Picaroon (t) 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah OK - I can accept that. I just suppose for me at least, if I would otherwise be putting in a comment in support, I'd not really put in a Neutral one instead just because of this. Wikihermit is well entitled to that choice however. I retract my comments. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Picaroon; none of the images actually provide any information about why the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic"; a majority of the images are logos, and I can't see how including a logo in an article increases understanding of the topic at all, unless the logo has been heavily criticised, or if the logo was under some controversy, or was offensive in a certain country or something similar. Sebi _[talk] 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) The images' fair use rationales are fine. Read WP:FURG#Necessary components; the logos are used to illustrate and identify the main subject of the articles. Again, they're fine, IMO. --Boricuæddie 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The one I saw failed to identify which article the image is allowed in, among criterion 8. Anyways, changed to weak support after being mobbed by the RfA crew. ~ Wikihermit 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We're the RfA crew now... thanks. Sebi _[talk] 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute Wikihermit, are you going to cross out your neutral. If not, I understand your concerns and respect your decision. I will answers those questions shortly Spebi and Majorly. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'm part of a "crew" now. AGF, 'hermit. Just trying to make sure we don't make the wrong choice here... --Boricuæddie 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly not part of any mob. We must plot his downfall tonight. Entirely kidding of course, your opinion is your opinion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)