Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Asturianu
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語 / Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kiswahili
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2, failed |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KimvdLinde}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KimvdLinde}} |
||
Request for adminship/lavakille |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 02:36, 2 June 2006
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
![]() | Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks. |
![]() | Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Add new requests at the top of this section.
Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.
Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.
Current time is 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (11/31/4) ended 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ynhockey (talk · contribs) – Ynhockey is a dedicated user, fights vandalism, and has contributed greatly to articles, making and contributing a great majority, especially to the Bleach articles. I would like to nominate him for an adminship position in light of his excellent work on wiki Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. – Ynhockey (Talk) 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support As nominator Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've thought Ynhockey should be an admin for ages. He is a skilled writer and an excellent editor, and willing to take leadership in a controversial situation but doesn't attempt to overly control things. --tjstrf 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Vitriouxc 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 5th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per tjstrf. Sunglasses 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Containment Unit 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]Yes. NSLE (T+C) at 20:00 UTC (2006-06-01)- Added by User:207.200.116.195 Naconkantari 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice amount of edits, although more portal edits would be good. ThetruthbelowChanged to Oppose Thetruthbelow(talk) 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(talk) 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tjstrf -- Tawker 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom --digital_me(t/c) 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Gurch 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support. Good user. DarthVader 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per above. --Haham hanuka 07:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no major problems.--Jusjih 09:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose I don't see anything special about this guy. Nothing he's done has impressed me enough to give him a supporting vote. --U-Two 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, Malformed RFA. Naconkantari 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Constructive criticism. Edit count and time with Wikipedia are good.
I see real potential for adminship in the future.I see some revert vandal edits. However, user needs to warn vandals as well. This educates the educable that they are not making constructive edits. It also helps other RCPatrollers gauge the extent of vandalism from a given user. I also would like to see reports to AIV. It is really pointless to revert vandalism without reporting to AIV as some vandals need to be stopped to protect Wikipedia and to save time spent repairing damage. BTW, you can have rollback without admin power by use of VandalProof. :) Dlohcierekim 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Struck one of my comments because of lack of understanding of copyright. :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- UMMMM?, Why does the "Oppose per image " comment now appear below my comments? They were about someone else's vote, that seems to have disappeared. I would never criticise based on an image in a sig. Just curious. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck one of my comments because of lack of understanding of copyright. :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Naconkantari, and image in signature. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oppose per image in signature? Isn't that rather, well, racist of you? --tjstrf 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Images should not be included in signatures because it places undue stress on the servers and increases page load time. Please review the guidelines at WP:SIG Naconkantari 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) He means the fact that he HAS an image in his sig, not that it's the Israeli flag. See WP:SIG. --Rory096 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have seen mixed reactions about small images in signatures and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't do much harm to have one. Considering it seems to be an important factor for you though, I have removed the image and will not add it back. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Ah, understood. I was thinking I might be seeing some of the worst bias on wikipedia yet for a minute there. --tjstrf 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this was removed here. --Rory096 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment Oppose per image in signature? Isn't that rather, well, racist of you? --tjstrf 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, mainly because of this page (mainly the copyvio and the unregistered users stuff) and the "Copyright paranoia" userbox. --JoanneB 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper JoanneB. "if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain" is NOT true, and admins should have at least some knowledge of copyright law, especially if they show an interest in involving themselves with copyright-related pages. --Rory096 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment although you're entitled to your opinion and I respect your vote, there have been RFA contributors who stated that what's written on the user page (i.e. the user's personal POV) should not have an effect on RFA as long as the user follows Wikipedia policy in his actual edits. A good example can be seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite, where the user had strong POV comments on his user page which was noted but most voters surmised that his edits did not exemplify this POV and therefore he was entitled to his opinion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been RFA contributors who have expressed otherwise. Non sequitur. -- Drini 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not your opinion, it's simply a factually incorrect belief on your part, and if you believe that, then why wouldn't you use it when dealing with copyright violations? --Rory096 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's a mistake to say the words 'public domain' (I guess it implies some sort of legal term, and as they say, IANAL), but I clarify on the page that I mean that unprotected information posted online can be used with citations. That has nothing to do with my editing habits on copyright violations however, and I'm fairly sure I understand exactly what Wikipedia does and does not allow in terms of copyright (recent related discussion). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contary, using anything that is copyrighted with just a citation is a copyright violation. Also, that discussion shows more about your lack of knowledge about copyright issues. Fair use can be applied to any image, it just depends on the circumstances in which it is used, and we do allow screenshots of television and films on Wikipedia. --Rory096 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (edit conflict) There is such a thing as holding an incorrect view or one that is contrary to wikipolicy, but at the same time understanding that you must support the policy even if you don't agree with it. (I was going to cite the Gin image discussion Yn just mentioned, but he already did) Could Yn provide additional evidence of cases where he has upheld policies that he states he personally disagrees with? An individual's disagreement is not in itself a problem, so long as they can keep their personal views out of their edits and administration. --tjstrf 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not just saying that he disagrees with policy, though. He's saying that any text or image on a website that is displayed publically is free to use as long as you cite it. He's saying that as a fact, not as an opinion. --Rory096 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's a mistake to say the words 'public domain' (I guess it implies some sort of legal term, and as they say, IANAL), but I clarify on the page that I mean that unprotected information posted online can be used with citations. That has nothing to do with my editing habits on copyright violations however, and I'm fairly sure I understand exactly what Wikipedia does and does not allow in terms of copyright (recent related discussion). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to strong oppose. Just saw the section in his "Wikimedia Gripes" page where he doesn't think anons should edit. --Rory096 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although you're entitled to your opinion and I respect your vote, there have been RFA contributors who stated that what's written on the user page (i.e. the user's personal POV) should not have an effect on RFA as long as the user follows Wikipedia policy in his actual edits. A good example can be seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite, where the user had strong POV comments on his user page which was noted but most voters surmised that his edits did not exemplify this POV and therefore he was entitled to his opinion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Dlohcierekim's comments above. --Wisden17 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes: "However, if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain.". No.--Sean Black 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose per JoanneB. Ardric47 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, IP forgery doesn't help, although granted it may not be your fault. NSLE (T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-06-02)
- I'm sorry, but I've got to Oppose this one for now. The IP forgery NSLE mentions isn't a great start (don't worry, this isn't a vote, the 'crats can check to see whose fault that is) but while admins don't have to be lawyers, they should know enough to at least make an attempt at determining if an article is copyvio or not. Public domain does not imply a legal term, it is a legal term in the same manner as Copyright. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that even if he didn't know it was a legal term, he explained what he meant (just free use with attribution), and it's still completely wrong. --Rory096 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Sean Black and Kylu. Jkelly 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Basic misunderstanding of copyright issues as here and in above discussions indicates other issues could be equally misunderstood. Tyrenius 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And the image in the signature still hasn't gone: Images of any kind should not be used in signatures. Tyrenius 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as the candidate doesn't seem to understand the copyright policy or at least the reasons for abiding by it. joturner 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, lacks of understanding of copyright issues. --Terence Ong 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Oppose because of copyright issues. Thetruthbelow
(talk) 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per copyright issues -- Tawker 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerned points. Computerjoe's talk 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kylu.--Joe Jklin (T C) 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeprimarily due to image in signature, images in signatures can cause problems for many other users if the server the image hosted on is "having problems". Willing to unnecessary impact on other users just for the sake of vanity or self preference is not a trait I support in Admins. Secondly due to the Copyright understandings outlined above by other users. blue520 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Moving to Neutral, image in signature has been removed. blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the orange colour comes from the formatting of Jklin signature.--blue520 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The initial copyright issue in itself wasn't too bad, but then to argue with a voter over it when you were wrong worries me. If you make a mistake you need to be reasonable about accepting that, and not dig your heels in. Captainj 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I think an admin should at least understand the basics of our copyvio rules, it's the sort of thing we have to deal with regularly. The more serious error, however, was arguing about it afterwards when he was clearly in the wrong; we have enough trouble as it is with admins who are unable to recognise their own flaws without adding another one. All this being said, I may well support in the future if Ynhockey demonstrates a better understanding of policy. Rje 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-compliance with WP:SIG. I don't like when people say, "Oh, it's just a guideline, I don't have to follow it." To which my response at Rfa is ... "Yeah, and I don't have to support you, either." --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per JoanneB and Rory; the level of policy understanding just isn't there and arguing in an RfA is incredibly bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs)
- Oppose per JoanneB. - FrancisTyers 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Copyright paranoia is a derogative term used by those who don't understand copyright (usually, misunserstanding the so-called "fair use"). Should such person become admin, he would likely interfere with keeping wikipedia safe in regards copyright issues. -- Drini 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Automatic Oppose. Ouw! That's never happened before. Ynhockey rejects some of the foundation issues at User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes. This is fine, you're free to do so. But of course you can't become an admin or even trusted user in a project you do not support. So I'm going to have to reject out of hand. Kim Bruning 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Looks like the user has contributed a lot to Wikipedia. However, I'm concerned about the comments on copyright violation. Admins are a type of ambassador for the project and comments as such I think could create a perception among the public that some amount of copyright violation is tolerated. Nephron T|C 03:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all above. Royboycrashfan
17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs to learn a lot about copywriting. DakPowers (Talk) 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sorry to be opposing someone who clearly is committed to the projeect, but its the little things like not warning users in addition to reverting vandalism and not having experience with some of the more basic policies. All of these things indicate a need for more experience in my mind; I look forward to supporting in the future. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral was oppose --blue520 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as I was involved in an argument with the User about copyright issues [1]. feydey 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I can't decide. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Policy issues obviously need attention, but I can't quite oppose, based on the candidate's other contributions. RadioKirk talk to me 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See Ynhockey's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Ynhockey Total edits 6135 Distinct pages edited 1705 Average edits/page 3.598 First edit 17:26, November 8, 2004 (main) 4667 Talk 502 User 320 User talk 136 Image 57 Image talk 1 Template 142 Template talk 16 Category 56 Category talk 2 Wikipedia 158 Wikipedia talk 73 Portal 1 Portal talk 4G.He 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Ynhockey (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 181 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 3, November, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 65.31% Minor edits: 95.39% Average edits per day: 20.13 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits): Article edit summary use (last 739 edits) : Major article edits: 99.06% Minor article edits: 97.34% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.56% (178) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 16.98% (849) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 49.02% (2451) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1440 | Average edits per page: 3.47 | Edits on top: 10.58% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 6.98% (349 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 75.1% (3755 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.94% (197 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 13.98% (699 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 74.52% (3726) | Article talk: 8.56% (428) User: 5.28% (264) | User talk: 2.56% (128) Wikipedia: 2.58% (129) | Wikipedia talk: 1.2% (60) Image: 1% (50) Template: 2.74% (137) Category: 1.08% (54) Portal: 0.02% (1) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.46% (23)
- See Ynhockey's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
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 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: Right now I sometimes patrol new articles and frequently remove vandalism from watched pages. If I become an admin, I hope to do this more and also patrol recent changes (rollback option will help more than current revert). Other than that, I plan to spend more time at the WP:HD helping new users, although that's not really a sysop chore.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Israeli Military Police, although it's unsourced, I took most of the info from the internal MP website which is on the army LAN. Also Arad, Israel (mainly the images in the article), Shinigami (Bleach) and a few others are my better contributions, so to say. They are contributions where I got out of the wikignome attitude and sat down to make something bigger for Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not displeased with minor edits either. Also check this page for a more detailed log of my contributions.
- 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 been in some conflicts over editing, in Machsom Watch, Arab citizens of Israel (formerly Israeli Arabs), and a few less notable cases. I feel that most users in these discussions (both my 'opponents' and 'supporters') acted in a civil way and although the consensus reached was always somewhat ambiguous, there were always a few principles about said articles we agreed on. Can't say it really caused me any stress. In the future I plan to do more thorough research in such debates, which is IMO lacking (from all sides). Granted, each of us generally comes up with some sources to back up our claims.
- 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (66/32/9) ended 14:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Siva1979 (talk · contribs) – An excellent contributor who has now been here for the magic six months that many people require, with approaching 10 000 edits. Siva is tenacious and has casued an explosion in the number of articles on soccer clubs; Siva has also developed the English football league system with impressive depth and dedication. I think this editor would make a great admin; the many barnstars on Siva's user page help show this more than anything else! As an English football fan I thought I'd step in front of the others who wanted to nominate and get in there first!
Siva has one previous RfA, from April 2006. This was nomianted by User:Tdxiang largely thanks to Siva's work on the SGpedian's noticed board. The nomination failed mainly due to Siva's inexperience. Robdurbar 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I co-nominate. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I, as his former nominator, co-nominate too.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Hand the mop over already I supported first --Mahogany 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's gained much experience since the last RfA. I think he can be more than trusted with the buttons -- Samir धर्म 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a lot more experience and could use the tools (having just come from a 150 page CSD backlog... we need people ... badly...) -- Tawker 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support looks like a comptetent and trustworthy editor - will be the same as an admin. --Bachrach44 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support. I have seen Siva do a lot of good work of football-related topics, I have absolutely no reason to believe the tools will be misused. Rje 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a great and constructive editor. --digital_me(t/c) 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Amazing editor & great guy. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - wonderful editor. Timing's a bit of a non-issue for me: he's (in my opinion) certainly worthy of the mop. --Celestianpower háblame 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted support last time, so I'll vote support this time too. Also, has plenty of portal talk edits. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Sam Blanning(talk) 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Moving to oppose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor, will not abuse his power, and a kind person. The Gerg 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A RadioKirk cliché support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ON WHEELS!! Helpful editor, constructive criticism. --Sunholm(talk) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't think of a reason why not. Clearly a good user who will use the tools for the good of the project. Redux 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --W.marsh 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason to think powers will be poorly used.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to oppose.Voice-of-AllTalk 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support will use the tools well. Rama's Arrow 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support despite the negative response to question 6, this user can easily be trusted. People shouldn't be expected to know absolutely everything there is to know as a new administrator, and new administrators have learning to do as well. This user can definitely be trusted and has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. It is also my opinion that lately administrator standards have become much too high, but that's another issue. I say hand him the mop. Cowman109Talk 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - A superb user. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Siva1979 has been pitching in for a while now. After gaining more experience since his first RfA, I believe that Siva is now better prepared and suited for a mop. --Jay(Reply) 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Great user and would centainly make good use of the new tools. G.He 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good reliable editor with significant contributions to Wikipedia in his fields of interest. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Super Ultra Mega Support He is the friendliest user I have ever seen, although he doesn't meet my usual nine months. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "useless" edits like the one found by Kusma shouldn't be a reason to oppose. At least the other user now knows that there are people in the Wikipedia community who are willing to help him out! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...one year later, when the issue had been fixed ages ago. Kusma (討論) 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "a good user". ;) —Khoikhoi 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yeh, this user should be admin :) --Osbus 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - very good editor abakharev 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Definitely. DarthVader 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, friendly and great user. --Terence Ong 04:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very good editor Bharatveer 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good Editor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not really convinced by any of the oppose reasons. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A dedicated, committed user across many areas of the project. Zaxem 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator --Robdurbar 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all above and nom. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Support. How's that for a vote of confidence? :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really Weak SupportI'll vote support, but the canidate better be good or I go to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsta-Easter-Bunny (talk • contribs)
- Support per nom. Good user, nice work. --Tone 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a great candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything indicates he would be a great admin.--Aldux 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pepsidrinka 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this time. I have some reservations about beliefs regarding Adminship but that's not enough for me to oppose. I've seen a lot of Siva and all communication seems positive and enthusiastic. That's more than the min requirement of civil and gets a support from me now. MLA 08:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I am a little concerned that Siva may not be fully up to speed in some important areas; but that is far outweighed by his willingness to listen and to be reasonable. I'd much rather have admins who made a few mistakes and learnt from them, than admins who only make one mistake but refuse to admit they are wrong. Good luck Siva. Captainj 10:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No significant problems with this candidate—sure, there's more to learn, but we all should be able to say that. RadioKirk talk to me 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because this user supported me in a previous nomination. Axiomm 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Would help WP with the tools. GizzaChat © 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mostly Rainy 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Despite some slightly controversial answers to the below questions, this user is excellent and will make a fine administrator. --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nominator. E Asterion u talking to me? 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Good Editor, will become excellent admin. - Holy Ganga talk
19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have interacted with this user on FAC before, and have had nothing but a positive experience. RyanGerbil10 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great editor, will be an asset with the mop. --james(lets talk) 10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Many excellent contributions. ImpuMozhi 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Adminship is not a big deal. I find some administrators whose contributions to articles have dropped significantly, I do believe that Shiva shall maintain a balance. I also believe that he shall not misuse the tools like some of the existing administrators have been doing to silence the voice and kill the new wikipedians before their take-off. --Bhadani 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent candidate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All experiences have been positive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Forceful support as co-nominator.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, active and helpful. PJM 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geo.plrd 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -Hanuman Das 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose - Too soon since last RFA. Otherwise, should be okay, and would support a future, well-timed RFA. NSLE (T+C) at 15:17 UTC (2006-06-01)
- Wait, so you mean if this was threee months later, you'll support? --Osbus 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose, I am also a bit turned off by completely useless edits such as this one. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with that edit? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably nothing, except that it shows he didn't check the post dates. There is a 2 month interlude between those posts. --tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is a 1 year and 2 month difference. AndyZ t 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably nothing, except that it shows he didn't check the post dates. There is a 2 month interlude between those posts. --tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with that edit? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- Overall a wonderful editor and good potential admin, but as one who would block vandals, would be hampered by scarcity (total lack?) of vandal revisions and reports to AIV. Otherwise someone I would gladly support. :) Dlohcierekim 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to Siva's answer to question 6. I can't see any justification for dodging process in this way. It is perfectly possible that on day 4 or 5 of an AfD nomination that has received nothing but 'delete' votes (at which point Siva says he would close the nomination and delete the article), someone may turn up new evidence or rewrite the article in a way that turns the nomination around. For example, Alice Barnham (AfD) was nominated on April 27 when it was a tiny stub. 3 editors opined for delete, 2 for merge and none for keeping. Another editor found evidence of notability on May 2nd (day 7), then massively expanded the article on May 3rd (day 8), and the article was kept. This is why we hold our fire on non-CSD articles for at least five days, even when consensus looks overwhelming. The sky is not going to fall tomorrow. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wish to thank you for pointing this out to me. I acknowledge that your opposing comments on this matter is totally justified. I will definitely take your comments under strong consideration if I am involved in an AfD process under the capacity of an admin. You are also right that it is possible that someone may turn up new evidence in the last minute to justify the existence of the article on Wikipedia. I have to admit that up till now, I did not consider this possibility. Thank You once again for pointing this out to me. It would only make me a better editor (or an admin if my nomination is a success) in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose responses to questions 4,5 & 6 don't convince me that policies and guidelines will take precedence over the editor's gut impressions. Also past RFA voting pattern concerns me. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The answer to Cyde's question about AfD appears to me to be wrong on approximately 4 seperate counts. -Splashtalk 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. He seems to be a good, maybe even great contributor, and we should all appreciate his presence here, but I wouldn't trust him as an admin. He seems a bit too hasty on his decision making. Also, he seems to think anyone nominated should become an admin unless they are an incorrigable vandal. --tjstrf 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Pete.Hurd and Cyde's questions. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Ral315 - although I do acknowledge he definitely is a friendly editor! That's not enough for me though, sorry. --JoanneB 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A good user, but perhaps not quite ready to be an admin, per Ral315's reasoning above. --Wisden17 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. A good and dedicated editor, but I think he needs a bit more time to understand some of the principles of Wikipedia. FreplySpang 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too soon after last RfA which was not a close call. Lack of discrimination (or excess desire to please) shown by numerous supports in other RfAs. Nice guy, but needs to develop strength of individual judgement. Tyrenius 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was disappointed by his responses to my question, particularly how he emphasized policy, process, and guidelines as more important than goals, when, of course, the goals are the most important things and the other three just help us get closer to those goals. Policy, process, and guidelines are meaningless if we aren't making progress towards our goal of building an encyclopedia. Also, he seems to think that Afd is a vote and that Afds can be closed at around three or four days time. I don't think this is a good idea ... either the Afd is closed within the first day because it meets or nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria or it should run for the full five days. And finally, this user's blanket supports of so many other requests for adminship leave me to question his motives; does he honestly believe that >90% of the candidates at Rfa would make good admins? All of these faults can be fixed in time as Siva gains a greater understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's inner workings and starts to more critically evaluate Rfa candidates, but for now, I must oppose. --Cyde↔Weys 03:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, I wish to thank you deeply for the reasons you gave on why you are disappointed to the answers I gave. Your comments would be taken into serious consideration. However, I wish to point out that I never view AfD as vote counting. If 10 incompetent users vote for an excellent article to be deleted and 2 excellent editors (based on the history and number of edits) vote to keep the article, I would most probably not delete it. The nature and type of users would be taken into consideration. Of course, if 10 excellent editors were to voice out their support for an article to be deleted, I would delete it as their voice carries much weight compared to newer editors in the project. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If 10 excellent editors vote to delete an article, and then one new editor comes and claims that he can verify the article's notability, and then makes edits to reflect this, which do you trust? Even if the other editors have much better edit histories, that doesn't mean they would necessarily know about every subject, and many new editors make geniune efforts to salvage articles, but due to their lack of "insider" knowledge (e.g. proper policies to appeal to) may be unsuccesful at convincing other voters to support them. Your personal judgment can still be a major factor, and there may be cases where even a supermajority of well intentioned editors turns out wrong. To compound the problem, the chance of a new editor knowing of the existance of the Deletion Review process is lower, and he may be marked as a vandal for recreating the page afterwards when he was editing in good faith. --tjstrf 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, I wish to thank you deeply for the reasons you gave on why you are disappointed to the answers I gave. Your comments would be taken into serious consideration. However, I wish to point out that I never view AfD as vote counting. If 10 incompetent users vote for an excellent article to be deleted and 2 excellent editors (based on the history and number of edits) vote to keep the article, I would most probably not delete it. The nature and type of users would be taken into consideration. Of course, if 10 excellent editors were to voice out their support for an article to be deleted, I would delete it as their voice carries much weight compared to newer editors in the project. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per all of above. Answers below and past RfA voting patterns reveal herd mentality. Two RfAs in five months since first edit is a sign of desperation. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Herd mentality? On the contrary, Siva1979 often votes support when no one else (or only a small number) of people do. DarthVader 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- His voting yes in the face of everyone else is itself a concern. Plus, the herd mentality referenced may be refering to the "yes" votes he has recieved, many of which seem to be some sort of fanclub he has. "He's a nice guy" is not really a valid criteria for adminship. --tjstrf 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, genuinely nice guys are highly unlikely to abuse tools, for one thing. It's a better indicater that edit counts, really, given how edit counts can be gamed easilly but many people simply can't pull off being friendly and helpful over a long period of time. But it takes meeting more than just one criteria, at least for my vote. --W.marsh 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose a nice person would be more likely to err on the side of caution in disputes, but nice is only a secondary characteristic that you should have. People who are nice and helpful already get rewarded by being more respected by other editors anyway, what we want for admins are people who can take responsibility and make accurate decisions. --tjstrf 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, genuinely nice guys are highly unlikely to abuse tools, for one thing. It's a better indicater that edit counts, really, given how edit counts can be gamed easilly but many people simply can't pull off being friendly and helpful over a long period of time. But it takes meeting more than just one criteria, at least for my vote. --W.marsh 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- His voting yes in the face of everyone else is itself a concern. Plus, the herd mentality referenced may be refering to the "yes" votes he has recieved, many of which seem to be some sort of fanclub he has. "He's a nice guy" is not really a valid criteria for adminship. --tjstrf 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Herd mentality? On the contrary, Siva1979 often votes support when no one else (or only a small number) of people do. DarthVader 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, don't feel comfortable giving adminship to someone who trots around Wikipedia talk:Did you know making out-of-date comments. Gives the appearance that he's trying to inflate his Wikipedia namespace editcount. That, plus the answer to Cyde's question 1. Kimchi.sg 09:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above; policy understanding should be well underway when applying for adminship. Shell babelfish 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per AfD answer. 5 rather than 3-4, unless it is a speedy; never delete if there is no consensus.Voice-of-AllTalk 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I don't care about featured articles (User:Stifle/No featured articles), but the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates to me a probable shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree with the supporters: he seems like a nice guy, and extraordinarily unlikely to abuse the tools. However, there are several indications of a lack of policy knowledge and lack of preparation for the difficult choices and strong stances sometimes required of admins. Answers to 4, 5, and 6 all concern me. Although I am impressed by his response to Sam Blanning's oppose above, I worry that there may be other critical issues that he hasn't thought of yet; thus it's best to take more time and learn more, I think. -- SCZenz 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning) concern me. Nephron T|C 04:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning). If an article is nominated for non-speedy deletion, why be so eager to delete any earlier? Without this impatience, I would have considered supporting.--Jusjih 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Cyde and Siva's answer to Q4. He's a very good editor, I would probably support him later, but not now. --Zoz (t) 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: answer to question 4 and practice of supporting nearly every RfA show an attitude toward adminship I cannot share or support, sorry. Jonathunder 02:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, great contributor but recent love-fest for all RfA nominees either shows excessive politicing or poor judgement + big enough mop and trigger finger concerns. Deizio talk 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per answers to Cyde questions. — GT 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. He needs more edits to actual articles. I went back more than a month before I could find an actual edit that wasn't to user space, Wikipedia space or a formatting edit in main space. Rebecca 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. -lethe talk + 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, shaky grasp of policy. Proto||type 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The answers to the questions show an arbitrary approach, rather than a thoughtful approach that understands consensus and policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, just like last time, it seems like just yesterday in fact. — Jun. 7, '06 [06:47] <freak|talk>
- Oppose. Per Pete.Hurd. —Ruud 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral, pending answer to question below. Dragons flight 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral has too low standards for sysopship. Computerjoe's talk 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What? This isn't an RfB, how are RfA "voting" patterns relevant to whether or not he will abuse or not use the mop? --Rory096 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It speaks to judgement. Behaviour in such contexts may be more relevant than mainspace edits quality, use of edit summaries, edit counts etc in judging whether to endorse. Do I trust this editor with admin powers? Or has their behaviour lead me to think that their future decisions are something I ought to keep an eye on? Pete.Hurd 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply More specifically, you could say it shows lack of respect for the office. If he thinks that everyone who is ever nominated should become an admin, then he probably won't take the position very seriously. Adminship may not exactly be a "sacred duty," but it is a power and authority grant that should be given to the exeptional. --tjstrf 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My belief is that adminship is a technical position. I fully agree with the way that Siva1979 supports most candidates (as I do myself). At the end of the day, if a user won't abuse their greater technical abilities then they should be accepted by the community to become an admin. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than that. Endorsing a candidate for admin is also endorsing that candidate as an accurate judge in cases of conflict and requires that they have a valid understanding of the rules and standards.--tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My belief is that adminship is a technical position. I fully agree with the way that Siva1979 supports most candidates (as I do myself). At the end of the day, if a user won't abuse their greater technical abilities then they should be accepted by the community to become an admin. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply More specifically, you could say it shows lack of respect for the office. If he thinks that everyone who is ever nominated should become an admin, then he probably won't take the position very seriously. Adminship may not exactly be a "sacred duty," but it is a power and authority grant that should be given to the exeptional. --tjstrf 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It speaks to judgement. Behaviour in such contexts may be more relevant than mainspace edits quality, use of edit summaries, edit counts etc in judging whether to endorse. Do I trust this editor with admin powers? Or has their behaviour lead me to think that their future decisions are something I ought to keep an eye on? Pete.Hurd 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What? This isn't an RfB, how are RfA "voting" patterns relevant to whether or not he will abuse or not use the mop? --Rory096 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I have no real reason for voting oppose yet, but something doesn't quite feel right. I'll go with neutral. DS 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and, of course, now I just noticed that Siva has me listed on his userpage as someone he has "high regard for". Now I feel all awkward. I'll probably vote support in his next RfA. DS 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am concerned also about this editor's apparently reflexive support voting style on RFA. I get the impression that there isn't really much thought invested when it ought to be. Pete.Hurd 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)changed to oppose.[reply]
- Neutral – good editor, but I agree with some of the concerns raised above, including answers to the questions below – Gurch 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - can't cite specific reasons for an oppose, but a lot of the answers leave me uneasy. Not enough thought about process, about who makes a good admin, and other things.. perhaps in a while. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Per Tyrenius, I am worried Siva won't be able to make difficult decisions, per his RfA voting pattern. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with supporting candidates, but I'm afraid Siva is shying away from controversy. However, as I don't want to predict Siva's motives incorrectly, I won't oppose on those grounds. joturner 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. This is one of liking someone and thinking he does a good job on many cases, and being uneasy enough about some aspects as policy and the AfD question , that I can not decide. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Answers convince me to support, but this is too soon since the last RfA. Royboycrashfan
17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral contribution history looks great but answers to questions below are a little off-putting. I would be happy if enough users disagreed with me and this nomination succeeded, but I can't support at this time. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Siva1979 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 109 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 14, February, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.83% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 37.54 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits): Article edit summary use (last 201 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.62% (181) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.02% (51) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.64% (582) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 3790 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 37.76% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 74.48% (3724 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 25.16% (1258 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.28% (14 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.08% (4 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 16.34% (817) | Article talk: 7.3% (365) User: 3% (150) | User talk: 37.66% (1883) Wikipedia: 24.34% (1217) | Wikipedia talk: 6.18% (309) Image: 1.16% (58) Template: 0.84% (42) Category: 0.36% (18) Portal: 0.22% (11) Help: 0.42% (21) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 2.18% (109)
- See Siva1979's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js:
Username Siva1979 Total edits 7944 Distinct pages edited 5808 Average edits/page 1.368 First edit 23:14, January 6, 2006 (main) 2767 Talk 382 User 211 User talk 2323 Image 59 Image talk 22 MediaWiki talk 22 Template 56 Template talk 25 Help 22 Help talk 23 Category 19 Category talk 13 Wikipedia 1653 Wikipedia talk 321 Portal 13 Portal talk 13
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 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 like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also like to increase my involvement in AfD articles to increase the efficiency of keeping or deleting articles that have a common overwelming response or vote. Admin powers would also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste. These powers would also help me to fight vandalism with a server-based rollbock, blocking persistent vandals and protecting pages that have undergone frequent vandalism.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red-links of English soccer clubs in the National League System from step 1 to 6. I have also created links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to 7. Although most of the articles I have created are just stubs, I have recently began to add images to these articles. I have also incresed the content for some of these articles. I also wish to give credit to other users who were able to expand some of these articles into having a more encyclopedic content. I also welcome new IP addresses and users and added signatures for comments that lack proper signatures.
- 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: There have not been any major conflicts. However, in the first few weeks of editing, I experienced some oppostition in the manner in which I contributed to the 1911 Britannica topics. I learned and acknowledged my mistakes and improved my contributions in this are of Wikipedia. In the beginning, I felt a bit of stress because I thought that I was not doing a good job and I was only trying to help out. But I used the feedback to improve on my edits. In the future, if I receive any negative feedback, I would use this opportunity to move my edits to a higher level. In this way, I would become a more solid contributor to Wikipedia.
- 4. (from Dragons flight) Since you've joined Wikipedia, you have voted in at least dozens and quite possibly hundreds of RFAs. Based on your voting record you would seem to have an extremely low standard for adminship. In going over your contributions to Wikipedia space, I noticed only 3 RFAs that you opposed and all of which had the distinction of not having a single support vote. By contrast, there are examples where yours is one of only a handful of support votes on RFAs that are overwhelmingly opposed. Please explain your rationale for deciding how to vote in RFAs with specific attention to what would make a candidate unqualified for adminship in your opinion.
- A A candidate, in my opinion, would be unqualified for adminship if he/she has been blocked for quite a number of times. Moreover, if the candidate has repeatedly vandalized articles, I would not vote for them. Additionally, if a candidate shows signs of being not committed to Wikipedia by performing constant, vandal edits, my vote would be oppose. But generally speaking, most candidates who have taken part in RfAs does not belong to this category. However, if the edit counts of candidates are low (for example about 800-1200 edits) but the candidate has shown signs of being committed to the project, I would vote support for their nomination. They may show signs of impatience, but their willingness to nominate themselves for adminship early must be commended. I do not like to discourage potentially good candidates for adminship just because they have low edit counts or have been involved in the project for about 2 to 3 months.
- 5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of, (1) policy, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals? Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A As far as policies and guidelines are concerned, they are very important to keep note of when one is involved in a project such as Wikipedia. For first time violations of guidelines and policies, we must take care not to punish the respective user excessively. A warning should do just fine. But for repeated violations, the particular user would have to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If the conduct is serious in nature, a lenghty ban should be sufficient in dealing with these anti-social acts. The purpose of these policies and guidelines is to ensure that this project is not too anarchic in nature. Without some basic rules and regulations, there would be many instances of abuse in the project. The goals are less important compared to the other 3 aspects of Wikipedia because the setting of goals would change more often in the future than policies or guidelines. It is also important to follow a systematic process when dealing with abuse or edit wars. But if one violates this process, it is not as serious as violating policies or guidelines. The latter constitutes vandalism while the former is just an acknowledgement on the user's part that he/she is not familiar with the proper process of Wikipedia.
- 6. What is your take on the Afd process, particularly the administrator goals and responsibilities of closing Afds, which you will be doing if this Rfa succeeds? --Cyde↔Weys 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A My take on the AfD process is that I would have the responsibility of deleting articles from Wikipedia which have an overwelming delete votes. If the consensus is overwhelmingly clear to delete the particular article, I feel that it is not imperative to wait for at least one week to clear the article from Wikipedia. 3 to 4 days is sufficient to take the necessary action. If consensus is unclear, I would most probably not delete the affected article.
- 7 What do you think of most sysops on Wikipedia today?(e.g:they are courrupt, they are good, etc.)The Gerg
- A On a personal note, I have not come across any courrupted admins so far (Thankfully!). My personal experience with them have generally been positive and helpful in nature. Most of them are doing a good job in Wikipedia. Courrupted admins are relatively rare but I have seen some of them being involved with edit wars with other users.
- 8 Do you look at your old RfA as a failure , or a way to improve?The Gerg
- A Frankly speaking, I view my old RfA as a success as I view all opposing votes in a positive manner. These votes tell me on what aspect of editing on Wikipedia to improve on and what must I avoid doing. However, I would be lying if I said that I was delighted with the result. It was a disappointment for me to fail on my past RfA but I channelled this disappointment in a positive manner. I endeavoured to improve on my edits and my interaction with other users increased. Generally all users should view their failed nomination as a way to improve and not get discouraged by the negative votes.
Two questions from Captainj (Qs 9 ans 10). Completely optional, but I'm still undecided. Thanks.
- 9 (Ref Q8) Please can you give examples of what improvements you have made to your edits since your last RfA, (preferrably with diffs)?
- A According to my last RfA, some users had expressed reservation on the low number of edits on article talk pages. I have since added some controversial discussions on some of the topics. For example, view this page (as at 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)) and this page. Previously, I tend to avoid controversial discussions. This has since changed and I am now more active in communicating with other users. Moreover, it had also been noted in my last RfA that I tend not to revisit the new articles which I created. This has also changed recently when I began adding images to some of the football articles which I had started. For example, please view the history pages of this article. Many more such examples of this can be viewed at my user contribution page. Moreover, I do not intend to stop there and I am planning to make one of these articles reach at least Good Article status in the future.
- 10 According to Q3, you haven't been in edit conflicts recently. Can you give me an example of how you avoided getting into an edit conflict, what you did to head it off? (I need someway of assessing how you deal with people that might disagree with you, hold other POVs, etc).
- A The golden rule of avoiding edit conflicts is to try one's best to understand the other party's point of view. If you are able to understand the reasons why some people might disagree with you, your perception on the subject would be more broader. Of course, this does not work all the time when the other party is an unreasonable user. In this case, I would always try my very best to maintain my cool and pacify the user.
- When people disagree with me, most of the time, these very users have more experience in editing Wikipedia than I have. They always provide me with sound reasons on why they disagree with some of the edits which I have made. In almost all cases, I am able to see their POV and most of the time, their reasoning is much more concise than mine. In that case, I would admit my shortfall and endeavour to improve and avoid similiar mistakes. If one is able to take constructive criticism in a positive manner, in no time, that particular user would become a fine contributor, editor and person.
- However, if I am dealing with a considerably less experienced user, I would gently guide the user to the policies and acceptable guidelines of Wikipedia. If he/she continues to be involved in an edit conflict with me, I would gently remind that user that this is unacceptabel behaviour in Wikipedia. If the user still persists, I would report the matter to an admin.
- 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (51/1/2) ended 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ben W Bell (talk · contribs) – Ben has been editing Wikipedia since 4 June 2004. Since that time he's contributed on many subjects, most notably his native Northern Ireland (a subject which can arouse considerable emotion and unpleasantness among editors), and has also spent a great deal of time on anti-vandalism patrols and other vital tasks, such as adding missing country names to articles. He has attempted to put across an NPOV, no matter what his personal opinions may be, has always been happy to talk and accept compromise, and has never resorted to the sort of edit warring and name calling that can occur on some of the more sensitive articles. He is a tireless reverter and pursuer of vandals. I believe he would use administrator's rights efficiently and fairly and would be an asset to the pool of administrators on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I access this nomination for adminship. Many thanks. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Of course! -- Necrothesp 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, despite the fact that the candidate decided to "access" the nomination, support anyway. (grin) RadioKirk talk to me 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be extremely friendly, and dedicated to reverting vandalism. I think he will also open up to other admin duties. Yanksox 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confident he'll serve Wikipedia well as an admin. To be more succinct, per above :-) SoLando (Talk) 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to --Mahogany 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll access support - looks good to me and can really use the tools -- Tawker 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason to oppose this RFA. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good; per Tawker.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, meets my standards, per Tawker. --digital_me(t/c) 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I cannot add much that has not already been said, he will use the tools well. Rje 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Tawker. The Gerg 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support ForestH2
- Support Well-rounded edits, acceptable total edits, all around good evidence for fruitful adminship NorseOdin 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User talk page shows a gift for being able to deal with upset users and bring them to a calm, rational discussion. That's a good quality for adminship. --Elkman 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rama's Arrow 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The E-mail is enabled, the rest seems good abakharev 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support changed from neutral with activation of email. --Chaser (T) 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Low count in wikipedia namespace, however appears to be a knowledgable editor. DarthVader 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – now he enabled his email – Gurch 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. --Andy123 candy? 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed to support after activated Wikipedia email. FloNight talk 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, cannot support at this time. Wikipedia email not activated. Will consider changing if activates email and checksout otherwise. FloNight talk 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good committed user, impressed over his work on Northern Ireland page. --Wisden17 12:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good responses to questions below. --Cyde↔Weys 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' per above. —Khoikhoi 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)duplicate vote - Tangotango 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Answers to questions show his knowledge of the project and that he knows what it takes to be an admin. SCHZMO ✍ 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Suppess Learn to type ;) WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Level-headed, good communicator - essential qualities. Tyrenius 03:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems reasonable. Captainj 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems here. --Tone 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per all above. Looks good to me! -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Like the answers to the questions below. Good editing record, would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits, but everything else is covered, so its not a dealbreaker. Rockpocket 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm impressed. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Passed my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - From what I have seen, he has always been an articulate editor and positive contributor to the project. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Low edit count to Wikipedia namespace != lack of policy knowledge. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reading? SushiGeek 06:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite the fact that Mr. Bell apparently does not use the minor edit marker - Mathbot only finds 71 minor edits to the main namespace over his entire Wikipedia career. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Bhadani 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very helpful at a dispute on University of Kent, and having had a look through his contribs I'd say he'd make a great admin. Nuge talk 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support not that he needs it. Congrats on your adminship!Minfo 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
OpposeLow edit count compared with time here and vague answer to only question posted.01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Just to let you know, the questions were reverted and I placed them back the best I could. Yanksox 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know, the questions were reverted and I placed them back the best I could. Yanksox 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, extremely low edit count to Wikipedia namespace indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Comes from Northern Ireland. Ricardo Lagos 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Obvious vandalism oppose vote, I crossed it out, I hope that's ok Someonebay 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral- I will support the user if he would enable his e-mail abakharev 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]Neutral- per abakharev. Impressed with staying civil in hot situations, like on Northern Ireland's talk. --Chaser (T) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, does not appear to meet 1FA, but has shown active RC patrolling. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Stifle and nominator Necrothesp both have convincing arguments. Royboycrashfan
17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What about questions 2 and 3? :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Ben W Bell's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Ben W Bell Total edits 2827 Distinct pages edited 1863 Average edits/page 1.517 First edit 04:01, June 4, 2004 (main) 2095 Talk 194 User 47 User talk 301 Image 33 Image talk 1 Template 6 Template talk 21 Wikipedia 115 Wikipedia talk 13 Portal 1G.He 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Ben W Bell (over the 2827 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 697 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 4, June, 2004 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.66% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 14.82 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 2827 edits): Article edit summary use (last 770 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 4.7% (133) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.6% (243) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.12% (682) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1816 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 10.75% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 12.63% (357 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 33.53% (948 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 36.75% (1039 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 17.09% (483 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 74.11% (2095) | Article talk: 6.86% (194) User: 1.66% (47) | User talk: 10.65% (301) Wikipedia: 4.07% (115) | Wikipedia talk: 0.46% (13) Image: 1.17% (33) Template: 0.21% (6) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0.04% (1) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.78% (22)
- See Ben W Bell's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
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 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 am quite happy doing tidying of articles when I come across those that need doing on my random travels (I often just hit the random button and see what needs doing on the pages I reach), the same goes for Wikifying those same articles. I tend to try and represent a NPOV and will try and neutralise pages without removing particular viewpoints if it is at all possible. I do already spend a lot of my time contending with the constant issues of vandalism on Wikipedia which I attempt to do in a fair way while upholding the Wikipedia policies. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Of the articles I've created I'm happy with the HeliJet and Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) articles, though I need to go through my old school notes and add more to the Thomas Andrews one. The HeliJet one goes hand in hand with the other Canadian airline ones I've started (West Coast Air and Harbour Air) due to them being simple pages that get the information across (though of course other editors have been over them in the past). I'm also quite happy with the photographs I've added to these and some other articles as a keen amateur photographer (I also have more still to add). Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
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: One in particular springs to mind regarding the Template:Airlines of Canada template. It centred around the actual creator of the template objecting to my adding of the aforementioned HeliJet to the template on the grounds that he didn't consider them an airline. I dealt with it by presenting my evidence that the international and Wikipedia community did indeed consider it an airline and I don't believe looking through the chat logs that I lost my temper. If I do get wound up over something (and lets face it everyone does at some point or another) I deliberately take a step back and ignore the topic for a day or to until I can approach it with a clearer head. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question from Yanksox (optional)
4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to be an admin to help in the fight against vandalism mainly, and also to assist in building Wikipedia. I've found that with the amount of vandalism that goes on it is a slow job to go through and check the items, undo them and then warn users if they are obvious vandalism. I often spend time chasing vandals around pages, following their trails of breadcrumbs and warning them but lack the ability to do anything more about it. Yes I can postto bring them to immediate Admin attention but I do find that system can be slow and others often beat me to it so I still end up spending time chasing them around undoing the damage they have caused. Mainly. Ben W Bell talk 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, what would you do to fight vandalism? Yanksox 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I spend much of my time on Wikipedia already going through the recent changes list, and hitting random pages to see what needs doing. I monitor the recent changes for vandalism patterns and any suspect alterations. When I find obvious vandalism I revert it and give the user a warning if appropriate. If the user continues to vandalise then I continue to warn them appropriately. If the user is a serial vandal or a continuous vandal then quite frankly the ability to block the account so they do not waste everyone elses time continuously is an obvious option, though I think this should only be used for people who continually vandalise and not those who do it once or twice. Ben W Bell talk 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Question from Cyde↔Weys
5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of Wikipedia's: (1) policies, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals?
A: Quite a complex question there. Policies are important, true anarchist states don't seem to work that well and everyone needs guidelines at least. Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason and are important to allow everyone to try and work from the same page as it were. Policies also help to define structures, regulations are even to an extent purpose. Punishment for violations of policies, well it is important for it to be seen that they are enforced but punishment has to be compared to crime. A simple ignorant violation that wasn't intentional and shows no pattern of being repeated is a "don't do it again" and "are you aware of" offense. Repeated violation of policy despite being warned stands a risk of jepordising the encyclopaedia and should be treated according. But each instance should be considered equally and policies should have a flexibility for events that weren't considered when it was drawn up. However that is the advantage of Wikipedia, we can discuss policy and process when these events do crop up and we can change how we respond in future and even alter policies if it seems prudent to do so. As for Wikipedia's goals, well they generally gell with some of my own viewpoints (yes I know we are NPOV). I'm pretty much an infosocialist with regards to information (yes I know it was actually a fictional philosophy but it works for me) to an extent. I don't condone breach of copyright however, but if people are willing to freely give their copyrights over to other and make them available then that is good. Information should be free to the masses, we should not have to pay fees to get access to historical or otherwise factual data. The whole world should be educated.
Question from FloNight
- 6. Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?
- A I must confess I had checked it and thought it was but didn't realise it had to specifically be activated. An oversight on my behalf. I have authorised it and allowed other users to email me and shall check out how I go about getting that information available. Ben W Bell talk
- 8. Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note in all caps at the top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 02:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well for a start I'd check it out. One thing I have learned is to not take everything at face value. I don't know everything, no one does, so I can't tell instantly whether or not the notice is factually correct or not. Due to the wonders of modern search engines you can find out if they have been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'd do my own research into the matter and make my own conclusions. It may be a copy and paste of a copyrighted article in which case it would depend on what it was. Also not all copy & paste jobs are wrong, some have been freely released by the original writer, and I've seen many cases on here where the original writer was actually the person to do the copy and paste. I'd need to look into it and make a judgement later, there is no one right answer. Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. So far, so good. Follow up question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional.) As you are pondering the above, you notice the anon has been posted to AIV for page blanking and vandalizing the reporting users page. In running through the contribs you find the anon has again blanked the page. On the talk page you find a note again asserting that the decision to delete was the correct one. Anon goes on to express anger and perplexity over being reverted, “by a ROBOT!” and “BEING TREATED LIKE A VANDAL.” The vandalism consists of similar messages on the user page of the reporting user, rather than on the talk page. How do you respond? Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well I cannot condone vandalising other people's user pages, that would have to be undone. I'd explain to the user, on his talk page, that his claims are being looked into for veracity. If the page in question needs temporarily protected to prevent blanking and vandalism while it is being looked into then so be it, but I'd explain to the user the reasons behind all the actions where I can. Ben W Bell talk 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DriniQuestion
- Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? In other words, if an admin speedy deletes a page for a reason that is not stated on CSD, should he be punished? What if he does it persistently? What about blockings? -- Drini 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sorry I may be being obtuse (it is early in the morning) but could you clarify that question for me? Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: That is a very general question for a very specific result. Admins are not above the rules and policies, however no rules and policies can possibly cover every eventuality. I'm afraid I cannot give you a specific answer to that question and each case would have to be judged on its individual circumstances. Discussion is always a point and an option here. Ben W Bell talk 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, let's have a specific example: 03:48, 18 May 2006 Drini deleted "Template:Voting icons" (this template encourages voting instead of disucssing at debates) which was a template listing "quick vote" templates to stick graphical versions of support, delete, etc at discussions. That deletion isn't covered on policy, and I performed it without previous discussion, althought I provided reasons at deleting it. Elaborate. -- Drini 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I cannot see any of the reasons as to why it was done. Without reasons I cannot make a judgement as to whether it was correct or not. Also I've not seen the template in use previously to my knowledge so I am not intuitively aware of its actual purpose. I'm sorry but I cannot give you an answer on that. Ben W Bell talk 07:08, 3 June 2006 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (43/43/14) ended 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
ILovePlankton (talk · contribs) – ILovePlankton has been here since Valentine's Day 3 and a half months ago, and he already racked up 4200 edits. Article wise he is interested in science fiction, and is a member of Wikiproject star wars, star wars collaboration of the week, and has helped with the science collaboration of the week. He's done about 2500 edits maintaining the articles of wikipedia. What's stuck out the most to me though is how friendly ILP is. He is always a friendly face in IRC and a kind person in general. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I very humbly accept. ILovePlankton ( L) 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)I am withdrawing from this RFA. Can someone please close it? ILovePlankton 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- First support... <_< Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lies. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Redwolf24, you're a...... you're a....... you're a..... oh ok. I'll say it. You're a cheater! I still beat you! nobody take this as a personal attack, or incivility, because it's not. It is harmless fun. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lies. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- zOMG
firstsecond person to support (sorry ;-) -Red) Support. Seriously, ILP is an excellent editor, excellent interpersonal skills, I'm honoured to support him. — Nathan (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Damn dirty such-and-such *mutters under his breath* ;) — Nathan (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Friendly user, balanced edits; I see no problems. However, I am bothered by the candidate's crunchiness when he is consumed as sustenance; makes for some unpleasent stomach pains... Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support before nom support! --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support as per above. Whopper 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Where (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per above. G.He 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per GeorgeMoney. FellowWikipedian 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per everyone! --digital_me(t/c) 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've seen this user around alot, very active, will be a great admin. -- Shizane talkcontribs 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Meets my critera, plus, excellent and friendly user. ~Linuxerist
A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Tempted-to Oppose Though I really think he's a good user and could be an amdin. ForestH2 03:03, May 31 2006 (UTC)
- If I may ask, could you please elaborate, so that I know for myself if I'm making any mistakes that I could correct? ILovePlankton ( L) 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, super-friendly user! -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will be a great asset. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, you show great enthusiasm. Royboycrashfan
03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ILovePlankton ( L) 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I love ILovePlankton. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Would make a fantastic admin, kind, helpful, good editor, I can't say enough! Sergeant Snopake 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is friendly editor, no doubt about it. Will make great admin. - Tangotango 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Strong Support A very kind user, know his way round wikipedia, would make a good admin. The Halo (talk)
- Strong Support, friendly, helpful, kind and a great user. My interactions on IRC have been always great, I'm very sure he will make a great admin. --Terence Ong 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate Support From my interactions with ILP, I have determined that he will not abuse his tools and therefore there is no reason for him not to have them. However, he hasn't been here very long, so I hope his knowledge of policy is indeed good enough. --Xyrael T 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support!!! Give em' the mop already!! --Mahogany 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Best. User. Evah. OK, well maybe not the best, but you get my point! ;-) --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate support per Xyrael, whose explanation is much clearer and more succinct than mine would have been, and so whom you can thank for my terseness. Joe 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - has remained civil and kept a cool head despite rather incivil comments from Cyde (see below). We need more admins who are capable of staying calm in such situations. Cynical 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I don't actually know him, but I've seen him around, has a ton of good edits, and deserves it. OreosTalkContribs 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support for colorful signatures! but seriously ILovePlankton is a very friendly and dedicated user and highly deserving of the mop Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support. I know you are dedicated to Wikipedia, and you are extremely friendly and civil. But if you are given a mop, you need to promise me that you will frequent the WP:ANI and get more involved with the group of people that manage Wikipedia, not just the people that you fall back on for friendship and support.-- The ikiroid 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A bit new, but looks like a decent person, and having good WP:FAITH that the problems below are not intentional. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strikes me as a passionate user, but that's a good thing. Aguerriero (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Fang Aili talk 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. I'm glad this didn't happen during may. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. —Nightstallion (?) 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! He wasn't an admin already!?!? Freddie 19:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — FireFox usertalk 21:22, 03 June '06
- Support. Nice person. Give him the mop. --Actown e 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I thought I voted already. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong oppose - User_talk:ILovePlankton#User:ILovePlankton.2FMy_loyalties_to_my_friends; fails my criteria re. project edits. NSLE (T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-05-31)
- I'm just wondering why did you put the link there (You do know that me and tony settled it on his talk, right?)? ILovePlankton ( L) 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is how a person's edit count is broken down really a good indication of whether a person would be a good admin? Where (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. He removed everything that could possibly be seen as breaking policy. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Committee for Replying to Oppose Votes in the Hope that They will Change has done a great job on this one. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of you, chill the hell out. We all have the right to decide the way we want to "vote". Low project-total ratio = fails my criteria because doesn't show enough knowledge of process. User who at one time not too long ago (less than a month) claimed that he'd go to the extent of getting banned for his friends CANNOT be trusted with admin buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 13:12 UTC (2006-05-31)
- Thank you for explaining it. ILovePlankton ( L) 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of you, chill the hell out. We all have the right to decide the way we want to "vote". Low project-total ratio = fails my criteria because doesn't show enough knowledge of process. User who at one time not too long ago (less than a month) claimed that he'd go to the extent of getting banned for his friends CANNOT be trusted with admin buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 13:12 UTC (2006-05-31)
- WP:AGF. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Committee for Replying to Oppose Votes in the Hope that They will Change has done a great job on this one. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mid-WikiBreak strong oppose per NSLE. I'm uncomfortable with giving the mop to a user who has had such sentiments in the very recent past. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excessive loyalty can be a bad thing. I am not prepared to support users willing to be banned for whatever reason, and it has only been 2 weeks since he removed the offending phrase [2]. I will support if he does not say anything to that effect again in 2-3 months. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thank you for explaining your reasoning, I understand what you mean. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to strong oppose per KAS. The abrasive tone of his reply [3] contrasts strikingly with Xyrael's right above his! (Fortunately usage of all caps doesn't count much in my book, or I'd be tacking on another superlative to my vote.) I love plankton, sure, but I don't love comments like that. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excessive loyalty can be a bad thing. I am not prepared to support users willing to be banned for whatever reason, and it has only been 2 weeks since he removed the offending phrase [2]. I will support if he does not say anything to that effect again in 2-3 months. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for now It is my opinion and for the record...from recent posts by ILovePlankton on my (talk) page that ILovePlankton appears to me to be impulsive and responds emotionally rather then objectively and in a constructive way. I’ve seen him write in a mimic style to a Wikipedia editor (me) in “conceding tone” rather then be helpful and handle a situation matter-of-factly. His interaction with me wasn’t helpful but tended to escalate a situation rather then to deescalate it. I would think this is a grave concern that this type of emotional and impulsive personality profile would have ADMIN powers. He may well be a good ADMIN later, but for now I think he needs to work on his style of communication and constructive skills. Example: Such statements, With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP" and "What the hell are you talking about? I also do not think ILovePlankton has a clear understanding of policies. My page was blanked after I made a very favorable edit on my USER page and forgot to sign in. The edit only showed an IP. Judgment would dictate it was a positive and favorable edit and that perhaps the USER forgot to sign in. But his way to handle the situation was to take sides and state: ‘’“With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP"’’ and this in your face tone won’t be that productive on Wikipedia. I think it's not the quantity of the edits he has made but the quality of the edits that are most important, that is "especially" in situations when emotions are escalating. In my view his condescending tone is the worst part of it. I think if he were to work on not being condescending that would a great start. Maybe an ADMIN later, but I think, again, he needs to develop his skills on handling adverse situations and show a more objective view frist. But then again, this is only my opinion, and I am sure the powers that be will look into for themselves and make their own conclusions. KAS 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Half of the shouting in KAS' post is quoting ILovePlankton. In addition the other half isn't "shouting" at all as KAS explained on his/her talk page. RicDod 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concede to this point. — Nathan (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand that Nathan doesn't like the way that KAS expressed her point, but that's something to take up with the user privately, not a reason to treat the opinion which she's expressed in reasoned detail as a bad-faith vote. Besides, if Nathan really feels so strongly that capitalizing words is highly uncivil, then the quotes in KAS's comments also reflect rather badly on ILovePlankton (by Nathan's criteria) - and surely that's a reasonable thing to note in this RFA. (I'd also argue that Nathan's rather over-large signature might be considered somewhat uncivil by his own criteria.) Zaxem 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Half of the shouting in KAS' post is quoting ILovePlankton. In addition the other half isn't "shouting" at all as KAS explained on his/her talk page. RicDod 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I was considering voting Neutral as ILovePlankton has
a good user namedone a lot good maintenance work. However, the more I think about it the more concerned I am with the point made by NSLE. Such comments, while reflecting well on ILP as a person, are counterproductive for an admin to have in their user area because it adds fuel to the oft-repeated accusations that we are cliquey and have favourites. I also share KAS's concerns that ILP has the tendency to act emotionally rather than objectively. I could well support in the future if these issues are resolved or left in the past. Rje 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose for now Well on the way. Just needs more time. Reverts, warns, and reports vandals. Takes part in AfD discussions. However, edit count is a little low given the power of VandalProof. Answer to question 2 does not show strength as an editor. Willingness to be banned in support of one's friends is not a strength in an admin, even if the statement to that effect has been recently removed. A cabal of friends advocating/arguing against opposers does not help even a little. The "hell" quote indicates incivility and quick temperedness not suitable in an admin. Also, the recent use of a copyrighted image on your userpage may indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning your right to oppose, I just wanted to tell you that the image someone else put on my userpage, I never even looked at it. ILovePlankton ( L) 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Doesn't yet seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. Needs more time, perhaps.[reply]
- Way too much focus on the "community" aspect and very little focus on the actual encyclopedia. He seems to think guidelines are something that should be flouted, not followed. --Cyde↔Weys 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When did I flout policy? (I would like to know so I can correct it) ILovePlankton ( L) 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Cyde The edit summary of "Nathan really made a mess of things ..." could have been a lot better worded and I feel you're only contributing to an already tense situation. I'm sorry, but I did make some comments that could have been interpreted as incivil - I was told about this and I did make every good faith effort to rectify this. As this is an RfA, comments shouldn't be deleted (that's what I've heard but please do outright delete them if I was misinformed), so I struck them out. I do not appreciate that edit summary and urge you to re-evaluate the way some of your typing comes across to others. Cheers. Additional edit: Please at least consider my comment. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said you
flauntedflouted guidelines, not policy. There's a huge difference. As an admin candidate you really should be aware of the this distinction!!! And the word "guidelines" is wikilinked in my comment for a reason. --Cyde↔Weys 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Either way are you going to answer the question? ILovePlankton ( L) 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've all seen enough. I have no idea why you're being so combative over this, but it does not reflect well at all. When someone says you may be doing something incorrectly the proper response is to examine your actions, and if you believe them to be acceptable, defend yourself. But you shouldn't be brushing it off flippantly or pretending not to even understand the nature of the criticism. I believe your response to this simple criticism about a signature of all things shows why you are not acceptable administrator material. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you getting angry at me for asking a question? I really don't understand what I did to have you dislike me this badly. ILovePlankton ( L) 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyde, could you please consider phrasing your words to something that resembles less of an incivil tone? I know how blunt and direct you can be from experience, but this is really not helping matters here. You know as well as I do that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please consider using a little more tact. Thank you very much. — Nathan (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could point out exactly what the problem is with his sig. -MrFizyx 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with both these comments. Cyde can you please be less antagonistic, in many of your recent exchanges you seem to be berating people. As far as your comment about " flouted guidelines" this sounds a little hypocritical. I copied the text below from your own talk page.
- Good thing I'm not using templates or transclusion then! And by the way, that page is guideline, not policy. I'm going to stick with my friend Adrian on this one. Show us it's against the rules and we'll stop. By all means, if you think this is an important issue, propose a policy that bans the use of templates, categories, and images in signatures. I'd even go ahead and support it. I just think rules should be rules, period, not selectively enforced suggestions.
- You wrote that as recently as March 6th. Constructive critcism is always better than reading the riot act. No one is perfect. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with both these comments. Cyde can you please be less antagonistic, in many of your recent exchanges you seem to be berating people. As far as your comment about " flouted guidelines" this sounds a little hypocritical. I copied the text below from your own talk page.
- I think we've all seen enough. I have no idea why you're being so combative over this, but it does not reflect well at all. When someone says you may be doing something incorrectly the proper response is to examine your actions, and if you believe them to be acceptable, defend yourself. But you shouldn't be brushing it off flippantly or pretending not to even understand the nature of the criticism. I believe your response to this simple criticism about a signature of all things shows why you are not acceptable administrator material. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way are you going to answer the question? ILovePlankton ( L) 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said you
- Oppose until a little more mature: fix that signature; lose that daft "loyalty" thing (as an admin, your loyalty should be to the wiki as a whole, otherwise your neutrality is hopelessly compromised); fix your user page (so that it actually fits into one screen width—at the minute it looks like something an HTML tutor might use as an example of "what not to do"—I have to scroll rightwards five times to see the far side) and above all learn to take criticism (as an admin you would expect to receive it by the bucket-load, not drip-wise as you have been doing). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The userpage is lick that since it is designed for 1024x768 resolution and looks fine at that resolution. But I can see where you are coming from; a stripped down version that people with lower resolutions could use would be ideal. Where (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it didn't look any better @ 1024 x 768. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The userpage is lick that since it is designed for 1024x768 resolution and looks fine at that resolution. But I can see where you are coming from; a stripped down version that people with lower resolutions could use would be ideal. Where (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Friendship is something dearly, but expressing you would get banned to defend them raised some concerns in me about the WP:NPOV every admin must have. I don't agree with all KAS does, but I agree that the candidate's behaviour left a lot to be desired. The user seems to be good contact with other users through User talk pages, but his 2% of edits in article talks is just too low. Nice to see ILovePlankton started editing summaries, hopefully he will continue doing so. Maybe in a couple of months, controlling his temperament and participating more in article development. By the way, Nathan, you should strike things out, not delete. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ReyBrujo, I would have appreciated it if you had mentioned that on my talk, rather than here, because I rarely watch this page (so I don't comment and possibly get tempted to say something I shouldn't). The reason for removing my comments was clearly shown on my edit summary. If you feel like fishing my comments out and putting them back, you are free to go ahead and do that - I had good faith reasons to delete them (those comments would serve no purpose other than to breed negative feelings) and I wasn't sure of proper guidelines regarding this (again, this was mentioned in my edit summary, why am I repeating it?). Regarding ILP's "expressing he would get banned", etc, I respectfully remind you that this line was removed from the page, meaning, that line is no longer there, further meaning that the editor realised the problem with this line and removed it (why are we condemning him for realising his error? Should we not be applauding him for realising that error?). It seem (to me) that you're really reaching for a reason to oppose this editor. This should not even be an issue, yet it is. Let's take some time to really read into some of these oppose votes. Do you know what they say to me? "Let's condemn this candidate for what he believed weeks ago, and completely discount what he believes right now." In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go and it could also be read into as condemning the candidate for who he chooses to call a friend (though that may be reaching too). Cheers. — Nathan (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have posted that on your user talk page indeed, sorry about that. As for ILP's friendship comment, the fact that he had added it three and deleted it two weeks ago (and not because he realized it could be misunderstood, but because another editor hinted at that) is enough for me to consider him unreliable for administrator tasks for now, especially if such matters include mediating in his friends' conflicts. Hadn't Tony noticed that, the line may have stayed there. Finally, I pointed three negative aspects (NPOV, his behaviour and an extremely low amount of edits in article talk pages) and a positive (he started using summaries). Had he not written that manifesto, I would have opposed anyways. An administrator must be patient, even if you find people who only bashes you. This may have been a slip, true, that is why I am willing to support him in a couple of months after noticing he had demonstrated it was a slip. I see you are a good friend who think he is suitable for the task, but I believe he can defend himself. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ReyBrujo, I would have appreciated it if you had mentioned that on my talk, rather than here, because I rarely watch this page (so I don't comment and possibly get tempted to say something I shouldn't). The reason for removing my comments was clearly shown on my edit summary. If you feel like fishing my comments out and putting them back, you are free to go ahead and do that - I had good faith reasons to delete them (those comments would serve no purpose other than to breed negative feelings) and I wasn't sure of proper guidelines regarding this (again, this was mentioned in my edit summary, why am I repeating it?). Regarding ILP's "expressing he would get banned", etc, I respectfully remind you that this line was removed from the page, meaning, that line is no longer there, further meaning that the editor realised the problem with this line and removed it (why are we condemning him for realising his error? Should we not be applauding him for realising that error?). It seem (to me) that you're really reaching for a reason to oppose this editor. This should not even be an issue, yet it is. Let's take some time to really read into some of these oppose votes. Do you know what they say to me? "Let's condemn this candidate for what he believed weeks ago, and completely discount what he believes right now." In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go and it could also be read into as condemning the candidate for who he chooses to call a friend (though that may be reaching too). Cheers. — Nathan (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per NSLE and Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the above; not confident of this user's maturity and understanding of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unimpressed by responses to Cyde above, and as per NSLE. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I think this user has learned a lot over the last few months, but he still has a lot more to learn, in my opinion he's not ready for adminship yet. --JoanneB 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise that this is not the most constructive of votes, so I'll try to elaborate... I know it's not possible to know everything and not to make any mistakes before your RfA, but just from looking at your last 500 edits there's a couple of things that worry me: poor understanding of the fair use rules [4], limited use of edit summaries when they're not automatically provided by VandalProof [5], voting on AfD without any rationale [6] (which to me shows that he regards it as a voting process, other than a discussion). There's more, but this is enough for me not to be comfortable with him becoming an admin. --JoanneB 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, if only because of his responses to several (IMHO reasonable) criticisms on this page, particularly to Cyde. Also per Christopher Parham, Sidaway, Dlohcierekim, and Cyde. Also, number of Talk edits is remarkably low for admin candidate, however, this wouldn't be a dealbreaker if it weren't for the other stuff. -- Deville (Talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at this point. --Doc ask? 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. ILovePlankton has a prodigious edit count, but is still fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm troubled by the slightly over-sensitive reactions to several of the oppose votes above by both ILovePlankton and Nathan (whose over-anxious desire to help fight ILovePlankton's battle is troubling given the concerns raised regarding ILovePlankton's past comments on how he'd do anything - even risk getting banned - for friends). I don't think this candidate is ready for adminship yet. Zaxem 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIndeed.65.35.168.248 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Resigned now that I'm logged on again. :) Dlohcierekim 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Very good guy, just needs a bit more work on understanding policy and keeping cool. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Considering that people generally try to show their best side during the week the RFA lasts, I find some of the candidate's responses on this page quite worrying, especially the replies to Cyde. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong Oppose; I don't believe this user understands the "pedia" part of Wikipedia. Also, behavior on this page and elsewhere is a bit disturbing. Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Bishonen. The reaction to some of the questions here is lacking the grace you might expect from someone whose suitability for administratorhip is being discussed. This, along with some misguided comments in the recent past, leads me to oppose at this time. Rockpocket 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per JoanneB above. Also, I would recommend getting some decent article work under your belt. In my experience, it helps with stress no end, and helps you centre on the goal of the project: that of an encyclopedia. --Celestianpower háblame 09:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per NSLE and Tony Sidaway. Maybe later. --Zoz (t) 13:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rockpocket; also I'm not pleased with his attitude towards community guidelines. FreplySpang 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for now. If you continue maturing at this rate, though, I'd be glad to support you in your second RfA a few months from now. (Also, both you and Cyde said "flaunt" when you meant "flout"; I've fixed that.) DS 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose just too soon. Matbe in a few months. The Gerg 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The Esperanza Election fight is still too fresh in my head. That and lack of time. Sorry, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi, and Zaxem. Ardric47 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi.sg, KAS. I was going to support, but this sort of stuff can't be done by an administrator. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per NSLE. The whole "My loyalties to my friends" thing brings up an uncertainty: What if one of your friends was blocked from editing? Would you still be able to be objective? I realize you didn't state anything like this in your essay, but I still have a few reservations. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. User treats an RfC as a threaded internet debate. Indignation over signature indicates that the user probably isn't prepared to handle admin-level criticism. Jkelly 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Nice guy, and very friendly, but not sure if he's experienced enough for admin tools. Cheerfullness is a plus. "Loyalties to friends" is a forgivable minus. Submission to oppose votes based on signature is a minor minus - minor because it's good to try and please people; I just think there are some things where you have to stand up for yourself. All in all, ILP needs to consider his actions more carefully. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lots of oppose comments. This RfA has gone horribly pear-shaped and loyal friend Nathan hasn't helped it much. But take candidate's statement, "By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him." Will be in a better place for adminship when the reply doesn't need the explanation, i.e. when the reply is, "(I'm sorry) I don't understand you." Tyrenius 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted all the comments I posted that were even remotely offensive. If you have a point, please get to it. — Nathan (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied to this on my talk page where it was also posted, before I saw it here.Tyrenius 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted all the comments I posted that were even remotely offensive. If you have a point, please get to it. — Nathan (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am concerned as to how Iloveplankton woul react, at the moment, in a difficult situation. Captainj 11:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- robchurch | talk 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, arguing with oppose votes isn't the way to go. Additionally, low number of edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests poor policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, to controversial at this time. Also the arguing with Oppose votes doesn't help. JohnnyBGood
t c 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too few edits in the template space, and fails nine months. Raichu 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The things I've read by him in Wikipedia space suggest he has little grasp of policy.
Also his signature is really annoying, I don't know many admins with confusing sigs like that.Okay, you changed it, thank you. Your most recent edit that gave me misgivings is here- read comments from others on that page for suggestions. Ashibaka tock 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Weak oppose putting aside the editcountis (Interiot's tool is down for a reason!), this user appears to have little experience with policy or the non-article spaces.
With a little more experience, I'm sure that he wouldn't heckle oppose votes so much as well.Actually, to be fair some of the people above deserved it. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose Friendship is the biggest cause of corruption. I would like Wikipedia Admins to be neutral. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per HighwayCello and that entire incident. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral leaning support I've had many positive experiences, though the lack of edits in the Talk: space is slightly concerning. Computerjoe's talk 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- which talk space (I would like to know so I can do better)? ILovePlankton ( L) 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he means "article" Talk: (for instance Talk:Democracy talks about the Democracy article.) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- which talk space (I would like to know so I can do better)? ILovePlankton ( L) 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Less than 100 article talks is concerning.--Jusjih 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Internet Explorer is still an 80+% share of the internet and your user page is utterly unreadable in IE. It is the wrong message to send to visitors. I brought this up at ILP's talk and he said he couldn't fix it, which in practice means he is unwilling to consider the needs of the readership as a whole in (re)designing his page. I believe this issue should be immenently correctable, and I will consider other aspects of the nom if this one is addressed. Dragons flight 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- When I said I couldn't fix it I meant I didn't have the ability to fix it. (I don't know a thing about HTML, but I have started trying to get someone to fix it). ILovePlankton ( L) 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. One objection down, will look at the others later. Dragons flight 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said I couldn't fix it I meant I didn't have the ability to fix it. (I don't know a thing about HTML, but I have started trying to get someone to fix it). ILovePlankton ( L) 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, very strong at building community, excellent vandal fighter, but not enough building of articles in the mainspace. Contrary to those above, I don't think the "my loyalties to my friends" thing is daft; rather, I think the world would be a far better place if more people were as loyal to their friends. Please edit more substantially in the mainspace (pick a couple of articles, go to the library, and just build them up!) and you will gain the experience to have my support. -- Samir धर्म 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for the very construstive critisism. ILovePlankton 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - would support, especially given the user's positive community involvement and support in fighting vandalism, as well as the questionable reasoning from a couple of those opposing, but User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends worries me ... a lot. Of specific concern is this - "I will NEVER attack them or be uncivil towards them". On WP, we should not attack or be uncivil to anyone - friend or otherwise. The mention of this implies, or at least seems to imply, that in the user's view, it is possible that loyalty to friends could be at odds with civility towards others. I would humbly suggest examining what message you are desiring to communicate here. BigDT 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I have mixed feelings. Mr. Turcottetalk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, great editor, though I'm concerned about his low amount of article talk pages edits, his responses to Cyde, and his User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends. I also recommend more work on mainspace articles and a bit more project involvement. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral not sure Jaranda wat's sup 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Good name, good sense of humor. With a bit more time should be a fine admin. Fix the little problems mentioned in the oppositon votes and I'll support you next time around (remind me--I don't often read RfA). -MrFizyx 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – not enough problems to merit an oppose, but not sure about understanding of policy – Gurch 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, good balance of edits, but why can't every month be like March... also, something about esperanza if i remember correctly. As for the questions at the bottom of the page, you might want to either answer them, or comment them out, or delete them, or use hiddenStructure or something, I dunno. — Jun. 2, '06 [04:24] <freak|talk>
- Neutral. I've seen good, level-headed comments on AFD and elsewhere from ILP, but three and a half months is too soon - adminship this early is risking the possibility of both burnout and unfamiliarity with some parts of the community. I'm a little concerned about some of the oppose points, but I think it's nothing that time and more familiarity will fix. A few months from now, a support shouldn't be any problem. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral This is tough. Has enough contributions and experience, but focuses too much on science. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with focusing on science? We have editors who do nothing but spread sick conspiracy theories about the WTC attacks and suchlike, who are not called on their narrow focus; I think someone attempting to improve our coverage of science (considering how woeful it is in some areas) should be encouraged, not criticised. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ILP's response to my questions are encouraging, if not quite what I'd hoped to hear (in particular the percentage canard worries me; however, I quite liked what he said about blocking, particularly warnings — not perfect, but getting there). As such, I won't oppose him, and I look forward to supporting in six months or more. However, in the interests of Improvement, here are the reasons I would have opposed:
- ILP doesn't seem completely acculturated to Wikipedia yet. That's not a reflection on his time here; some users pick things up remarkably quickly, while I know at least one user (no, I won't say his name) who's been here for more than a year and still can't find his arse with both hands. ILP sits on neither extreme: he's not there yet, but give him a few months and who knows? This is a Big Deal; the others aren't so bad.
- Nathan's behaviour on this RfA. Given that ILP makes a big deal of how he'll stand by his friends no matter what, I think his friends have a responsibility to get behind him here and not piss people off unnecessarily. That's just silly.
- Civility. We have enough admins who need to work on their civility without adding more; when ILP sees something wrong with "what the hell are you talking about?" vs "I'm sorry, I don't understand you.", we'll be getting somewhere.
- This leads on to a third point: respect for other Wikipedians. Support for one's 'net friends is all well and good, and doesn't imply a lack of support for other people out here. However, things like incivility, and, yes, that signature, paint a picture of a user who doesn't know why he should make life easier for other Wikipedians. And that's Bad.
- His views on AfD suggest a tendency towards vote-counting that I'd like to see well and truly stamped out before he runs for adminship again. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Voice of All, please fix those percentages. Add them up... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be nothing wrong with them. Note that the sig/minor/supericial article edits are out of all edits, not just articles edits, future stats pages make that more clear. Thanks.Voice-of-AllTalk 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think that ILP has been a good sturdy editor for the while I've met him, and he has never vandalized the "first" time around either. I have alot of respect for someone who can do that. Whopper
User's contributions.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user ILovePlankton (over the 4328 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 108 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 15, February, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 35.43% Minor edits: 94.34% Average edits per day: 29.34 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 4328 edits): Article edit summary use (last 137 edits) : Major article edits: 88.24% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (5) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.02% (1) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 42.95% (1859) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 3116 | Average edits per page: 1.39 | Edits on top: 17.44% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.83% (382 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 46.03% (1992 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.76% (379 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 36.39% (1575 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 52.2% (2259) | Article talk: 1.87% (81) User: 9.54% (413) | User talk: 25.95% (1123) Wikipedia: 7.6% (329) | Wikipedia talk: 1.48% (64) Image: 0.21% (9) Template: 0.16% (7) Category: 0.69% (30) Portal: 0.02% (1) Help: 0.02% (1) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.25% (11)
- See ILovePlankton's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- See ILovePlankton's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username ILovePlankton Total edits 4292 Distinct pages edited 3152 Average edits/page 1.362 First edit 00:27, February 15, 2006 (main) 2260 Talk 81 User 408 User talk 1110 Image 9 Image talk 2 Template 7 Help 1 Category 30 Category talk 9 Wikipedia 310 Wikipedia talk 64 Portal 1G.He 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 help with Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard and Wikipedia:requests for page protection. I would close AFDs, and I would block vandals and impersonators.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The article that I am most pleased with would have to be The Black Fleet Crisis, the reason I picked that one, is because it is the only time I have ever contributed to apart of an article that didn’t already have something for me to build on.
- 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 try to avoid conflict as often as possible. I do that by staying away from things that I have a strong position towards, but sometimes conflict doesn’t come from that. I will try my best to be civil at all times, and I will try never to bite the newcomers for their accidents.
I've got a couple of questions. It is, of course, up to you whether you wish to answer them or not.
- F0. You mention above that you'd like to begin closing AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfD articles? What would you consider a rough consensus on xfD? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert (such as this one)? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to keep, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What is your opinion of this AfD?
- F1. You also mention that you would block vandals. What is your general blocking philosophy? At what point is it appropriate to block a vandal, and how do you decide when and for how long? Under what circumstances do you feel it would be appropriate to block someone who is not, strictly speaking, a vandal?
- A. My general blocking philosophy is, the vandal has to have at least 3 warnings, and the vandal has to actually vandalised something. I would block a first time vandal anywhere from 12-24 hours depending on how bad the vandalism is. I would rarely block someone who is not strictly speaking a vandal, the only time I would is if the user in question Is seriously disrupting wikipedia, and has been warned for it.
Thank you, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm split on this one, below are my optional' questions -- Tawker 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)[reply]
- You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- A
- An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- A
- If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- A
- Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- A
- Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
- A
- Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
- A
- A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
- A
- Why do you want to be an administrator?
- A
- In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
- A
DriniQuestion
- Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Elkman
- What was your reason (or reasons) for leaving Esperanza? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:39, 1 June 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (80/4/1) ended 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) – Philip has been around since October 2003 and he's got more than 15 thousand edits under his belt. Specialising in military history he has contributed to everything from the Battle of Thermopylae to the Bombing of Dresden. After being prodded several times by different people he has finally consented to being nominated to adminship.
I'm most familiar with Philip through debating with him on requested moves. We usually disagree but I've always found him to be polite and willing to work for a compromise. He is closely familiar with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia and I think he can be trusted to use the admin tools with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept Haukur Þorgeirsson nomination. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Nominate and support. Haukur 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong with specalist admins support - sure, he'll mostly focus on moves requiring deletions but its a flag, specialist admins are a good thing -- Tawker 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bloody good user. A strong enough contribution record that I'm prepared to support even if he doesn't intend to use the flamethrower very much. The Land 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Probably won't use the tools very much, but hard to imagine he will abuse them TigerShark 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent editor. — TheKMantalk 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Dedicated and reasonable long-term contributor. Dragons flight 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --digital_me(t/c) 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen this editor's work for a long time and I believe that he will be a good admin. -Will Beback 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support inteligent, diligent, hard working, experienced and friendly. What other qualities could you ask for in an administrator? Thryduulf 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like he's in it for the long-haul. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Excellent editor. DarthVader 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely nothing wrong with specialist admins, in fact they are, in my opinion, a very good thing in the more specialised area of janitoring. Besides, I very much doubt that Philip will abuse the tools - he's been here longer than most of us admins. Rje 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Around since 2003. Definitely committed. -- Shizane talkcontribs 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: excellent role model of an admin already. Jonathunder 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Tawker. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Kwazy good editor. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support not enough portal talk edits. Kotepho 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Steal RadioKirk's cliche support Per above. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Rama's Arrow 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, most definitely. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support dammit where were you hiding till now? ;) Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, good candidate. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Even in disagreement, civil and level-headed. Brief answers to crappy standardised questions notwithstanding, very good editor. Whatever happens, just don't spam my talk page with a templated thank you message. Support. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I not support? I wish there was something brilliant I could say, but I guess the facts speak for themselves. Redux 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support! Fits my criteria (however much that's worth) -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A strong editor with high level of talk communication. Kukini 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like a guy who writes what he knows and works with people. Give 'em a broom! --CTSWyneken 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very committed. He's done alot of good, and could do even more for Wikipedia as an admin. Royboycrashfan
03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- S - per above --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems like a good candidate. --Rory096 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support who would propose deletion of this guy? (get it? he was prodded by other users, and...oh never mind) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A "holy-cow-that's-a-lot-of-edits" support per The Land. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A Buchanan-Hermit support. Computerjoe's talk 08:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gsl 09:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from history enthusiast. - Darwinek 11:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has been around for a long time and knows what he's doing. Zaxem 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Concerns about poor judgement are valid, however. The editor needs to revise some of his practices. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony Sidaway 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Long overdue. I disagree with him on a lot of issues but then I don't think it's healthy if all admins agree with one another on stuff.[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! OMG Can't believe he hasn't been nominated until now --Mahogany 14:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems overdue for adminship. Tim! 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Terence Ong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought-I'd-already-voted-already redundant support (oh, must've been the MoP... [grin]) RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Grue 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An A+ user. Mr. Turcottetalk 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Accomplished editor, no reason to suspect tools won't be put to good use.--cjllw | TALK 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Felt like I'd join the party. Excellent edit summary, particularly in talk pages (shows good judgement and ability to collaborate). NorseOdin 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Gurch 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely seems like a good user, would be good with the tools. -- Deville (Talk) 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; many years of good contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great contributor to Military History and other fields and I'm sure will be an equally good admin. Leithp 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per many of the above --JoanneB 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no problems -- Samir धर्म 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unnecessary pile-on support. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- very surprised this editor isn't already. - Longhair 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conscious 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an excellent editor and one who is guaranteed to use adminship sensibly. Stefán Ingi 09:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hard-working, long-term editor. Just what the mop is for. Marskell 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems reasonable. Captainj 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems here. --Tone 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a great candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, despite all the unkind things he says about peerage wonks ;) Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Saluyot 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Passes my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Bandwagon With 4-wheel drive Support. I've seen so many excellent edits from PBS. Good editors dont always make good admins. The two require different skill sets and temperments. But I have full confidence he will.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kafziel 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support Seem him around. Appears to ber a good wikipedian.Geni 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Philip's a good smart man. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Has shown consistently poor judgement when supporting the idea of "approval voting" and similar notions that in practice boil down to "consensus is a majority vote" over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There's also the problem of supporting bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. These actions are in my opinion inappropriate for and incompatible with adminship. Peter Isotalo 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The diacritics issue worries me. Dr Zak 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Significant edits are just 11%. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Does not appear that he needs or wants the tools from his one sentence answer to Q1. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. I would like to ask Philip to explain his relation to Bombing of Dresden in World War II. While without a doubt he has done a great job policing and expanding this article, it has been my experience (many months ago) that he treats this article as his personal 'turf', and his opposition to expanding lead (to confirm to WP:LEAD) based on the logic (IIRC) that the current lead is NPOVed and any change will POV it is one of the reasons that would prevent this article from going to FA. I'd like to stress here that this was my only negative encounter with Philip, and as many other supporting him show above it was likely an exception than the rule, nonetheless I feel somewhat uneasy about giving the 'mop and bucket' to Philip until I am sure he would not, for example, protect the article just to keep it in the current NPOV shape.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Short answer is 'No'. A slightly longer: There are specific problems to do with this page and historical revisionism (negationism), the whole large section "Points of view", (large in comparison to other articles on WWII city bombing), is an indication of this. This is not to say that everyone who adds material to the "it was a war crime" section is a revisionist, far from it, but it is difficult to expand the introduction with a short balanced NPOV about the legality and the morality of the attack, without it swamping the introduction. In the past when the introduction became subject to a strong disagreement, a straw poll was held over it old straw poll. It is short, because previously, interested editors, could not agree with how to expand the introduction and agreed to keep it brief. I would encourage anyone who wants to amend the introduction to discuss it first, and if agreement on to how to expand it can not be reached, that another straw poll (the old was was a long time ago and opinions change) was held clarify the choices and to help build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Just a prediction that this user will with certainty abuse adminship to further his bizarrely ignorant crusade to remove diacritics (or "funny foreign squiggles" as he calls them) from Wikipedia. He has been edit and move warring over this, moving Úbeda to Ubeda, Würzburg radar to Wuerzburg radar, José Ayala Lasso to Jose Ayala Lasso etc., and on top of that he makes absurd edits like this one. He is under the illusion that just because some people omit all diacritics (because of technical restrictions or just laziness or ignorance), the no-diacritic version of each specific word or name becomes a valid "alternative spelling" that should be separately (and even primarily) noted in each such article. 70.26.72.99 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit count scares me :) --Osbus 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Philip is undeniably crazy. His behavior at Talk:William of Orange and his editwarring over a redirect (nicely reported at WP:LAME) testify to that. Philip is the guy who is famed for making claims based on original authorship of a redirect. However, his craziness was far surpassed by the WP:POINT roam of his dear opponent, the "psychopath" Francis. All in all, this is a vote over who will be the chief lunatic to mop the lunatic asylum. But that's wikipedia. Sometimes it seems that the major hurdle for constructive work is the fact that this site is full of insanes who need a place to be kings of the hill, to feel "success". Philip is certainly representative of that. If his medication is better these days... When dear Philip will now be assigned to adminship (a thing the majority of lunatics easily do here), I just hope that he can, if needed, be then de-adminned easily.
User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Philip Baird Shearer (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 153 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 59.4% Minor edits: 73.19% Average edits per day: 47.96 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits): Article edit summary use (last 743 edits) : Major article edits: 68.4% Minor article edits: 80% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.12% (156) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.22% (11) Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 36.24% (1812) Unmarked article edits: 14.1% (705) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1560 | Average edits per page: 3.21 | Edits on top: 11.26% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 11.1% (555 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 43.46% (2173 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.62% (531 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 34.82% (1741 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 66.34% (3317) | Article talk: 23.3% (1165) User: 0.28% (14) | User talk: 2.76% (138) Wikipedia: 3.44% (172) | Wikipedia talk: 3% (150) Image: 0% (0) Template: 0.54% (27) Category: 0.1% (5) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.24% (12)
- See Philip Baird Shearer's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Philip Baird Shearer Total edits 16323 Distinct pages edited 5027 Average edits/page 3.247 First edit 03:16, October 20, 2003 (main) 10535 Talk 3504 User 72 User talk 681 Image 24 Template 82 Template talk 51 Category 69 Category talk 6 Wikipedia 686 Wikipedia talk 612 Portal 1G.He 23:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Philip Baird Shearer's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
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 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: Some help with WP:RM, which is a page I watch.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: There are none specifically, but I do like to research an item which does not yet have a page and create one when the links from another article suggest that one would be useful. Some examples are Maritz Rebellion, History of rugby union, and Robert Overton. Recently I have been working on some new articles which tie into immediate post war European treaties and events like the Council of Foreign Ministers. Yesterday I knocked up an article on Chambers Book of Days because it is referenced by several other pages I have contributed to.
- 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: Numerous conflicts, some of which show up on my user talk page and its archives. The recent move of Cavalier back to Cavaliers (royalists) annoyed me because I thought it was sorted and then we had to go around the loop again, (See Talk:Cavalier). Probably in the same way, although I have learnt over time on this project, that time is my friend, a month or more away from a disagreement usually makes it evaporate, and besides the disputes are never that serious.
DriniQuestion
- Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand what you are asking please elucidate. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are policies regarding deletions, blocks, etc (you should know about them if you're at RFA). Sometimes admins make deletions or blocks for reasons that are not written down at those policies. Should they be sanctioned (punished)? How should they be sanctioned? -- Drini 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no experience of having to consider how or if "they be sanctioned", but like other decision making in Wikipedia, I would expect there to be a consensus building exercise on this, and having read what others wrote I would then express an opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 3 June 2006 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (77/0/1) ended 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Staxringold (talk · contribs) – James has been a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, first editing in August 2005 with his inaugural new article David Mann Bike, and has since become a much-valued writer on Wikipedia. Need proof? See Hopkins School, today's featured article (May 30) and the first ever high school article to be featured on the Main Page, which he built from nothing to an FA. He nominated himself for adminship last December, but with only three months experience and a still-growing knowledge of how the WP-namespace worked, this was unsuccessful. He is now more involved in this regard, and has been a part of policy debates. Adminship should be no big deal, and Stax has been around long enough to know an admin must be rational and logical in their approach. With that said, I happily nominate him (and doesn't it feel good to be nominated; I was too impatient and just tried three self-noms). Please look at his work in editing, his approach to the processes, and his level of experience in passing judgement. Harro5 06:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! Staxringold talkcontribs 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Nominate and support. Harro5 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme support. I can't say enough about this candidate. We first met on opposing sides of an AfD and have grown to be great friends! He's a great Wikipedian who both has a firm grasp of editing and procedure and has fun while doing it. Having worked with him at The West Wing and Cheers, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School, he is a consummate Wikipedian. Give him the mop! — Scm83x hook 'em 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wow! DarthVader 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Valued editor with an FA ; more than 5800 edits in less than one year; potential good vandalfighter. JoJan 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems experienced, rational and easy to get on with. All the things we want in an admin. Kevin 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support np! Computerjoe's talk 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I beat the nom support! (Not really, but I've always wanted to say that.) Seriously though, good editor, excellent work in several different namespaces. Steveo2 11:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. He looks ready to get his own broom. Mostly Rainy 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support-- passes 1FA, more than adequate time and edits, but I see no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Matches WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Time on project and experience on the compositional and peer reviewing side are very strong. Geogre 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Hopkins School really says it all. Suntiger 12:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and for editing the first high school article to make it to FA. --Elkman 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good editor. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to have improved considerably from the time of his first RfA and now seems a well-rounded editor. -Splashtalk 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit-conflicted yet-another-thought-he-was-already support. RadioKirk talk to me 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; experienced Wikipedian who has demonstrated an ability to work with others with civility even in stressful situations. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user. --Terence Ong 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, dedicated and conscientious editor. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just the sort of editor we need as an admin: hard working and civil. Rje 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportGood track record on Wikipedia with all-round contributions. --Wisden17 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (With the disclaimer that I know him in real life) JoshuaZ 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Rama's Arrow 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trustworthy. ~MDD4696 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, user is familiar with Wikipedia processes and has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --digital_me(t/c) 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Support. I see Jim in the library (I'm also a student at Hopkins) and this will certainly not go to waste. He does stuff on Wikipedia I wouldn't even have thought needed to be done (all good stuff, e.g. Hopkins School) Good Luck! --CTwikipedier 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Kaisershatner 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like this user...courteous and hardworking. --Osbus 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very hardworking, no evidence of hostility or potential for abuse. Great job, and keep up the good work! —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:49 UTC
- Support. Seems to be a knowledgeable, hard working user. --Danaman5 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support this courteous and hardworking editor for administrator responsibilities. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Yup. Deizio talk 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All my interactions with him have been positive.--ragesoss 01:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very involved. Royboycrashfan
03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is probably a first.. a Hamden Hall student supporting a Hopkins School student in something. Anyway, I have to say the Hopkins page making it to featured article status has inspired me to work as much as possible on our Hamden Hall article, and the courteous way he has dealt with vandalism from a school IP impressed me. Although I haven't had any personal interactions with this user, I strongly support him. --Kazushi 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support #50 and sad it took this long. Edit-conflict: Okay, 51. SorryGuy 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We should encourage more editors like this one to wield the mop. Silensor 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A solid, positive contributor worthy of adminship. Zaxem 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Kukini 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stax of support here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong candidate, will be a good admin i'm sure. Rockpocket 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – good editor – Gurch 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great guy --Fir0002 www 11:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; well-balanced contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems reasonable. Captainj 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Massive Support Staxringold is a great editor and will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work.--MONGO 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will be excellent administrator. DakPowers (Talk) 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice guy from what I understand. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Answer to 3rd question made me nervous at first, but Staxringold seems to have changed, and it was an honest answer. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He looks like a good and knowledgeable editor. I liked his honesty in answering the questions below, his obvious familiarity with the article-writing side of things (it's why we're all here), and the fact he already has the support of several editors whose judgment I trust. Pity about the CVU thing, but nobody's perfect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Passed Diablo Test. Anwar 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another shoo-in. Sarge Baldy 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously. SushiGeek 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Rory096 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very good contributor, that writes very good articles. Afonso Silva 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- Evenprime 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I have only interacted with this user on one article, and am rather indifferent about the experience.[reply]
Comments
- See Staxringold's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Staxringold Total edits 5936 Distinct pages edited 2255 Average edits/page 2.632 First edit 00:26, August 23, 2005 (main) 3680 Talk 246 User 136 User talk 350 Image 423 Image talk 1 Template 153 Template talk 42 Category 13 Wikipedia 799 Wikipedia talk 79 Portal 9 Portal talk 5G.He 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 16:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Staxringold (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 197 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 16, October, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100% Article edit summary use (last 539 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Average edits per day: 19.42 (for last 500 edit(s)) Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.6% (180) Unique pages edited: 1955 | Average edits per page: 2.56 | Edits on top: 7.38% Breakdown of all edits: Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 25.96% (1298 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 51.12% (2556 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 8.48% (424 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 14.44% (722 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 61.16% (3058) | Article talk: 4.3% (215) User: 2.54% (127) | User talk: 6.3% (315) Wikipedia: 13.54% (677) | Wikipedia talk: 1.4% (70) Image: 6.9% (345) Template: 2.56% (128) Category: 0.2% (10) Portal: 0.14% (7) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.96% (48)
- See Staxringold's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- I have moved this to ...2 since it is a second nom, and using the original title of a first-nom is both confusing and non-standard and breaks linkage from RfA archives. I've correspondingly moved ...(archive) back to its original title. -Splashtalk 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: As a member of the CVU I would continue working to fight vandalism when I encounter it (while thinking about what to work on I monitor the RC, but an easier process makes for better vandalism hunting). I'm also a large fan of article clean-up such as rewriting articles for spoilers, tense, short paragraphs that can be merged, oddly formed sentences, etc.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The articles I'm most proud of are probably those recognized by the community as they imply other people are enjoying what I've written. Cheers went through a solid FAC process where I fixed all explained complaints IMO, and is quite a nice article. I'm also quite proud of Hopkins School and the status it has achieved, hopefully helping lay the groundwork for the other great editors from WP:Schools to bring up great school articles.
- 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 was a bit green around the edges in my early editing days and I did get into some arguements early on with other users, the general complaint being I used slightly harsh language. This was the major reason for my first RfA's failure. I feel as though I have learned and grown as a Wikipedian, and am now worthy of the power and responsibility adminship implies. As an example of this Scm83x, the user who originally pointed out instances of my newbie biting and unkind language in the first RfA, has now become a close Wikibuddy of mine.
- 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (66/0/1) ended 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Richardcavell (talk · contribs) – This user has a long history of constructive edits to wikipedia. He's made a big difference to lots of articles, he has a history of editing civilly, he's taken part in AFDs and RfAs - in short, he fulfils WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks to Hughcharlesparker for the nomination; I'm very flattered by it. I accept. - Richardcavell 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support - Good user, sensible, polite, good judgement on AfD writes good articles.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. NSLE (T+C) at 04:01 UTC (2006-05-30)
- Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent editor, level headed. Will be a fine administrator. -- Samir धर्म 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have had positive interaction/discussion with this user and see no good reason not to support. Grandmasterka 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes. Yanksox 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not?! RadioKirk talk to me 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Insofar as I can see, there are no issues. joturner 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everything is in order here. --TantalumTelluride 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support :) Dlohcierekim 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - enter clich(e with e thing on it) here -- Tawker 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rounded experience, good manner. Tyrenius 06:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and Tawkér (or Tawkèr?). Conscious 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- no objections. This user deserves the Admin powers. Reyk YO! 07:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a trusted user with already a barnstar; another potential vadalfighter JoJan 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - always a hard worker at AfD. Always has a useful opinion. Kevin 08:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems here. Computerjoe's talk 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely TigerShark 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator support at number 21. This is what you get for nominating someone in a different timezone. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to have a good balance of community- and encyclopdia-based work and has been around long enough to know how things work. Recent edits to AfD show a well-balanced and knowledgeable (and non-ideological) participation there. The 'This' mention in Q3 really doesn't read all that badly, I have to say, but the restraint shown by avoiding such an article must surely bode well when it comes to deciding whether or not to press that admin button. -Splashtalk 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies. We need more people like him at the AFD. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have been frequently impressed by Richard's good work at AfD, he will use the tools well. Rje 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be a strong Wikipedia, who has got a good level of activity on the project. --Wisden17 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. Enabling him to fight vandalism more easily is clearly beneficial. CWC(talk) 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Trustworthy editor. -- No Guru 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--digital_me(t/c) 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support Edit count on the low side, but high enough to conclude that he won't misuse the admin tools. --Bachrach44 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - when I've run across him in various places, he always seems civil and knowledgeable, and looks to be a solid choice for admin. Tony Fox 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom and marvelous answers to questions. That's all I need to know you're a great user (actually, I already knew you were ;) ). Royboycrashfan
21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support great candidate — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. Deizio talk 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mopper like. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would prefer if he sometimes gave sources in AfDs rather than just assert that they exist (this might have changed the outcome of some AfDs, such as this one) but other than that, everything looks great. JoshuaZ 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- valuable editor. - Longhair 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DVD+ R/W 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - making a valuable contribution. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very learned person who brings a wealth of knowledge to Wikipedia. Worthy of the admin role. Rogerthat Talk 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A reliable, solid contributor. Zaxem 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- sUPPORT! Great guy, knows what he's doing --Mahogany 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per RadioKirk :-) Gwernol 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seen him around the traps, no issues at all.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The I hate to bust the "You mean he's not" cliché support. Seriously, no question at all. --Deville (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support absolutely. One of the best editors we've got. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong contributor in all areas. Everything points to a good administrator. Rockpocket 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. In general, a thoughtful, moderate voice in AfD and elsewhere. No skirmishes with other editors. Only reservation is that I'd like to see more long-term involvement with some articles (though i think he may have a few of these too). -MrFizyx 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edits look good.--MONGO 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per above; positive contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--A Y Arktos\talk 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Captainj 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Could use a bit more experience, but it's not worth opposing over. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen this username around a bit, but I can't remember and can't figure out where. I wish I could, it would help me with the vote. Anyway this vote based on answers to questions. -lethe talk + 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I seemed to overlook this RfA earlier in the candidacy. Werdna (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I missed this one early as well! BD2412 T 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- Does not pass 1FA, but has shown to have active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass under positive exception exception number one? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he did, which is why I did not oppose. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass under positive exception exception number one? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See Richardcavell's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
Richardcavell's edit count | Interiot's tool 2 |
---|---|
Namespace | # of Edits |
(main) | 1827 |
Talk | 144 |
User | 40 |
User talk | 187 |
MediaWiki talk | 1 |
Template | 2 |
Wikipedia | 672 |
Wikipedia talk | 24 |
Total | 2897 |
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 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 frequently participate in AfD, and if I get administrator status I'll be able to close the discussions. Rove McManus is a frequent target of vandalism and it needs semi-protection from time to time. I'd like to have the ability to temporarily block anon IPs such as 82.198.250.4 and its mates.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: There's a long list at my user page. I've written biographies such as Bernard King (television), John-Michael Howson and Max Green. I've written several medical topics such as conjoint tendon, esophagectomy and peptic. I enjoy creating redirects and disambiguation pages such as Klown and Robert Lowe, since the search engine is not the best and this structure helps people get to what they're looking for. I still maintain that the best contributions that I can make is to upgrade the spelling/grammar of existing articles.
- 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 created Channel 31 Melbourne, and then banned myself from it after an Australian anonymous IP removed most of my work. This was my response at the time. Although I still think that someone from C31 management was sanitising the unflattering content, I realised that I was too emotionally involved in the station (I've been helping there for 11 years) to be truly impartial. So I remain on a self-imposed ban from that page.
- I have a couple of questions. They're optional, so feel free to spurn them with a harsh remark and send me fleeing in tears if that's what floats your boat. Ahem.
- F0. You mention you'd like to close AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfDs? What would you do if an AfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What would you do in general if a poor argument for deletion had numerical support? Would would you do if an AfD debate was not closed within the 5 days (as often happens), and in the time between the 5 days expiring and you getting around to closing it, somebody had produced evidence that the article should be kept? What is your opinion of this AfD close?
- A. My general philosophy on XfD is in fact inclusionist, even though if you look at my contributions you'll see tons of deletes in my edit summaries. I'm bothered by the 'evidence presented by an expert' scenario - I have considered trying to save several articles, including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overseas doctor and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Urinal_etiquette (both of which I wanted to keep), by fortressing my AfD vote with references or (even better) fortressing the article, but there's no point going to the trouble if the article will inevitably be deleted. A 'keep' vote will only keep it alive until someone nominates it again - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James (2nd nomination) or even mad nigger, both of which I fought to keep and both survived their first nominations.
- The policy is 'rough consensus', and I have to go with that no matter how eloquent the arguments that are presented. As to your example of Zvi Mowshowitz - well, I would have voted 'keep' as a voter, but as a closing admin I would have deleted. (And I would never close an AfD that I have voted on).
- I actually believe that if an article survives AfD, then there ought to be a lock-out period during which it cannot be renominated. I also think that there should be a policy that if an article undergoes significant changes while on AfD, which address the reason for which it was placed on AfD, then the administrator should have the discretion to set aside the current votes and restart the AfD.
- F1. You also mentioned blocking vandals. What is your general philosophy on blocking vandals? At what point is blocking appropriate, and for how long?
- Most 'vandalism' is in fact innocent testing and trial rather than true vandalism, born of an intention to be disruptive. I am therefore especially unsympathetic towards those vandals (such as Willy on Wheels) who appear to have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia that they could use their knowledge for constructive purposes.
- I would only block a vandal after they've been warned appropriately - I've noticed that {{test4}} does seem to work a considerable percentage of the time. I think that blocking should be used to incapacitate the editor (to protect the encyclopedia) and not for punishment, deterrence, denunciation, etc. So the appropriate period of time is the minimum period of time that will frustrate the vandal.
- F2. What about blocking people who aren't bog-standard vandals? How do you feel about that?
- I'm not sure what you're asking me. I'd be more reluctant to block a person for edit-warring/3 revert rule, because that sort of person is probably acting in good faith. Discussion is going to provide for more chance of rehabilitation than simply blocking. Have a look at User_talk:Legendary_Steve, who added the category 'Black Criminals' to Martin Luther King. I asked a few people to lay off the vandalism accusations and we got him to see the light.
- F0. You mention you'd like to close AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfDs? What would you do if an AfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What would you do in general if a poor argument for deletion had numerical support? Would would you do if an AfD debate was not closed within the 5 days (as often happens), and in the time between the 5 days expiring and you getting around to closing it, somebody had produced evidence that the article should be kept? What is your opinion of this AfD close?
Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:03, 4 June 2006 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (31/26/9) ended 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I would make a good administrator since I have a good tempermate, am always civil, and I know policy and guidelines well as well as how things work around here. For the sake of transparency I'll note her that this is my third nom (1st nom, 2nd nom) both of which failed primarily due to inexperience however I have been around longer now and have much more experience and feel that I would now make a good administrator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I should point out that I was Pegasus1138 was on my shortlist of nominations, I've just been a little swamped and haven't gotten around to the paperwork. My nomination statement would be basically what he wrote so feel free to consider this a nomination -- Tawker 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Despite concern addressed in comments below, I think his work on Wikipedia is enough for me to support. NSLE (T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
- Support despite short time since last nomination (time between nominations doesn't relate to admin abilities) and not-so-long tenure. joturner 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support i've seen this person around in a few places, and certainly deem them worthy of adminship. good luck.--Alhutch 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - April Fools is well, April Fools, and not the other 365 days of a year. Will make good use of the tools (and alreayd has the rate NSLE support which is good enough for me) -- Tawker 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will be great. Yanksox
- Support despite inability to spell "temperament". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit Conflict Support, meets my standards. --Terence Ong 04:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Great user. Seen this user around and seems very dedicated. :) G.He 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my standards by a mile. DarthVader 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just because he was here a month ago doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. --Rory096 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good vandal fighter, would benefit from the tools abakharev 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Haves seen this user around many times and appears to be ready for adminship. -- Tangotango 06:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Tango. -?Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, don't see why repeated self-noms shoudl be held against someone. The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I see nothing wrong in repeating self-noms after a one month period. I thought that this was the bare minimum time-frame for RfAs and the bare minimum time-frame for RfB is a 3 month period. This, at least to me, shows that the user is eager to serve Wikipedia in a more broader role. This can only be a positive thing for this project at large. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support ForestH2
- Strong support. If he is a good editor, and he is impatient to help the community; then I do not see any reason for denying him the tools. --Andy123 candy? 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Ani and Tawker. Joe 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets my standards, and per Tawker.--digital_me(t/c) 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He helped me with some stuff. Very good at what he is doing. Per Ani and Tawker. FellowWikipedian 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, does good work. A bit more patience wrt RfA would be nice, though. Kusma (??) 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support . froggy 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This vote was added by 198.22.123.105 (talk · contribs). Kusma (??) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uninsureddriver (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- This user's only edits were establishing blue links for user and user talk page, voting here and unstriking the IP vote. Kusma (??) 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'd be surprised if this user and the IP directly above are not the same person. Kusma (??) 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This user's only edits were establishing blue links for user and user talk page, voting here and unstriking the IP vote. Kusma (??) 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He is good editor, and good vandal catcher. Daniel5127, 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Liberatore(T) 12:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This editor will make a great administrator one day. If things do not work out this time, please allow me to renominate you next quarter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pepsidrinka 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stif1e 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This was this user's 2nd edit, and the user is blocked indefinitely as an impersonator of, well, me. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Poloyoe 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Mostly Rainy 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- The main reason to oppose seems to be that he took the initiative to nominate himself. I don't have a problem with that. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- March 24... April 23... May 30... Three noms in three months is not too appealing to me. I do like Pegasus (nice, good editor, etc), but seems a bit to impatient. Other editors have said they would nominate you in good time, yet you still didn't wait. Unfortunately, this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I'd say just keep up the good work and wait a bit longer before another try. Sorry... oppose. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I am also a little wary of Pegasus' take on delinking redlinks. Yes, some should be removed, but most of them point to areas where WP is lacking. For instance, recently, you removed a couple of links to universities. These would be perfectly valid article subjects. I know you have tempered your position some, and none of this really has anything to do with admin tools, I just thought you might like a bit more feedback. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per You Know Who, the month intervals seem rather disturbing, with them all being self-nominations. Also in your first one, you stated: "I am withdrawing and I will try again in a few months.", but you haven't waited a few months, you've tried twice in month intervals since then. You are too anxious, that's not a good quality in an a higher position. Kevin Breitenstein 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo the same concerns already stated. I suppose that makes me a Death Eater. --Michael Snow 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm not one to suggest that lawyers can't be comics, but... zowie, that one fell flat. :-) --Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to be careful tangling with someone who is both a lawyer and a Death Eater. -Splashtalk 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that redundant? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Flat as a dead pan, yes. If it's not to your taste, sorry. --Michael Snow 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to be careful tangling with someone who is both a lawyer and a Death Eater. -Splashtalk 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm not one to suggest that lawyers can't be comics, but... zowie, that one fell flat. :-) --Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose great contributer, but the power-hungry nature expressed in the three quick self noms leaves me thinking it should be withheld untill the nom can go two or three months without trying. -Mask
10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose great contributer, but not quite there in term of time and experience. :) Dlohcierekim 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We're being asked to support this candidate every time there are a few weeks of decent editing. The trouble is that these few weeks are interspersed with serious errors (April Fool's day, and deletion reviews complaining about jokes, heavy-handed deletion of templates that are not deleteable and ignoring numerous editors who tell him otherwise). These things happened just last month! Add to this that these three self-noms in as many months give a distinct impression of chomping at the bit and some impatience, and I feel uncomfortable with supporting an RfA now. Most editors who succeed here have several months of good, reliable editing with usually no substantial errors during that time, and certainly not in the last few weeks. I'd suggest some patience, an accumulation of a reputation for not getting things off-center and a non-self-nom in a couple more months (and not a few more weeks). I know from myself that it is easy to think you have "seen most things/it all" and then, as time goes by, you realise just how much you hadn't seen. On the up side, I see among recent edits non-contentious AfD closures — getting a feel for more things is an excellent continuation. -Splashtalk 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Three nominations in three months is too many (the fact that this is a selfnom makes no difference to me). Cynical 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I must echo Splash's reasons in their entirety, it is a pity because Pegasus is a valuable contributor. Unfortunately I do not think he is quite ready for adminship, as is evidenced by the problems with jokes, April Fool's day etc. I will probably support at a later date when Pegasus shows he can act with a suitable sense of decorum. Rje 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposePer Rje's sentiments above. A good user, but just needs more time to show the maturity required for adminship. --Wisden17 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community. --Cyde?Weys 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have concerns about my maintaining my anonymity to the community please by all means send me an email and I'll discuss it with you but for now my identity remains my own. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ....Um, I'm honestly confused here. Are admins required to give out their real names or something? I don't know why people would want to give people who wish to harm them any information. --mboverload@
- Comment - I doubt it's required, but I think that using ones real name allows them to get a better reputation. (If your alias gets a bad reputation, you can change it, but there is more incentive to behave when your name is used.) This doesn't apply if you use the same alias all the time though, so ignore my rambling... MichaelBillington 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ....Um, I'm honestly confused here. Are admins required to give out their real names or something? I don't know why people would want to give people who wish to harm them any information. --mboverload@
- If you have concerns about my maintaining my anonymity to the community please by all means send me an email and I'll discuss it with you but for now my identity remains my own. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, fails 1FA (unfortunately...), but...I can see that you are on the right track. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Splash. Rapid-fire nominations are not a good sign; also, I share some civility/personality concerns regarding editor, who occasionally seems obstinate and not very open to compromise in deletion discussions. Xoloz 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's not just impatience with RfA renoms; it's impatience with other users. Minimum of 2 months of patience is now in order. Tyrenius 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest of weak opposes I like the editor, but the RfA noms, especially for self-noms, seem a bit too impatient. Sorry. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per Splash and Lord Voldemort. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User is too hasty. He welcomes User:Willy on Wheels should be a Sysop, calls things vandalism when they are nothing of the sort (my only guess is "dyke" set off some CVU bot and he duely reverted it without looking), reverts an unauthorized bot that changed only whitespace but reverted someone else's edit to do it with an edit summary refering to changing someone's comments? (the bot was doing spelling changes on talk pages--but this was an article and it wasn't a spelling change it was doing), reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism? Kotepho 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The link that says "reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism?" only shows that "
ulglkklh
" was removed. G.He 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, this is the proper diff. There is some talk about it on his (Pegasus') talk page also. Kotepho 02:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The link that says "reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism?" only shows that "
- Oppose per Kotepho. Naconkantari 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - when I opposed last time, I said I'd consider supporting in a few months and it's not even two since. More haste, less speed... —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per last time Jaranda wat's sup 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Still needs a bit more time and experience. Zaxem 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kotepho. --Zoz (t) 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Only 1500 edits and a few months experience. Furthermore, 3 self-noms in his/her short tenure here isn't necessarily something that should be encouraged. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the wording Splash used sums up the general feeling I'm getting from this user. robchurch | talk 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral(change to oppose) for now. Held back from supporting because of the speed of renoms. Patience is a good quality for an admin. Tyrenius 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral So many self-noms, so little time. Phr (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Looks generally good, but very frequent self-nominations concerns me as to how patient the candidate is. Please be patient.--Jusjih 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Jusjih. Royboycrashfan
21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral No major concerns, but a bit too new to the project for my liking and a bit too keen for the mop. I'd suggest coming back in a couple of months, when I think you should easily gain promotion. TigerShark 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Jusjih. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral see above --Mahogany 14:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am honestly undecided still. But i would like to give a well meant and unsollicited advise for if it is does not succeed. Wait the next time till someone else nominats you, and sure, that can take 2, 3 4 more months. I am afraid that if you try again yourself in about a month, which would be perfectly valid and such, it will start to push more buttons along the same line of the arguments I have seen here above, which I in part do understand. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Jusjih --Robdurbar 08:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- For whatever reason I get the impression that this user has a great desire to be an administrator. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but these repeated self nominations give me a queasy feeling. Lust for power never sits well with me.--Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about normal lust? Is that allowed? The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. Lust for power. You could have also taken this as a lust for greater responsibilities? --Andy123 candy? 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about normal lust? Is that allowed? The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's contributions.Voice-of-AllTalk 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Pegasus1138 (over the 4012 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 101 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 21, February, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.44% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 33.9 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 4012 edits): Article edit summary use (last 270 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.8% (32) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.15% (6) Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 23.9% (959) Unmarked article edits: 0% (0) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2000 | Average edits per page: 2.01 | Edits on top: 12.19% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 45.64% (1831 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 32.43% (1301 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 21.31% (855 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.62% (25 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 37.51% (1505) | Article talk: 3.56% (143) User: 13.48% (541) | User talk: 17.47% (701) Wikipedia: 18.42% (739) | Wikipedia talk: 6.48% (260) Image: 0.65% (26) Template: 1.37% (55) Category: 0.57% (23) Portal: 0.32% (13) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.15% (6)
- See Pegasus1138's (Talk ? Contributions ? Logs ? Block Logs) contributions as of 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Pegasus1138 Total edits 4012 Distinct pages edited 2063 Average edits/page 1.945 First edit 01:48, February 21, 2006 (main) 1505 Talk 143 User 534 User talk 699 Image 26 Template 55 Template talk 6 Category 23 Wikipedia 748 Wikipedia talk 260 Portal 13G.He 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Pegasus1138's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- Would you really consider youself "always civil"? I seem to remember a run-in with you on IRC on April Fools' Day. NSLE (T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
- That was me taking a situation too seriously and a situation which I apologized for. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to our little spat re. Jimbo's page, which I don't think you've apologised for (at least, I don't remember it, so my apologies if you have). Anyhow, as above, I don't consider that big enough to oppose you (anymore, at least, I used that to oppose you last time IIRC). NSLE (T+C) at 03:55 UTC (2006-05-30)
- That was me taking a situation too seriously and a situation which I apologized for. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 help close AFD debates which I already do for clear cut cases where the consensus is to keep but I would be able to close delete and more complex ones if I had admin tools. I would also use the tools to help my vandalfighting and I would continue to keep an eye on cfd and tfd since having admin tools can help with that.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: <cliche> I am proud of all my contributions on Wikipedia </cliche> A few contributions though that I am proud of is my continuing quest to try to get Megatokyo to featured status and my work on Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny.
- 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 been in several conflicts including Wikipedia:Semi-Bots and the conflict in regards to the display of a picture of Muhammed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In every conflict I have been in I have been civil and have listened to the concerns and suggestions of both those that I agree with and disagree with.
- Optional question from User:NSLE:
Regarding the recent controversy with Linuxbeak and Raul about unblocking Selina and Blu Aardvark, what is your take? If you were called upon to make a split-second decision, what would you do? This question is totally optional, but I'd be interested to know your answer. NSLE (T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-05-31)
DriniQuestion
- Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More optional questions
- In looking at your nomination I wonder just why you want to be an administrator. What tools are you missing to do what you want to do? Ifnord 14:53, 6 June 2006 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
FINAL (32/17/6) ending 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Digitalme (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia back around a year ago, but I didn't really start editing until November. Since then, I've ammassed a quite a few edits (somewhere around 2000, last I checked,) and done a lot of anti-vandalism and RC patrol, as well as general cleanup and wikification. I have recently joined the mediation cabal, where I successfully mediated my first case, and I hope to help with many more. I feel that I would be a good admin because I have experience, knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and want to help make Wikipedia a better place. --digital_me(t/c) 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Why thank you, I am honored to accept!--digital_me(t/c) 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. Seen this candidate around, no problems for me. RadioKirk talk to me 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per radiokirk. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Mostly Rainy 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I don't see anything wrong here. --Terence Ong 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support number of edits doesn't really impact anything if a candidate is well-versed in policy and is responsible. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The only issue I have is edits outside of vandalism, but I think he would be a useful addition to the admin list. Yanksox 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I have concern that the user is overly focused on vandalism and so we have little info about how the Digital will behave if some form of conflict comes up, but overall the impression I get is favorable and I think Digital will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate support per JoshuaZ (although I should say that I do comment Digital for wanting to be an admin in order to carry out the work of the community in any area in which admin involvement is required; such a sentiment reflects, IMHO, an excellent understanding of the nature of adminship and a desire for the mop, etc., for the right reasons) and RadioKirk. Joe 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (edit conflict) Keep on fighting vandalism (and please add Vincent van Gogh to your watch list). Tyrenius 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - is constantly using AIV and a direct link to the block would save a little time for everyone -- Tawker 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yup. Definitely. G.He 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my standards. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. We need more vandal fighters. --Shlomke 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak moral support. Not bad, though more edits at Wikipedia namespaces would be much better.--Jusjih 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ForestH2
- Support Would make a good admin - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support More vandal fighting power to ya! — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Tawker - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to Wholeheartedly Support Digitalme. He's been very active in vandal fighting (we chat while doing so, often) and he's very polite and determined to protect Wikipedia from vandalism. Admins work for free, there's no need to make sure you get your "money's worth" from them being able to do everything. If we have one more person willing and able to tone down the amount of damage to Wikipedia, isn't that worth it? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good RC Patroller! Crazynas 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good at fighting vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great vandal fighter --Scott 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Great vandalism fighter, but not many constructive article edits --Bsmntbombdood 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Needs to make more productive article contributions, but otherwise a great user. — TheKMantalk 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, been here long enough to get a promotion. --Froggy 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - good vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Vandal Fighters can really use adminship well. Thus I believe it is fine to give this user adminship. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Stats show more than a vandal fighter,100% Admin Material.--Sartaj beary 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - maybe I should write my own version of the 1FA article - but, in my mind, the only meaningful question is do I trust him with the tools. And I do, thus, I support BigDT 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great contributor, I've had a lot of discussions with him through E@. DakPowers (Talk) 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#Support - GruntiIda 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IP voting, this RfA is over, just not closed.--digital_me(t/c) 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nop, discussion is only over when closed, it can be prolonged for some time if needed. So, voting can continue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose for now, I seen digitalme editing and he's a good vandal fighter, but I feel he needs more experince with article writing, the answer for number 3 I didn't like nither. I'm willing to change my vote if this is a close one and I'm happy to support in a few months. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Digitalme's contributions to fighting vandalism are valued. However, I don't see the major contributions to Fencing, although Digitalme says it's the article he/she is most proud of. That indicates that perhaps there isn't much dedication to building an encyclopedia which is, after all, our primary purpose on Wikipedia. My primary objection: the contributions to the Wikipedia project space don't seem to be varied (see project space history); I'd like to see more AfD contributions (as of right now, there's only one). Administrators will be expected to make decisions on closing AfDs and therefore they should be more involved in the process. Lastly, although these two items didn't really contribute to my decision to oppose, I'm a) curious as to why April 2006 was your first month with more than 160 edits and b) puzzled as to why the date was formatted incorrectly in this RfA. I understand people make mistakes, but I just find that one especially strange. Anyway, like I said, those last two things were more of comments rather than oppose reasons. joturner 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the date was fixed so quickly that it wasn't a concern for me. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, about the date. I guess I was so stunned by the fact that I had actually nominated myself that I made a little slip.--digital_me(t/c) 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Certainly on the rights tracks but far too soon. Started editing in November, but only made 86 contributions from then until the end of February. Only started editing seriously in March (with 150 contributions that month) and heavy editing only began last month. Looks like a good vandal fighter and the regular use of warnings is a very encouraging sign, but needs a few more months of experience and more exposure to activities outside of vandal fighting. TigerShark 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Seems to be a good admin material, but to soon. Maybe in a couple of months... abakharev 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Single-issue vandal fighters do not necessarily good admins make, no matter how much time they spend on IRC. This is not to say that they make bad admins either, but there is more to adminning than pressing 'rollback' and 'block'. In the case of this candidate there is not a lot by way of participation in the community-side of things (where adminning happens, by and large), despite an apparently large number of WP: space edits; they are all to AIAV. Couple that with only about 1.5 months of regular involvement and the experience gains that come with it, and I think that a broader, longer involvement would be needed before handing out an admin bit here. Vandal fighting does not require admin powers, and I do increasingly get the impression that the preponderance of admins in the CVU IRC channel makes people think that it does. -Splashtalk 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Editing articles (and the engagement in content debates which this almost inevitably involves) is an important experience for an admin. Cynical 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A good user in terms of vandal-fighting, but currently lacks the all-round contributions that I like to see for support. In a few months time I would suggest that this user would have this sufficient level, with more MedCab cases under their belt, for example. --Wisden17 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose does not meet 1FA, lacking all-roundedness. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Splash and TigerShark. The candidate simply has insufficient experience at this time, especially for a self-nom. Try again in four or five months. Xoloz 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. What Xoloz said. That fencing article would look great with some more references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Insufficient experience. Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not long enough as a consistent contributor. Needs a bit more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Splash. Good vandal fighter but lacks all-roundedness. --Zoz (t) 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns above about lack of all-roundedness. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough experience and per Joturner. --Cyde↔Weys 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Good vandal fighter, but the number of interactions with vandals or editors you disagree on content is so low that it is sheer imposible to tell how you wil deal with serious trolling and abusive vandals that you as admin for sure will have to deal with. Sorry. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. I like what i see, and there may be an argument for foisting the mop for vandalism fighting only. But he would also have the power to close AfDs, for example, and there appears to be a real lack of experience in that department. However, since the editor does not seem likely to abuse the mop in an area he is not experienced enough in, i wouldn't like to oppose. So its a neutral from me, with an intention to support should the editor come back with some wider project experience in the future. Rockpocket 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask, in what way there is a lack of experience in the AfD cleanup department? - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, i didn't make myself very clear there. Let me rephrase. I meant that, in comparison to the high number of edits combating vandalism, project involvement such as AfD activity is somewhat underrepresented. As an admin with the authority to use his tools in these areas, i personally would like to see experience in a wider variety of project and community activities before offering my full support. Rockpocket 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little thing about the technical power to close AfD's. Sure, I have it too and yes, I'm not terribly involved in AfD, that exact same question was raised when I was up on the chopping block. I guess it really is a vote for or against specalist admins, and should be considered there. To use Curps's policy DigitalMe will move into closing AfD's if it ever becomes interesting. Alt-D isn't really critical to fighting vandalism :) -- Tawker 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. And this is why i have mixed feelings about this candidate. I'm sure he would make a good vandal fighting admin and would support his nomination for such a position, but have little to go on in judging his contributions to other areas. Since we must consider his suitability on more than a specialist skill, i feel unable to support at this time. However, i'd like to reiterate, i have no criticisms of what he has done, just what he hasn't (yet). A little more experience in demonstrating a firm understanding of wider policy and i'll happily support in future. Rockpocket 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little thing about the technical power to close AfD's. Sure, I have it too and yes, I'm not terribly involved in AfD, that exact same question was raised when I was up on the chopping block. I guess it really is a vote for or against specalist admins, and should be considered there. To use Curps's policy DigitalMe will move into closing AfD's if it ever becomes interesting. Alt-D isn't really critical to fighting vandalism :) -- Tawker 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, i didn't make myself very clear there. Let me rephrase. I meant that, in comparison to the high number of edits combating vandalism, project involvement such as AfD activity is somewhat underrepresented. As an admin with the authority to use his tools in these areas, i personally would like to see experience in a wider variety of project and community activities before offering my full support. Rockpocket 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask, in what way there is a lack of experience in the AfD cleanup department? - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Adminship should be no big deal, digital looks great. I have a higher standard for self-noms, though, so this one's on the fence. +sj + 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral User has reverted vandalism tirelessly, which I appreciate, but seems a little too focused on vandalism and doesn't interact enough with other users. I would suggest more talk edits and user talk edits other than vandalism warnings. SCHZMO ✍ 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Schzmo. I would like to see more variety in activities. Royboycrashfan
21:05, 30 May 2006
- Neutral right on Royboy... you seem to be on the ball Digitalme... keep'er up!!! - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support. Ukrained 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments User's contributions.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Digitalme (over the 2552 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 355 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 11, May, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.79% Average edits per day: 463.32 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 2552 edits): Article edit summary use (last 355 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (3) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.84% (47) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 3.72% (95) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1638 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 23.55% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 1.18% (30 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 62.58% (1597 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 35.19% (898 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 1.06% (27 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 37.5% (957) | Article talk: 2.04% (52) User: 12.23% (312) | User talk: 39.15% (999) Wikipedia: 7.37% (188) | Wikipedia talk: 0.51% (13) Image: 0.16% (4) Template: 0.86% (22) Category: 0.04% (1) Portal: 0.08% (2) Help: 0.04% (1) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.04% (1)
- See Digitalme's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- Digitalme's edit count as seen with Interiot's internal edit counter on 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC):[reply]
Total edits 3051 Distinct pages edited 1994 Average edits/page 1.530 First edit 17:54, 11 May 2005 (main) 1152 Talk 54 User 360 User talk 1208 Image 4 Template 24 Template talk 1 Help 2 Category 1 Wikipedia 230 Wikipedia talk 13 Portal 2
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 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: If I was made an admin, I think that I would use the tools to help out with my counter vandalism work. I can't even remember how many times I've gone to WP:AIV to list a vandal, and there are already four or five vandals listed. I would help out wherever help is needed, so if I was needed to do things like close AfDs, clean up a backlog at Speedy Deletions, or anything like that, I would be happy to do it. Anything that makes Wikipedia a better place!
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'd say that I'm most proud of my contributions to the Fencing article, and its related pages, mainly because it is the article that I feel I have the most to add to. I am also proud of my work on reverting vandalism quickly.
- Update: I would like to add that I recently wrote Walter E. Scott, so maybe this will allay some of the fears that I can't write articles. --digital_me(t/c) 03:48, 1 June 2006 (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: I have probably been in a few edit conflicts, but none stick out as being particularly severe. If I do encounter one, (and I probably will, at some point) I will treat it as I try to treat everything else: with civility, understanding, and respect for all editors involved.
Question from Yanksox (optional)
4. In what ways aside from dealing with vandalism would you use your admin powers for? Yanksox 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I already answered this as part of question 1 above, but I will restate it here. If I am made an admin, I plan on using my admin powers where they are neccesary, whether it's a backlog of AfDs to close, a pileup of speedy delete requests, or wherever I am needed.
Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are optional.
1 How would you respond to concerns that you have almost no Wikipedia space edits other than to WP:AIV?
Looking through my contribs, I see that I have many Wikipedia space edits besides those to WP:AIV. Granted, I have a lot of edits to WP:AIV, but I think that that simply reflects how active I am at vandal fighting.
2 How would you respond to concern that you have almost no article space edits that are not either reverting vandalism or minor changes such as removal of {{current}} ?
Again, I see that I have many edits that are reverting vandalism, but if you take a more careful look, there are many edits in there which are not reverting vandalism. Before I became heavily involved in vandal fighting, I made many edits to articles. I have always tried to work on improving articles, whether by wikifying them, or by cleaning them up.
Question from KimvdLinde As always, all additional questions are optional.
1 One of the things you can get involved in as an admin is conflict resolution. I see that you have only 47 talk page edits, of which 40% is vandalism reverts. The user talk page edits are almost exclusively vandalism and related warnings. Do you think you have enough experience with discussing with other editors about content and especially, in conflict situations?
- A: I have had several of my reverts contested by other editors, and each time, I was able to talk it over with them in a civil manner, even if they were hostile. I have also discussed article content on several talk pages, so I think that I have experience discussing content with other editors.
- 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (9/27/5) ended 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Osbus (talk · contribs) – I've been around for a few months and have amassed about 1500 edits (for those of you who think that thats the most important thing in RfA). Before registering, I contributed as an anon and read through some WP policies due to curiosity of the Wikipedia project. Since registering, I have contributed to all parts of WP and have decided the main areas in which I contribute can benefit from my having certain capabilities. Thus, I feel I can further WP goals and scopes with some admin tools. Btw, I'm an admin over at a site called Philowiki, so I've had experience deleting, doing rollback, and blocking users for repeated vandalism.Osbus 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom. --Osbus 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, did I ever get a sex change? --Osbus 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you swap names with User:Demi. Everyone assumes he's a girl. And it's your own fault, wouldn't have been an issue if someone else had nominated you :P The Land 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, did I ever get a sex change? --Osbus 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Would prefer more experience, but likely won't abuse the tools. RadioKirk talk to me 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets my criteria. ShortJason 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Participates his share into Concordia, seems an unlikely guy to abuse his position. JRA WestyQld2 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my criteria. DarthVader 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not likely to abuse his broom. Mostly Rainy 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support Give it a month --Mahogany 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Active member in the community and unlike to abuse admin tools. SCHZMO ✍ 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Xoloz 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This vote was by the impostor account User:XoIoz. RadioKirk talk to me 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Froggy 14:48, 1 June 2006- Vote made by an IP. Struck out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because its no big deal. Babylon5 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has never voted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Reggae Sanderz 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Marked as ppossible sockpuppet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Babylon5 RFAvotebot33 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is the user's first edit. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So? What's your point? RFAvotebot33 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is the user's first edit. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell? Username block, anyone? --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And done, good. Indenting this vote.--Rory096 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. :) Vitriouxc 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 6th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Xoloz 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Babylon5 --t ALL IN c 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose, too few edits to the article namespace. Naconkantari 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: With all due respect, I wasn't satisfied with answers below. Doesn't prove a thorough enough knowledge of Wikipedia. Maybe try again some other time down the road, after you've had more experience with edit conflicts and whatnot. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am indefinably uneasy about your answers to the questions (in particular, the lack of any stressful interactions; all users will come across a few, and the number increases exponentially once you become an admin and other editors start to think you should solve all their problems for them). That's not in itself enough for me to oppose, but combine it with your involvement with Concordia and I'm far from sold on this idea. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The answer to Tawker's first question might have been enough. Why wouldn't you report it to WP:RCU? Also, isn't AfD a debate not a ballot? Yanksox 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Same as other users. Not enough article namespace edits, and I am not satisfied at all with the answers below. Support next time maybe. ForestH2
- Oppose I was prepared to support, albeit weakly, believing the user unlikely to abuse the tools, but I am not at all confident, in view of the question answers given (by which I am troubled in the same fashion as are Mark, Yank, and Forest), that the user would use the mop, etc., properly; even as I don't think he/she would be intentionally disruptive, I can conceive of situations in which his/her misunderstanding of policy might be problematic. Joe 20:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - my question 1 troubles me a bit, I'd like to see some attempts at communication first, I'm also concerned about burnout. Adminship does not really increase one's productivity (it actually decreases it, you get stuck in admin tasks and no real editing :-o ) -- Tawker 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per most of the above, and question 5, and edit summary usage. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposewould block vandals, but I found no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. I would like to see more experience in doing that. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Has a decent amount of experience & edits, but his answer to Tawker's first question scared me. I got the impression that he might block first and ask questions later, which is never a good thing. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Yes, I would block, but during the probation period, I'd try to talk to the user. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Btw, a block for a week is pretty lenient for doing abusive sockpuppetry when one clearly knows it is wrong. --Osbus 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is why WP:RCU is for. It is so that you can have suspicions verified. Yanksox 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but in this theoretical situation, my suspicions are verified. (or at least, I thought they were).--Osbus 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is why WP:RCU is for. It is so that you can have suspicions verified. Yanksox 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Yes, I would block, but during the probation period, I'd try to talk to the user. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Btw, a block for a week is pretty lenient for doing abusive sockpuppetry when one clearly knows it is wrong. --Osbus 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose. Very good user, but the relatively limited areas of contributions and the short answers to questions make me question your practical policy knowledge at the minute. Try again in a few months, the extra experience will do you the world of good. The Land 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The answers to Tawker questions 1, 5 and 6 are very wrong. Especially the punitive parts of the answer to #1, the entirety of the answer to #5 and the use of the word "majority" in #6. Given #5 and #6, the answer to the very first question is dubious, since it claims the candidate is well-versed in AfD, when the converse is true. Evidently, the candidate needs substantially more experience of the practises, process and policies involved in some very basic parts of being an admin. Take several months to look around, read around generally "be" around and come back then. -Splashtalk 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments...however, what are the "right" answers? Remember, I'm here to learn. --Osbus 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, lacks of experience and edits. --Terence Ong 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, answers don't convince me. Might support in the future. Also, that's a fair use image on your user page. Garion96 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose heart in the right place, but needs more grasp of the nitty gritty to stop suspected sockpuppets from determining an outcome, and take that fair use image off your user page please. Wiki doesn't consider that to be fair use!!! Tyrenius 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralOppose overall a good contributor, however the low amount of minor edits to the main space (could be increased by looking and tagging articles that need improvment, cleanup, or to be wikified) is a tad concerning. Answer to 1) does concern me a little. I also dislike (although it is likely not the candidates fault) the public spamming on WT:CCD (which I have reverted), and the notes on user talk pages to people who have interacted with him. Sorry. Ian13/talk 10:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to oppose because of the answer to Twakers first question, I think talking with the user and checkuser (if they are well liked and have contributed positively) would be a better course of action (at least). Ah yes, and the fair use image, a prospective admin should have corrected that before coming here, and be aware of such policies. Ian13/talk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Naconkantar. --Andeh 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs more experience.--Jusjih 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Clearly needs more experience. Has a fair use image on his/her user page, even though I had reminded him/her of it earlier. [7], [8]. S/he clearly does not understand copyrights. He/She is indeed a good user but inexperienced. --Andy123 candy? 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, too few mainspace edits. --digital_me(t/c) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose experience — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A "few months" isn't long enough for admin in my oppinion.--Andeh 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- One oppose vote wasnt enough for you? ;) --Osbus 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Seems like a nice user. Will make a good admin in not too long. Keep up the good work --Samir धर्म 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. You seem like you have a level head, but you just need some more experience. -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose nothing bad I see, but need more experience. Come back after some more (main) namespace edits. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral I am troubled by the answer to question 1 (which had it's language recently altered). Yanksox 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I have problems saying what I mean the first time. :) --Osbus 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral concerning to see more WP edits than Article. Also, the fact you only have 3 minor edits in the mainspace is concerning. Sorry mate, 3 months and I'll support. Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but he did provide helpful commentary through the peer review process for an article I was working on and it was most appreciated. That's really the only encounter I've had with this editor to my recollection, however. --Strothra 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Some experience comes with time. Royboycrashfan
21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Neutral Has enough experience and edits, and sounds like he knows what an admin does. But the first question from Tawker makes me feel weird, and doesn't use edit summaries enough. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See Osbus' (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username Osbus Total edits 1538 Distinct pages edited 606 Average edits/page 2.538 First edit 19:19, January 20, 2006 (main) 214 Talk 16 User 184 User talk 265 Image 3 Template 42 Template talk 7 Category 2 Wikipedia 458 Wikipedia talk 235 Portal 103 Portal talk 9G.He 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All user's contributions using User:Voice of All's tool (at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS).
--Viewing contribution data for user Osbus (over the 1537 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 131 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 42.83% Minor edits: 90% Article edit summary use (last 179 edits) : Major article edits: 76.4% Minor article edits: 100% Average edits per day: 15.87 (for last 500 edit(s)) Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.07% (1) Unique pages edited: 593 | Average edits per page: 2.59 | Edits on top: 10.41% Breakdown of all edits: Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 19.19% (295 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 3.64% (56 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 8.13% (125 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 69.03% (1061 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 13.92% (214) | Article talk: 1.04% (16) User: 12.23% (188) | User talk: 17.24% (265) Wikipedia: 29.47% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 15.29% (235) Image: 0.2% (3) Template: 2.73% (42) Category: 0.13% (2) Portal: 6.7% (103) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 1.04% (16)
- See Osbus's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
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 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:To be truthful, the only tools I'd use is the delete button and rollback, as I participate mainly in AfD, MfD, and do same RC and Recent Pages Patrolling.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: This is one of the places where all the oppose votes will come from, but I'll still say now I'm proud of Concordia. It wasn't easy overcoming criticism, doing the advertising, or trying to convince fellow Concordians of the views I held. I'm just happy with everything I've done for Wikipedia and hope to improve it further.
- 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: No, I have not.
- Well, now that I think of it, I did have a stressful morning involving me, my computer's filter, and Dijxtra. As I was editing on a laptop I usually didn't use, I didn't know that it had a content filter. Therefore, when I edited an article, I would edit out other people's comments and unintentionally vandalize. When Dijxtra left me vandalism warnings, I was one frightened n00b and asked Dijxtra of where I had vandalized. Having gotten no response and more vandalism warnings, the situation was resolved with civil discussion. --Osbus 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: No, I have not.
Question from Yanksox (opitional)
- 4. I noticed that you reverted this edit of yours [9], can you still explain it? Also, how would you respond to comments that think that you are only interesting in using admin powers to enforce beliefs and not do other important tasks? Yanksox 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted that since it was an incivil statement that didn't need to be said...I apologize if it offended anyone. As for the second question, I am planning to use admin tools to enforce my beliefs- my beliefs that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore should not contain unencyclopedic material (vandalism, nn articles, etc). --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also looked up Philiowiki, exactly how old is that site and what admin duties do you do there? Yanksox 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure exactly how old it is, but its been around for about a year or so. I joined early April, and during that time have redesigned the main page, blocked users, and have done rollbacks. --Osbus 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also looked up Philiowiki, exactly how old is that site and what admin duties do you do there? Yanksox 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted that since it was an incivil statement that didn't need to be said...I apologize if it offended anyone. As for the second question, I am planning to use admin tools to enforce my beliefs- my beliefs that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore should not contain unencyclopedic material (vandalism, nn articles, etc). --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question from HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs)
- 5. Could you say more about your involvement with Concordia? Can you point us to a particular achievement of yours within Concordia? Can you point us to something particular that Concordia achieved that you were proud to be part of? --16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is Concordia's major improvemnt from Community Justice. As the name and logos differed from the goals we had in mind, I and a few other councillors advocated a change. At first, there was quite some opposition, but through discussion and some determination, changes have been made. Concordia, although far from perfect, is improving. --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK so far, but other than its name change can you point us to something positive that Concordia/CJ has done for Wikipedia? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about you, below is my optional set of questions, these usually help me decide one way or another -- 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)
- You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- A I would first indefinitely block the various sockpuppets and tag them. I'd also block the user for a week or so. After the block, I'd put the user on probation.
- An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- A I would talk to the other admin, and if I am convinced, then I will respect his/her decisions. If I am not, I would follow up with mediation. If I eventually go to ArbCom and they reject my case, I would then use my judgement to solve it myself.
- If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- A I would eliminate the use of Trivia sections (note: the header, not the info itself) in all articles.
- Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- A User:AllAmericansDeserveToBeCrappedon who posts the address, phone #, school, and age of a non-consenting user and makes personal attacks on that user.
- Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
- A I'd keep, and no, I wouldn't answer any differently b/c as far as I know, those votes were legit. --Osbus 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
- A Well, there has to be enough for a majority...so, at least 3.
- A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
- A Yes.
- Why do you want to be an administrator?
- A To increase my productivity on Wikipedia.
- In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
- A Technical.
- 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final: 14/26/5 ended 15:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
MJCdetroit (talk · contribs) – MJCdetroit has been an editor since Dec 2005 and in that time has done a lot of geography related work, including finishing a task I started over a year ago to include US measurements (along with the metric) in all 50 US state infoboxes. He's been working on infoboxes for a variety of countries, replacing country-specific templates with the generic (customizable) Template:Infobox Country - earning a barnstar in the process. He's been doing a fair amount of vandalism reverting lately as well and I think will make a fine janitor admin. Rick Block (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Clearly. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems to be a conscienscious and civil editor with broad experience. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A civil user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Somewhat narrow experience overridden by what appears to be a strong sense of communication with fellow editors; therefore, unlikely to abuse. RadioKirk talk to me 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Siva and RK. Addition: Having read MJC's lenifying responses to Tawker's questions, even as I don't think all of those responses to be fully correct, I apprehend that the user properly understands the role of the admin, to-wit, to carry out the consensus wishes of the community and to act with deliberation and moderation, and most doubts I had with respect to this user are resolved. Joe 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets my criteria. ShortJason 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
This userShortJason has a contribution history of approximately 160 edits, with around 60 of them being edits to the article namespace and the rest apparently being RfA votes or user talk requests to vote on RfAs. TigerShark 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This coment is about ShortJason, and not MJCdetroit, right? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear. TigerShark 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This coment is about ShortJason, and not MJCdetroit, right? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Support. Looks like a hard working and civil wikipedian that I have no reason to suspect would abuse admin tools. Shanes 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The answers to Tawker's questions sold me. I really believe this would be a good choice. Yanksox 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My interaction with this user has been very positive, and he seems to be a hard-working and consistently good editor to me. —Nightstallion (?) 06:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user initiated the effort to standardize the many City related infoboxes and continues to participate in the project. One of many efforts he has participated in to improve and standardize article presentation. harpchad 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor. --t ALL IN c 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Yanksox. SushiGeek 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per my questions -- Tawker 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose for very low edits of Wikipedia namespace and insufficient overall experience. Please use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--Jusjih 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, too few edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose to few edits to Wikipedia namespace. ForestH2
- Oppose per User:ForestH2 Also, I saw few reverts and no warnings or reports to AIV. As blocking vandals is one of this user's tasks as an admin, I would like to see more experience iin that area. However, this is user whom I believe I can support in the fututre. Just needs more experience. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 22:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough experience and no clear need for the tools. Has never posted to AIV, and so has never been far enough through the vandalism escalation process to require the ability to block. The only experience of deletions is a few instances of voting on infobox deletions. TigerShark 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too few namespace edits Jaranda wat's sup 01:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins need to be involved in the community. --Cyde↔Weys 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, lacks of community involvment and Wikipedia-space edits. --Terence Ong 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails my criteria. My criteria for min. no of edits at start of nom are 1300; 15% in project space – both not met. NSLE (T+C) at 04:41 UTC (2006-05-30)
Opposeper above, will support in a few months with some more experience. Also, you can help with articles with unsourced statements and NPOV disputes without being an administrator! --Rory096 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Make that
strong oppose, doesn't have a confirmed email address. --Rory096 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Make that strong strong oppose, first two photo uploads are copyvios. --Rory096 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And so are another picture and an article... --Rory096 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that strong strong oppose, first two photo uploads are copyvios. --Rory096 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that
- Oppose per Rory096 and Cyde. --Andy123 candy? 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. ... aa:talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough user interaction, will support next time though. --digital_me(t/c) 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, a little light on experience yet. It's possible to revert vandalism, to work on NPOV disputes, and to work on articles with unsourced statements without being an administrator. Actually, if you have an interest in those areas, that would be a good way to build up your experience; that way, you'd have more to talk about next time you apply for an RFA. --Elkman 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, insufficient experience with Wikipedia namespace suggests a lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – doesn't seem experienced enough, more talk and project edits would be a step in the right direction – Gurch 08:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo's criteria is very close to violating our making a point policy, I might add. SushiGeek 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say that? He genuinely believes admins should have helped in at least one FA, because this is an encyclopaedia. It may be a bit misguided, but it's in good faith. --Rory096 06:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo's criteria is very close to violating our making a point policy, I might add. SushiGeek 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - need more exp/edits, don't think anyone has gained admin status with so few edits?--Andeh 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true at all. Hermione1980 was made an admin with 911 edits. Nicholas Turnbull was made an admin with ~750. Phroziac was made an admin with about 1,100. Also, I was made an admin with about 1,400 edits. SushiGeek 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Someone who posts clear copyright violations should not be an admin. Rebecca 07:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm sorry I have to oppose, because you really do seem like a great user, but your experience isn't the type of experience that admins need. Steveo2 11:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per concerns expressed above, by Tigershark and Sarah Ewart. --Wisden17 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per comments above. (Come back in a few months with a few thousand more edits and we shall see.)--SomeStranger (T | C) 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 04:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Insufficient experience concerns me, but your answers discourage me from voting oppose. Royboycrashfan
20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on the fence — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Seems like a great user, but mainspace edits are lacking. Almost there! DakPowers (Talk) 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. You need more significant mainspace edits and better use of edit summaries, and perhaps a bit more overall experience. Would support if these issues improve over the next few months. Kafziel 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See MJCdetroit's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]
Username MJCdetroit Total edits 1296 Distinct pages edited 703 Average edits/page 1.844 First edit 13:37, December 2, 2005 (main) 753 Talk 32 User 30 User talk 64 Image 9 Template 222 Template talk 85 Wikipedia 77 Wikipedia talk 24G.He 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All user's contributions using User:Voice of All's tool (at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS). Joe 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user MJCdetroit (over the 1296 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 149 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 2, December, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 80.64% Minor edits: 64.75% Article edit summary use (last 512 edits) : Major article edits: 98.81% Minor article edits: 68.48% Average edits per day: 8.32 (for last 500 edit(s)) Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 20.06% (260) Unique pages edited: 643 | Average edits per page: 2.02 | Edits on top: 10.26% Breakdown of all edits: Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 41.74% (541 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 37.81% (490 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 4.63% (60 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 15.82% (205 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 58.1% (753) | Article talk: 2.47% (32) User: 2.31% (30) | User talk: 4.94% (64) Wikipedia: 5.94% (77) | Wikipedia talk: 1.85% (24) Image: 0.69% (9) Template: 17.13% (222) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 6.56% (85)
- See MJCdetroit's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
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 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: Besides the typical protecting of pages and blocking vandals, I probably can help from time to time with Articles with unsourced statements and NPOV disputes, —MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A:Template: Infobox Country. I switched most of the single use country infoboxes over to the infobox country standard. This was a very time consuming task because I was also updating the figures and double checking facts as I went along. There are almost 200 countries that use this template. Of the list that I was using there are only a few countries that refused the switch.—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (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:Yes, conflicts over the Israel article. I thought I handled it very civil. I knew my edits were bringing the article more in line with the Manual of Style—to which the admin agreed. The person that I had the conflict with was involved in many conflicts with other editors and administrators. That person was blocked from editing for a while. The only way to deal with such conflicts is calmly and hopefully it can be resolved using the manual of style guidelines.—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Yanksox (optional)
- 4. Why would you need admin powers when it appears that you could accomplish all that you need without those powers? Yanksox 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: I can and have accomplished a lot without the administrator status but it would be nice to have that extra tool on my tool-belt (so to speak). One more trusted solider (admin) to hold off the invading vandals and to help with the conflicts between the worker ants (editors). I think that I have proven myself. Proven, that I would not abuse such a position. Besides, abuse by anyone—editor or admin—is usually reported quickly and dealt with.
I'm also a bit on the fence on your RfA, below are my optional questions which help me decide -- Tawker 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)[reply]
- You find out that an editor, who's well known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- Answer— I would have to assume that there is some type of evidence (Request for CheckUser) and not just my Columbo intuition coming throught. If I suscepted some negetive socket puppetry going on, then I would do a request for CheckUser. If the evidence shows that it is a sock puppet of the editor, then the sock puppet can be tagged and blocked. Also, a message should be left with/for the well-known editor to basically say (nicely) —stop it or the sockpuppeter tag will be added to your main account. The fear of being outted would probably bring the editor back into line.
- An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- Answer— It sounds like the other admin may have jumped the gun a little, but I wouldn't hold it against that admin. One of the two was willing to try and work through the differences. The other continued to war. I would still try to engage the both of them and submit comments. If rejected, then I would lift the block on the one editor (consider it time served) with a stern warning to be civil (if hostile language was used) and leave the other editor blocked for a little longer for failure to communicate.
- If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- Answer— I have seen that the 24 hour block can sometimes have little effect on an editor who has been a problem. If a user has more than one block in the past, the next block should be even longer— 48 hours, 72 hours, etc.
- Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- Answer— I think that some type of community concensus would be needed; more than just one admin at least. They could be blocked for a time until such concensus could be gained.
- Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
- Answer— I have seen where the admin has stated that he/she suspects that sock puppets are being used and stated so in the conclusion. I've seen where names of new editors have been struck through and the vote not counted. If that were a possibility, I would try that. If not, it is better to error on the side of caution and no consensus. It would probably go back to AfD if it was truly warranted.
- Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
- Answer— I guess it depends on what is being requested to be deleted. An article on how the Queen and the Pope kill puppies could probably be deleted with a smaller number of votes than an article on Methyl Ethyl Ketone.
- A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
- Answer— If true—isn't that a good enough reason to have more administrators?
- Why do you want to be an administrator?
- Answer— I've done a lot of work helping to edit some of the infobox templates that affect a vast number of articles. In that time I have seen how the benefit of being an administrator can help solve disputes, give accolades to the deserving, and keep articles safer. It would be a tool that I could use to help improve Wikipedia.
- In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
- Answer— Some do and others simply put on the administrator "hat" when they need to.
Comment: Good questions. I hope my answers sway you to the support side of the vote. In any case, thanks.—MJCdetroit 02:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Rory096
- Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?
- A
- 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (62/3/5) ended 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Wwwwolf (talk · contribs) – Wwwwolf is a slow and thoughtful editor. He has been around since at least 2004 but has only made roughly 2,400 edits since then, preferring instead to put a lot of thought and work into each comment and contribution. If you've seen him around, it may well have been on AfD, which he never forgets to treat as a discussion. He sometimes writes about Wikipedia in his LiveJournal to review how well he did in a discussion and judge whether his reactions were appropriate. I have no doubt that Wwwwolf will make an excellent administrator whose mindful awareness and active neutrality will bring much benefit to our community. Ashibaka tock 06:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind observations, and I'm glad, and quite honoured, to accept the nomination. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support No problems here. Will be a great admin. ForestH2
- I should add my own support as well :) Ashibaka tock 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- High Support Excellent work, Wwwwolf. No doubt this nomination is a well thought out one by a smart user. Full support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Political Mind (talk • contribs) .
- This account was created on the same day it posted here (May 28). Redux 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least it did not "ding." Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This account was created on the same day it posted here (May 28). Redux 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good grasp of policy, and Afd participation makes up for lack of user-talk edits. RadioKirk talk to me 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Kusma (討論) 17:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wwwwolf is the kind of editor we should strive to be. Yanksox 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support low raw number of user talk edits doesn't bother me, most of them are long, thoughtful comments... I suspect many people maybe have thousands of user talk edits but have rarely posted anything but a template there :-) I'll take actual comments any day. And he has (perportionally) a lot of talk edits, and the content of his average project space comments suggests this is hardly a candidate who can't communicate effectively. Thoughtful, acts in good faith... seems like a fine candidate. --W.marsh 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per RadioKirk. Quality over quantity. Experience in area proposed for adminship use. :) Dlohcierekim 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- RfA cliché #1. (Sorry, RadioKirk. :D) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pick another cliché -- Tawker 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 19:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks fine. --Tone 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Good user with good intentions. Also has a cool picture on his live journal.-- The ikiroid 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Hahnchen 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support per nom. TerraVentura 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thunderbrand 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on civility, patience and intelligence [10] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- more like this one, please. Derex 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good luck! :-) SushiGeek 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - when I cross paths with him, he always seems to be thoughtful and patient when dealing with issues. Tony Fox 01:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a balanced editor who is observant, communicates well and will not abuse tools. Tyrenius 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. —Ruud 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kept a cool head in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals, despite another editor who was being very argumentative in the same discussion. Sounds like a good admin candidate for this reason in itself. --Elkman 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WT edits a bit low, but otherwise very good.Voice-of-AllTalk 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen him at AFD doing a good job. can be trusted with the tools. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Gurch 10:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support DGX 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ... good vibes ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JoshuaZ 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my criteria. ShortJason 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- DS1953 talk 02:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to Support Wwwwolf. I'm appreciative of people who think before they type and consider the impact on others. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite support. (But how to pronounce your name?) +sj + 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per cliché. --TantalumTelluride 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support™ --Rory096 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Not only is adminship supposed to be no big deal, but on a more personal note, I've run into Wwwwolf on the net many, many times over the years, and he has always left a favorable impression. (Also, while I'm here -- isn't this whole "not enough user talks" thing just kind of silly? "Well, the man's been doing good work here for a couple of years and certainly isn't doing anyone any harm, but couldn't he, like, jump through some random hoops before anyone hands him a mop and a bucket so he can clean up after other people?" C'mon...) -- Captain Disdain 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lesbian pile-on support--digital_me(t/c) 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need people helping out with deletion processes. Royboycrashfan
20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My kind of guy — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support VegaDark 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good and seems to take Wikipedia seriously. No reason to believe Wwwwolf wouldn't make a good admin └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit history looks solid.--MONGO 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Weak because of the relatively low edit count considering how long wolf has been here. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More like this candidate, please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. the wub "?!" 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. --Guinnog 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I would trust Wwwwolf with the admin tools. Reyk YO! 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --t ALL IN c 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be well-qualified --Runcorn 15:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good edits that I've seen. DakPowers (Talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
#Oppose Good editor but not enough user talk edits. Lou franklin 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User is on ArbCom block for violation of violation of remedies 1 and 2 of his RfAr through a sock; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement -- Tawker 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Fixed link to arbitration enforcement) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User is on ArbCom block for violation of violation of remedies 1 and 2 of his RfAr through a sock; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement -- Tawker 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Generally good but very few user talks. To talk, telling image uploaders any problems, such as no source, no license, or orphaned fair use images, can build up a lot of user talks.--Jusjih 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no offense, but what's the point of just "building up" a bunch of edits by pasting templates robotically? It won't mean he's any more or less able to communicate with other editors, which is what (in theory) user talk edits should indicate. --W.marsh 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Ricardo Lagos 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for such a vote? DarthVader 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in situations like this, I personally prefer to assume good faith, but in this instance past history makes it kind of difficult. Just looking at some of his contributions makes it kind of obvious that he's a couple of edits away from being blocked indefinitely... -- Captain Disdain 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...uh, wow. Talk about timing. -- Captain Disdain 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in situations like this, I personally prefer to assume good faith, but in this instance past history makes it kind of difficult. Just looking at some of his contributions makes it kind of obvious that he's a couple of edits away from being blocked indefinitely... -- Captain Disdain 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for such a vote? DarthVader 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Significant edits are low. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Good editor, but I would like to see more user talk edits. Not enough to meet my standards. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Linuxerist; interaction with other users is too minimal to be able to say whether there would be any concerns or not. —CuiviénenT|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 20:29 UTC
- Does not appear to meet 1FA, but has shown active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, lack of edits in main and project space means I can't support, but I do wish you well. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - doesn't have a huge amount of edits for aquiring admin status, per Stifle.--Andeh 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments All user's contributions using my tool at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS. Voice-of-AllTalk 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user Wwwwolf (over the 2464 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 718 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 10, May, 2004 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 83.61% Minor edits: 95.56% Article edit summary use (last 593 edits) : Major article edits: 97.73% Minor article edits: 97.97% Average edits per day: 6.3 (for last 500 edit(s)) Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 5.76% (142) Unique pages edited: 1062 | Average edits per page: 2.32 | Edits on top: 6.25% Breakdown of all edits: Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 19.16% (472 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 56.01% (1380 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 6.45% (159 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 18.38% (453 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 65.5% (1614) | Article talk: 8.81% (217) User: 4.91% (121) | User talk: 1.5% (37) Wikipedia: 14.2% (350) | Wikipedia talk: 0.57% (14) Image: 3.08% (76) Template: 1.14% (28) Category: 0.2% (5) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.08% (2)
- See Wwwwolf's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- Edit counts from Interiots external Java Script tool.
Namespace | # of Edits |
---|---|
(main) | 1614 |
Talk | 217 |
User | 121 |
User talk | 37 |
Image | 76 |
Template | 28 |
Template talk | 2 |
Category | 5 |
Wikipedia | 348 |
Wikipedia talk | 14 |
Total:2462 (Signed: Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
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 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: Oh, hard to say yet, but I suspect the usual: page protections, closing and carrying out deletions followed by AfD debates, copyvio deletions, and speedy deletions in case of clear-cut cases (well, there's plenty). I prefer to do things that are not too hasty in nature though; I'd rather not to get too many enemies =) I'll probably find my own purpose to do things in whatever capacity I have. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm most pleased about my rather gnomatic nature and tons of smaller but hopefully crucial edits. I've also done a handful of other interesting things, such as originating articles on Exult and Pentagram (game engine). One good example would be GtkRadiant (which might be a quite a good example of what kind of a big stub I can create if I put my mind to it, speaking of a topic that I'm somewhat familiar on basic terms, with but cannot be called an expert). There's some articles I've expanded a great deal, like Legend of the Green Dragon, Abuse (computer game), and Commodore DOS. Yet, I'm not saying these articles are without flaws, it seems that I'm much better at doing small things in small movements, properly. But I suppose that's what WP is generally about anyway =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (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: I don't remember ever having a big fight about editing any specific matter - not with established editors, anyway, trolls are an another case =) I've ended up in some rather long-winded debates in AfD from time to time with people who and tend to be rather verbose in defending or opposing things in AfDs general - sometimes I see this as a flaw, sometimes not. Anyway, big debates and even policy changes sometimes sting, but they generally don't worry me all that much in the end and I'm rarely hurt in any way. If I lose, I usually take the "Well, it's probably for the better anyway" kind of mentality. I tend to take plenty of those famous "deep breaths" before replying, just in case. I try to keep calm. It always helps. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from JoshuaZ
1 I notice from User:Wwwwolf/Other_wikis that you are active on many other Wikis, including other language Wikipedias, other Wikimedia projects, and a variety of non-Wikimedia Wikis. Could you discuss your work with other Wikis and whether that experience will help you as an admin here?
- My most wide work outside of Wikipedia in these wikis so far was Final Fantasy VII Wikibook, which recently got transwikied to StrategyWiki. Aside of that, my biggest contributions are probably to fi.wikipedia, in which I have started a few articles on topics already covered in en.wikipedia, and occassionally done the reverse, also (Article on Jori Olkkonen was started this way, for example). As for how this helps on adminning, I can't really say, all I know is that I've seen quite a few different kind of wikis (and quite a few different kinds of other virtual communities), and have some kind of idea how they work and how all other virtual communities tend to work. I also have a MediaWiki install of my own (not public yet), where I've caught a glimpse of the admin functions, so that's probably the only thing that may help directly adminning here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 You seem to have a narrow editing range, focused mainly on videogames and starwars. The only edits outside such areas seems to be in other similar areas (such as anime). Looking at the other wikis you edit, the edits seem to be similar. How would you respond to concerns that your contributions have been to a narrow range?
- I'd respond by saying that I tend to keep my mouth shut about things that I don't really know all that much about. =) It's true that I really don't wander much off of the paths of topics that don't interest me much, but usually if I happen to wander there, I tend to do things that I feel I can do (typofixes, interwiki links, and like). And yeah, perhaps work in a bit more broad space would help. Perhaps my sister's idea of hitting the Random button and working on articles that come up isn't that silly after all. =) (Umm, Star Wars? Can't remember editing too many SW topics really...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er yeah, don't know why I said Star Wars there. JoshuaZ 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 Almost all your Wikipedia space edits are to AfDs. How would you respond to concern that you do not have a wide background/experience in Wikipedia policy matters?
- I wouldn't participate in AfDs unless I knew a thing or two about policies, and knowing my WikiLawyeristic (WikiLawyeristic in good sense, mind you, definitely not in the WP:POINT sense =) tendencies, I'm always willing to learn more of them. I'm not as much interested in raising my voice to change the policies, because there's been so far few rules that concern me and I've seen most rules so far being sensible enough. I'd wager that right now I have a pretty good idea about the inclusion/notability criteria, and related topics - verifiability, what sort of sources articles should have and when, and like. I'm quite familiar, though not to that level of intimate knowledge, with other core policies like style and NPOV matters. Of other guidelines, I think I have a pretty good grasp of What Not To Do, even if I can't cite the paragraph and section of the policy by heart... which would admittedly be a pretty handy skill, which I already seem to be able to do what comes to notability criteria. =) In closing, I'd like to say I'm often an observer of virtual communities and I like to see how they really work and how they seem to work. I think I have a good picture of how, in general terms, this whole place seems to run. But if I don't know, I'm more inclined to look things up from the policies rather than trying to go headlong into the danger and make a big mess by not knowing how things really work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (12/26/6) ended 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
WCityMike (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship (or, as I've heard it put in the wikiglossary, to be a janitor!). I think I've got three strengths that will prove useful to the Wikipedia community: first, I'm not unwilling to put my nose to the grindstone to get scut work done; second, I've been told I can write fairly well (in terms of debate and resolution of same); and third, I think that aside from a few flukes (which I'll address below), I can approach others' problems well (in other words, in disciplinary situations, I can help "keep the peace"). I do acknowledge that I have made some mistakes in the past, which I speak to below, but I do not think those mistakes overwhelm my reputation for doing good during the time I have been here (since August 2004), and I think that the manner in which I conducted myself during those mistakes says something well about me, as well. If we look for absolute perfection in the past of admins, I think the supply will rapidly dry up; what I think is truly needed, I believe I have: the willingness to learn, the willingness to put ego aside, and a general overall belief in the neatness of the idea underlying Wikipedia. (Whether this request succeeds or fails, I think I will appreciate the resulting "peer review" this process will produce, although that is not the reason I request adminship.) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. (Just as a clerical note, the 'nominate' page says self-nominees have to indicate acceptance of our own self-nomination -- so I will -- but you might want to remove that item, as I'm sure it goes without saying for self-nominations. I'd "be bold," but I'm not sure it'd be kosher for me to edit the nomination instructions while applying. ;-)) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor review: In conjunction with this RfA, I have opened up an editor review for myself — I would appreciate any community feedback in terms of how I might improve my contributions to Wikipedia, or new ways in which I might do so, in terms of feedback that might not relate solely to how I would handle administrative powers and thus might not be included with your vote here. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- I beat the nominator Support! (shh, play along now). Anyway, edits may not be the highest ever, but is a civil user and answered the questions well. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit count not all that high, but seems like a good user and good admin material. -- Shizane talkcontribs 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user and answers, but I would like to see more edits in future. --Terence Ong 03:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my standards, and I would trust the user with admin tools. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 03:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets my standards and appears to be a good user. DarthVader 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yanksox 06:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has a good number of talk, user talk, and project edits. Even though he doesn't have that many total edits, he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. SCHZMO ✍ 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ShortJason 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Siva1979. Raichu 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I just came across an exceedingly positive interaction between the candidate and another user, which led to my reviewing the candidates other contributions and voting this way. I don't bother with edit counts much; I simply see a good addition to the admin staff who clearly can go above and beyond. Aguerriero (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --t ALL IN c 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Ignoring the low edit count, the nominee still needs to participate in some more Wikipedian projects (especially something like AfD), and perhaps also help to get an article (or portal/list) to featured status. Doing so would demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, which is essential for admins. Other than that, the nominee seems to be a great editor.--☆TBC☆ 03:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose way too soon after revert warning in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration which happened about a week ago. I'm glad he apologized though and Im willing to support in a couple of months Jaranda wat's sup 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, must oppose. Recently filed arbcom case shows lack of understanding of policy and the potential to be disruptive. Need to put months of good editing between RFA and this incident. FloNight talk 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't want to overload oppose votes by responding to each, but I do feel the need to say this: I realize the recently filed ArbCom case is perhaps my strongest weakness in this request. However, I would ... respectfully ... note that all of us have probably made a mistake that we wish we could take back. This was mine. I overstepped, in a massive way, and then shortly thereafter realized I had done so, and took what steps I could to correct it. I actually think that being willing to admit you made a large mistake and to take what steps you can to rectify it shows strength more than it does weakness (although please note that not for one second am I arguing that the initial move to ArbCom was anything but a dumb move). If my contribution history was full of such moves, I'd understand this more, but I don't think it is. As for the potential to be disruptive, I think a more widespan review of my contribution history will show that I am, the vastest majority of the time, a nondisruptive Wikipedian. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply WCityMike, I agree with your basic argument. I'm sure that I will support you with a few months of good editing. It has been too soon for me to know if this is an isolated event, though. I followed the situation as it developed and your quick temper and inability to listen to reason was disturbing. IMO, you feed some trolls. Also, elevating the case so quickly showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry, must oppose for now. FloNight talk 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Fair enough. I suppose it was bad fortune to have called attention to myself at the precise moment I was acting like a loon. (I also do understand the dispute resolution process, but my excuse to myself at that particular hot-tempered moment was that I was convinced they'd be unwilling to mediate.) In any case, if my first impression on someone was that unfortunate particular incident, I can certainly understand why someone might vote oppose. I'd ask those who are willing to, to look at the larger scale of my contribs for a better sense of my temper and conduct, but if time is the necessary cure for that dumb move in some people's views ... it's not the worst thing. And since I don't want to clog up this area with my comments, I'll let that stand as my last comment on the matter, barring answers to any specific questions (which I can do in the "question" area below). — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply WCityMike, I agree with your basic argument. I'm sure that I will support you with a few months of good editing. It has been too soon for me to know if this is an isolated event, though. I followed the situation as it developed and your quick temper and inability to listen to reason was disturbing. IMO, you feed some trolls. Also, elevating the case so quickly showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry, must oppose for now. FloNight talk 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't want to overload oppose votes by responding to each, but I do feel the need to say this: I realize the recently filed ArbCom case is perhaps my strongest weakness in this request. However, I would ... respectfully ... note that all of us have probably made a mistake that we wish we could take back. This was mine. I overstepped, in a massive way, and then shortly thereafter realized I had done so, and took what steps I could to correct it. I actually think that being willing to admit you made a large mistake and to take what steps you can to rectify it shows strength more than it does weakness (although please note that not for one second am I arguing that the initial move to ArbCom was anything but a dumb move). If my contribution history was full of such moves, I'd understand this more, but I don't think it is. As for the potential to be disruptive, I think a more widespan review of my contribution history will show that I am, the vastest majority of the time, a nondisruptive Wikipedian. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs more experience. As well as what was already brought up, I saw that your recent use of edit summaries is only 85%. Admins should be pretty darn close to 100%. --rogerd 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. FloNight refers above to Mike's attempt on May 14 to bring an RfAr against Bishonen, FeloniousMonk, and myself over a very trivial issue. In his defense, he withdrew it and left a gracious apology on our talk pages. Nevertheless, it was a recent incident, and I feel he needs more experience before I could support him. For anyone interested, the situation in brief was that I reverted the post of a banned editor, Mike objected, and then escalated it to WP:AN/I here and then WP:RfAr here. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'll admit I haven't investigated any of your contributions outside of the ArbCom thing, which I followed as it happened. Assuming they are all stellar except for that, it's still too soon since that debacle. Kudos, though, for being able to turn around and withdraw the case as a mistake -- many couldn't do such a thing and would rather drive their account flaming into the ground screaming all the way down -- so hopefully we'll see you here again in the future. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Too few main space edits for me. Also, concerned about the recent incident. Would support in the future if (1) no further incidents (2) edit count higher and (3) more edit summary use. Nephron T|C 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs more experience and to demonstrate a better understanding of foundational issues and conflict management before he's ready. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The answer to question four shows that the candidate either doesn't understand policy, or plans to work against it. Also per FloNight and the associated discussion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. For the most part WCityMike is a very good user, and I am sure he will be a good admin in the future. However, the recently filed ArbCom case and the answer to Question 4 suggest to me that he lacks experience working with our policies. I am sure this will come with time, and I will support any future request if he continues to develop as an editor. Rje 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose More edit summary use. Slightly more edits... ForestH2
- Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Should have waited at least two months after ArbCom incident to prove the lessons really had been learnt. Question 4 answer shows serious misunderstanding of NOR. But basically well motivated and should get more experience and come back later. Tyrenius 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the user's bedbug edit, which has become a big deal and the candidate still supports, demonstrates lack of precision in his judgment. - Richardcavell 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per SlimVirgin above. Bringing up an RFAr and arguing with administrators doesn't bode well for him becoming an admin. The potential for wheel warring and further arguing is just too great. --Elkman 04:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. You could still learn a little more from the ArbCom stuff. Take it easy, and stay out of unessecary problems/disuptes and I'll support next time maybe.Voice-of-AllTalk 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: We have to be careful with dispute, be as Zen as possible, and seek out the center of indifference, and I'm not sure the user is there. Geogre 12:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per SlimVirgin. DGX 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for insufficient edit experience.--Jusjih 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all of above. Fails Diablo Test Anwar 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My only interaction with WCityMike has been through the events outlined at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-21 MDD4696. Although I think he acted appropriately, I also think that he let the situation get to him. He spent a lot of time defending himself against a relatively minor incident; I think he should've let the facts speak for themselves. I think it's important that administrators be able to deny recognition in certain instances. People always complain about administrators... it's only when they have a valid point that I think it's worth spending some of my limited time to justify myself. ~MDD4696 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all above. Royboycrashfan
20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose study up on wiki policy — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose minor arbitration disputes and answer to #4 below show he's still learning the ropes. Seems sincerly intrested in being helpful though so in good time ... -MrFizyx 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per above, especially due to low edit count. -- Chris Lester talk 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- User meets all my criteria re. editing, but oppose voters' reasons concern me. NSLE (T+C) at 03:39 UTC (2006-05-28)
- Neutral—can't quite oppose because the candidate definitely is closing in, but the lousy timing of the RfAr and the answer to Q4 below (suggesting a reread of WP:V and WP:NOR) means I can't support yet. Won't be long, though. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Wish I could support, but its a rather low edit count, coupled with the oppose voters comments and the answer to Q4 below. Look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – given relatively little experience plus the concerns raised above – Gurch 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral When first I reviewed the user's contributions, I was prepared to support, but the misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NOR, fundamental precepts of the project, concerned me; Mike, though, has shown on his talk page and elsewhere a great willingness to learn how better to interpret WP:EE and has been altogether amicable in dealing with those who have questioned his understanding of original research (and it should be said, of course, that his misapplication of policy was not toward a tendentious end, but, instead, in the spirit of disseminating information). Nevertheless, I can't be wholly confident in this user's grasp of policy, and so, even as I'm certain he would not use the tools malevolently, I'm not certain he wouldn't inadvertently use them inappropriately. I will be happy to support in the future, though... Joe 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per RadioKirk --digital_me(t/c) 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See WCityMike's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- WCityMike's edit count as viewed by Interiot's internal edit counter on Sunday, 28 May 2006 3:04:30 (UTC):
Total edits 1383 Distinct pages edited 452 Average edits/page 3.060 First edit 21:58, 30 August 2004 (main) 512 Talk 166 User 108 User talk 295 Image 1 Template 34 Template talk 5 Wikipedia 254 Wikipedia talk 8
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 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: Well, perhaps the worst backlog on the backlog page is the "cleanup by month" tags, and I've found that I enjoy doing minor tidying — taking something that's almost there and putting the final polish on it. (In fact, I like that enough I've considered proofreading or editing as a career choice.) I think I could also assist in articles that needed to be split or merged, and to try to remove bias from those articles for which there's a concern about same. Of course, those aren't particularly admin-related, but they're for the general overall Wikipedia good. In terms of things that only admins can do, I could help out as needed with WP:AN/I, WP:AIV, and WP:PAIN, for example, as well as other processes that need attention. (I'm also planning, just as a matter of being a Wikipedian, of putting spit-polishes wherever I find something that needs a spit polish or has been neglected.)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm exceptionally proud of my work on the bedbug article, because I was able to do a good deal of good on there, including a major rewrite which started with this diff. It's not a traditional source of information on Wikipedia, but it's still valid: an interview, namely with the exterminator who treated my apartment last year, who had ten years' worth of experience exterminating the little buggers. As a result, I've seen that article cited to in quite a few places across the Web. There have been other instances where I've taken something that was a mess of information and yielded a fairly good, categorized, clearer end result — and felt an accompanying sense of pride — but I must admit, I didn't bother to write down their names at the time. ;-) I lately have found that hitting 'Random article,' looking to see if it needs cleanup, and then going onwards can be an interesting way to learn things and do cleanup — tagged or no — at the same time.
- 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: There have been two major incidents I can recall in the past, and I think I've learned from both. Both are archived at my talk page (and the fact that I've not blanked them will, I hope, be considered in a positive light), but I'll briefly review here.
- The most notable was a very bullheaded decision to bring an ArbCom case over perceived incivility from a group of admins. But this taught me a good lesson about Wikipedia: I had a good decision with a kind-hearted Esparanza admin on IRC, and realized exactly how mistaken my decision had been. I apologized to
samethe admins I had brought into the ArbCom case [11] and withdrew the case. I learned from this a better sense of perspective and a healthy respect for the cooldown process, but I also hope this demonstrates a strength I feel I've always had: a willingness to learn and to re-evaluate myself as necessary, and to put aside my ego when I really do goof up. Although I don't wish to fully speak about it in the Wikipedia community, there was something going on in my personal life that influenced my temper at the same time, and I neglected to take that into account that night.
- The most notable was a very bullheaded decision to bring an ArbCom case over perceived incivility from a group of admins. But this taught me a good lesson about Wikipedia: I had a good decision with a kind-hearted Esparanza admin on IRC, and realized exactly how mistaken my decision had been. I apologized to
- The other situation was a disagreement with a user in which I felt he was being rather abusive with the process, and it blew up rather quickly. I'm not sure I really have an explanatory statement about same, as I do feel that there were mistakes on his part as well as mistakes on my part — but I am certainly willing to answer any questions that the voting community may have as per how that reflects against possible behavior on my part as an administrator.
- 4. In question 2, you say "It's not a traditional source of information on Wikipedia, but it's still valid: an interview, namely with the exterminator who treated my apartment last year, who had ten years' worth of experience exterminating the little buggers." Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? Why do you think this is a valid source for Wikipedia? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding verification. However, I have also gained an empirical sense that, institutionally, Wikipedia strongly admires and respects the viewpoints of experts (such as those facts and Mr. Wales' quote referenced in WP:EE, although this is admittedly not policy, as well as Mr. Sanger's efforts), and thus thought that factual information directly conveyed from an expert in the field would be appropriate, even if the knowledge conveyed from said expert was unpublished. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (WP:SNOW at 11/24/12) 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself so that I may better participate in monitoring vandalism and mediating disputes. I have found the rules for conflict resolution in wikipedia most agreeable. While my number of contributions is somewhat low, I think the quality of these is high. I have managed to maintain a neutral point of view in articles that I have a strong opinion on, and I encourage the input of my peers. I speak fluent English. I firmly believe that discussion of a matter can solve any dispute between willing parties. HighInBC 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accept - I formally accept my self nomination. HighInBC 18:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Sympathy Support Let us stop discouraging this user any further. It takes a brave soul to nominate himself/herself. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak (not pro forma) support Having reviewed the user's contributions, I am confident that neither would he volitionally abuse the mop, etc., nor would he, ignorant of policy or unfamiliar with process, otherwise inappropriately use the admin tools (it seems likely that this user will seek the input of others before undertaking actions about the propriety of which he is unsure). To be sure, my support would be clearer were there a larger edit history at which to look (one complete with involvement in sundry Wikipedia-space discussions), but the good in his work assuages any fears I'd have w/r/to abuse/misuse. Joe 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support, per Joe. --Tone 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Question answered well enough. Reasonable edit counts, seems trustworthy. Not at all vandal obsessed. ShortJason 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathetic support per Joe. SushiGeek 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see nothing wrong with promoting this user. Axiomm 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Despite edit count, won't abuse powers. Yanksox 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Yanksox -- Shizane talkcontribs 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has demonstrated good judgement and faultless civility in editing, vandal fighting, xfd votes, etc. A further thousand edits would only allow the candidate to demonstrate his evident suitability again. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support I am convinced he would exercise good judgement and be reasonable as an Admin. That's all really matters to me. Captainj 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He knows how to handle things properly and find out what he needs to. He will be a good admin. Note: using VandalProof. Tyrenius 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ShortJason 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Must be here 3-6 months and if that's not the case at least a 1,000 edits. This user has 668 edits the last time I checked. As this user has never been in an edit war, he hasn't reverted much edits which is needed to become an admin. If you nominate yourself or someone else nominates you in 3-5 months I'll support you. Suggest returnal around late July, early Augast. ForestH2
- Wait a second, what? Potential admins should get into edit wars? That doesn't make sense. --Rory096 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards, MartinRe 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- moving to neutal as more example prove cool head, but alas, not enoough experience. MartinRe 00:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, of the four items listed under the admin tasks, three can be done without admin rights. I suggest getting first experience with those before trying again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You seemed to have made a promising beginnig to a bright wiki-career. But you need to spend more time & gain experience before we can entrust you with the tools. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per reasons stated above. Like MartinRe and Srikeit said, a good start, but more experience is needed. G.He 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose <sigh> If only you had more experience. The good thing about a low edit count is that it is easier to sample. From what I've seen of your talk page and edits, I think you will do ok in about 2,000 more edits. More edits will help assess your judgment. You don't really need admin powers for most of the things you list. The most dangerous/beneficial tools I can think of are the powers to block other users and delete articles. Could you list what tasks on the admin attention list you have in mind? :) Dlohcierekim 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please WP:SNOWBALL Oppose no where near enough experience. Computerjoe's talk 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing should be snowballed. WP:SNOWBALL is not policy, and he deserves to get a fair hearing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ironic that the former leader of an Esperanza wannabe group is endorsing snowballing, when he must know what a degrading experience that is. robchurch | talk 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Degrading? Not really... (and I would know) --Rory096 06:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. [12]. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment most of that edit was not by HighInBc, but a copy paste of a unsigned comment by 65.92.94.115 onto their talk page [13], so please take into account what he said (the first and last line only), and not what was said to him. The only mistake HighinBC made here was forgetting to add an {{unsigned}} before pasting back. Regards, MartinRe 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed an {{unsigned}} between the offensive diatribe and HighinBC's more urbane remarks.CHeers, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A useful lesson for me in how diff works. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed an {{unsigned}} between the offensive diatribe and HighinBC's more urbane remarks.CHeers, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment most of that edit was not by HighInBc, but a copy paste of a unsigned comment by 65.92.94.115 onto their talk page [13], so please take into account what he said (the first and last line only), and not what was said to him. The only mistake HighinBC made here was forgetting to add an {{unsigned}} before pasting back. Regards, MartinRe 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I would trust the user with admin tools, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm worried by the misplaced RfA. joturner 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oops, thanks to User:ForestH2 for fixing this. HighInBC 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Looks to be pretty much the same level of experience as I am, and I would never consider that to be experienced enough for adminship. Fluit 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – due to relative inexperience. Nothing personal – Gurch 10:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: A long time with low edits is a matter of serious concern, as either dedication or authenticity may be suspect. Not everyone needs to be racking up thousands and thousands, but, at the same time, there isn't a great deal of article creation (which can mean slow but weighty edits), either. Geogre 12:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per above. DGX 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for insufficient experience.--Jusjih 15:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Cynical 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, mediation doesn't require adminship, and having only 39 edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests you haven't done much of it. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Low edit count, and not enough experience of using Wikipedia and its associated policies and guidelines. Come back in a few months time. --Wisden17 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above --digital_me(t/c) 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Nothing personal, just a little more experience and variety in edits shall be useful. --Bhadani 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...No not enough experience or edits. The Gerg 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral. Can you please elaborate on the "edit war" mentioned above? If that can be explained, I'm inclined towards support. ShortJason 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I am not sure which "edit war" is being refered to, I cannot remember being involved in any edit war. HighInBC 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe it is referring to the comment in oppose #1. (Not assuming what that poster meant, but it could refer that, not being in an edit war as an editor, we have no idea how you will deal with the inevitable conflicts that adminship involves.) Regards, MartinRe 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In retrospect it would be more accurate to say that I have been involved in edit wars to the point that I have seen them coming and avoided them through discussion. HighInBC 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure which "edit war" is being refered to, I cannot remember being involved in any edit war. HighInBC 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, needs more experience. Will support in a few months. --Rory096 22:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Not enough overall edits or wikipedia namespace edits. I will support in a couple of months. DarthVader 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Can't support per insufficient breadth, can't oppose per this user's good work thus far. Shouldn't be too much longer. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral (from support) You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but# too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards, MartinRe
- No reason to doubt good faith, competence or desire to help whatsoever, but I'd love to see a little bit more general interaction somewhere. Nevertheless, well done on nominating yourself; it takes balls which, in four incarnations, I've never had. :) robchurch | talk 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, lacks of experience and edits. Try again in three months time. --Terence Ong 03:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibreak Neutral. hasn't been here long enough for me to know whether I want to support, but nothing suggests to me a need to oppose. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 04:01 UTC
- Neutral. Too new for me. More edits and more experience --> support in the future. Nephron T|C 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Just a little too new, look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I like your attitude, and how you have become an active vandalism reverter, but give yourself some time and maybe join a few projects. Also I suggest you become acquainted with WP:AN and WP:AN/I.-- The ikiroid 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as per Geogre. Adminship is no big deal, and your edit count could be ok, but contributions are still limited, and I have a higher standard for self-noms (at least one other Wikipedian should know what a good admin you will make :-). Come back in a month... +sj + 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I can tell you would be helpful as an admin, but I'd like to see more experience from you. Royboycrashfan
20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- See HighInBC's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- Edit count:
Username HighInBC Total edits 734 Distinct pages edited 251 Average edits/page 2.924 First edit 20:20, 7 February 2006 (main) 216 Talk 181 User 115 User talk 149 Image 30 Image talk 3 Wikipedia 39 Wikipedia talk 1
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started Wikipedia:Editor_review/HighInBC, please feel free to comment further here. HighInBC 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit seems odd [14], it says imposter but both votes seem legit. Can someone check this out please? HighInBC 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Neconkanteri is an impostor of User:Naconkantari --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, thanks for the information. HighInBC 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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: While I intend to primarily repair and react to vandalism, I also intend to participate in mediation between disputes. When I have time I will also be consulting Category:Wikipedia backlog and Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. HighInBC 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am particularly proud of my contributions to Ethics of eating meat - Before, After. When I found it, there were very few editors and it was extremely POV. This was a challenge as I have a definite POV on this subject. I started with a new layout, then went through and removed POV statements. Attempts were made to work with the existing editors but there were none. After my cleanup and a RfC for the article I am happy to say that it has several editors working on it. I have also made several contributions to technical subjects[15][16][17]. HighInBC 18:50, 27 May 2006 (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: I have never been involved with an edit war. I have however made edits that are controversial[18] though only after talking on the discussion page [19]. I do not repeat an edit once it has been disputed without further talk. Just recently I was caused stress by this comment[20] on a talk page and I responded like so: [21] then [22]. In retrospect I feel I could have handled this better [23] by explaining my argument in more detail. HighInBC 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I think that such a system is what is needed, however guidelines need to be written regard how these are to be used before such a system is put into place. Otherwise there may be a large increase in protected(to any degree) pages. I would support such a system as long as it is not taken as permission to protect pages wholesale. HighInBC 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:5. Could you explain this [24]? I know at first glance it may seem to be something minor, but how can we be sure enough that something like that won't snowball into an invasion of privacy or abuse of admin powers? Yanksox 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I think you meant to put that on the RfA just above this. And you do realize that was 2 years ago, right? --Rory096 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, how about that. I'll admit that was a mess up, I think I should sleep...Yanksox 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I think you meant to put that on the RfA just above this. And you do realize that was 2 years ago, right? --Rory096 04:58, 28 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (95/2/2) ending 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Natalya (talk · contribs) – Natalya is a great editor to Wikipedia, being active since January 06, and is interested in a wide variety of subjects, willing to help on them all. Active around Esperanza projects, especially in the Barnstar Brigade, Natalya can be found resolving disputes and differences of opinon among editors, working on disambiguation link repair or at the help desk. Natalya is one of the respected editors among the community and I am a better editor because of her. Best of luck, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am truly honored to accept this nomination. -- Natalya 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Beat the nominator support Looks good to me!--digital_me(t/c) 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator was busy support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanted to beat the nominator, but got too tied up Support Excellent editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be a solid editor. Use of edit summaries to describe MoS:DP edits seems to communicate an awareness of and attention to Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Articulate answers to questions below. -- backburner001 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support solid contributor, very reasonable. older ≠ wiser 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, certainly. Sarge Baldy 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course! haz (user talk) 18:42, 26 May 2006
- Very Strong Support. Natalya is one of the friendliest users on Wikipedia.
HeShe has a deep understanding of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and customs, as evidenced byhisher frequent contributions to the new contributors' help page. --TantalumTelluride 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- No offence, but Natalya is a girl. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep - tis true! -- Natalya 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I knew that. I just wanted to make sure you were paying attention. --TantalumTelluride 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (please rollover following image)
-DictatorWikipedia should be a totalitarian state with me in command!GangstaEB-12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (please rollover following image)
- Um, I knew that. I just wanted to make sure you were paying attention. --TantalumTelluride 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep - tis true! -- Natalya 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence, but Natalya is a girl. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Have seen her work around, think she deserves it. (and yes, girls/women at wikipeida are often referred to as he, o well)-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The answers given to the questions below are very good. Rje 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very civil and experienced. Also very fun to talk to if the subject is ginormous puffins. :P Master of Puppets That's hot. 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per good answers to questions below and good work in various cleanup tasks. The informal mediation at the Good Articles page shows a very positive attitude and an ability to help people reach consensus. --Elkman 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support never seen this user, but I like the name... Grue 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a consensus developing that voting icons should be kept off RfAs. See talk page. Stephen B Streater 09:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; great answers and always a good user. smurrayinchester (Talk) 20:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support before it officially becomes a pile-on. Great work. I look forward to meeting you over on WP:RFI (let's hope you make it there!). Petros471 21:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator said "active since January 2006", but I've seen Natalya around before that. Easy support. Redux 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support on WHEELS!!! Friendly user. Will be an asset to the project. Case Closed. --D-Day on WHEELS!!! 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible support. Natalya is an extremely courteous Wikipedian, active on RC patrol, and the mediation at WP:GAN left me completely impressed. She has done a bulk of the boring, repetitive and thankless work of disambiguating pages, and has good contributions to the article namespace. I don't have any reservations as to her preparedness for the position. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good to me. Great contributor to the whole Wikipedia community and would benefit being admin. G.He 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per G.He. —Khoikhoi
- Strong support. I was thinking of nominating her myself... --Tone 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great user. DarthVader 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.Liked answers to questions.. :) Dlohcierekim 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, has made excellent contributions to disambiguation pages and MoS:DAB discussions. --Muchness 01:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user, good answers to questions. Garion96 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets my standards -- Tawker 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Quick study, well-rounded, shows a particular aptitude for communication. RadioKirk talk to me 02:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great user, answers are excellent, she isn't one?? --Terence Ong 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, definitely. Sango123 (e) 04:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support!! A great team-player and a positive force everywhere she goes. Kukini 04:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A little low on edits, perhaps, but they do appear to be of good quality. As a huge plus, she appears to be a tireless contributer to one of the less-sexy aspects of editing (to some, at least). Although i have no personal experience of interaction with her, she seems like a solid candidate. Thats good enough for me. Rockpocket -talk- 06:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Calm, rational editor with a gift for putting out flames and smoothing out troubles. Good answers to questions below. The extra buttons would be well used and used well by her. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 11:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: As someone who spreads goodwill throughout WP, it looks like she will be an asset as an Admin. Stephen B Streater 11:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Without reservation, Natalya is a supurb admin candidate (there's been a few on RfA of late hasnt there?) Strong support indeed. -- Banez 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. ShortJason 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support changed from neutral. Computerjoe's talk 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought she was already an admin! Civil, dedicated, I'm sure she would handle tough situations very well. I liked her answers too, they back up her great record.-- The ikiroid 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Support. Tons of good edits, and the answers to the questions clinch it. Clearly a thoughtful asset to Wikipedia. Pass her a mop. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Gerg 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - she has some very good people skills, enabling her to handle conflicts very well and deflating them before they get a chance to heat up. That, and the fact that I think she's been 'around' enough to get a good grasp on policy and the places and people to go to if she has dobuts, makes me very confident to support her. --JoanneB 17:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Natalya is a extremely good contributor, with lots of good edits to her credit. She has also displayed calm and level headedness. With such peerless qualities, she deserves to be an admin. Jordy 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plain old support - she deserves it. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meant to do this last night. Has always been polite and insightful on talk. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Superfragilisticexpialidocious support -
Diabolical(Heh heh!) Excellent editor. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Support AmiDaniel (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - she is really, really lovely. She kind of has this aura of civility, good practice and niceness that you don't get often. She's always patient, considerate, helpful and friendly to everyone and makes a much better Esperanzian than I am or ever will be. She really does put the rest of us to shame. Now, we're going to corrupt her by handing her the AdminPowersTM. How awful of us. --Celestianpower háblame 22:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, why the fuck not? robchurch | talk 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like an excellent user. Meets my specifications, and I would trust with admin tools. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I only have positive things to say about this user. RyanGerbil10 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, excellent potential for admin, good luck! gidonb 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a good candidate. Nephron T|C 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes please! Big fan.;-) —Encephalon 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. What is there to say? She'll make a great one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support avec plaisire - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've seen only good things from this user. Friendly and committed to the project. The Halo (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy-Birthday-why-isn't-she-yet?-support! Misza13 T C 14:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Captainj 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OMIGAWDAGURL- I mean... Looks like an excellent editor. *cough* Yes... :) Should make for a great admin. Staxringold 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This lady owns the Esperanza alert page (uh, in a good way). Encouraging and helpful to others. She'll do well with admin tools. Tijuana BrassE@ 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Super strong suppport. Incredible asset and will make good use of the tools. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Does a responsible all round job, including detailed attention to e.g. disambiguation link repair Tyrenius 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Robchurch... among others. More candidates like this one please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 06:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -lethe talk + 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: --Ahonc (Talk)
08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--blue520 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – will make a great administrator – Gurch 10:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support DGX 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: --Bhadani 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You've got the respect of some hard-to-please people behind you already. My standards are pretty light in comparison. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen good and friendly work. +sj + 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Piling On Support excellent editor, well worthy of mopping up MLA 09:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Very friendly person. --Fang Aili talk 13:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Royboycrashfan
20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: good editor. Jonathunder 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the lemon picture on her user page sold me (just kidding; good candidate) — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per RjE. Kalani [talk] 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Big green plus sign image. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Calm, cool and collected. Knows how to calm down nasty Esperanzans when necessary. --Richard 06:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought she was already (a great) admin. --Zoz (t) 13:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not a lot of edits, but well-rounded. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Strong Support Natalya is an extremely friendly member. She made me decide not to leave this project. We need admins who bind the Wikipedian community together. Without the wikipedia community, this project would be doomed. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Not enough experience for me. SushiGeek 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Useless oppose, just doesn't meet my standards of experience. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral leaning support some more experience, edit and time wise, and I'll be happy. I would love to see more experience in the Image and Template namespace. Computerjoe's talk 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Weak support. Computerjoe's talk 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So would I. :) Thanks for the suggestions. -- Natalya 21:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't pass 1FA, but I must credit for your good work on Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask what aspect she fails? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely that I haven't worked towards getting at least one article to FA status, as the standard is stated. -- Natalya 21:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you fail 1FA if you wrote an entire FAC article by yourself, but can't get it promoted because the community doesn't respect you and makes a mockery of your FAC? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you are referring to the frustrations of trying to get Torchic past FAC? Mockery and disrespect on FAC is regrettable (that being said, I have experienced that myself), and Raul usually does not take them into consideration when concluding FACs if he sees no reasonable objection that is actionable. If you need assistance on your FAC article, let me know and I'll see if I can help you. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you fail 1FA if you wrote an entire FAC article by yourself, but can't get it promoted because the community doesn't respect you and makes a mockery of your FAC? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely that I haven't worked towards getting at least one article to FA status, as the standard is stated. -- Natalya 21:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask what aspect she fails? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral an exceptional part of the community, seems very friendly and approachable, and a great facilitator with respect to dispute resolution. I just would have liked to have seen her edit more substantially in the mainspace in terms of article content. I see that as an important part of understanding content as part of the encyclopedia. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- There's not much activity on AfD/CfD/TfD. I didn't find any, to be precise. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Natalya's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
- Here's a report on your edits from Interiot's Tool 2:
Total edits 2482 Distinct pages edited 1324 Average edits/page 1.875 First edit 11:36, 19 December 2004 (main) 1086 Talk 107 User 124 User talk 438 Image 8 Template 4 Template talk 3 Category 5 Wikipedia 437 Wikipedia talk 270--digital_me(t/c) 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 know that as an administrator, there are many unexpected situations that come up that require administrator intervention. Of the many expected situations that also require administrator help, there are a number of things I look forward to assisting with. One is keeping up with violations listed at WP:AN/3RR, and investigating the situations in order to decide the best course of action and length of block (if at all). Another is keeping watch on WP:AIV in order to swiftly stop vandals hindering the progress of Wikipedia. Along with vandalism, I hope to aid in quick reversion of vandalism that has occurred, both through #vandalism-en-wp and elsewhere. While I already participate in such vandalism reversion, use of the rollback tool will indoubtably make it faster and more effective. I anticipate being active at WP:AN/I and requests for investigation, and dealing with situations that are brought up there. As I gain experience as an administrator, I also hope to work at stopping long term abuse. Additionally, I look forward to being able to assist with requests and problems brought up at the Help Desk and the New contributors' help page that require administrator assistance.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am very proud of my edits to aid in the disambiguation of Wikipedia. I am active at WikiProject Disambiguation, cleaning up pages listed at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, and discussing all matters of disambiguation. I participate in much discussion at the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages regarding the style and function of the pages. I also work at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where links to disambiguation pages are corrected to link to the correct article. Additionally, I often keep track of articles from Special:Newpages requiring disambiguation assistance, so that the problems can be quickly and easily corrected. Disambiguation pages aid in the navigation of Wikipedia, and I am happy that I am able to make this navigation clearer and easier for everyone. Additionally, I am very pleased with Quint (fire apparatus), which was the first "real" article that I created and completely wrote.
- 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: Like almost every other contributor, I have certainly been in disagreements with other users. However, I attribute my calm attitude and drive for compromise to the fact that not one of these disagreements has escalated into anything notable. When reverting vandalism and working on disambiguation pages, there are always conflicts of ideas. I feel that in situations where both parties are trying to work for the best (and even when it may not seem like it), discussing before acting provides the best solutions, and I will always discuss things with any users that disagree with or have questions about any of my actions.
- I have been involved in the disputes of other users, sometimes being requested to give a third opinion or outside idea. I recently assisted in an informal mediation at the Good articles project. The discussion is currently in the process of wrapping up, and while no large actions were taken, I am happy that I was able to aid in the understanding of disagreeing parties, and help to calm down the situation. I look forward to doing so in the future, and have learned much from the experience.
Questions from HighwayCello
- 1. You come across an editor who has migrated through dozens of video game character articles and resized the image and removed the caption. The vandal has done with harmful intent to all the articles twice in one day, the first time 8 hours prior, and the second, 30 minutes before you noticed. The vandal has received two single warnings despite the widespread vandalism, one for the first round, and another just as the editor stopped editting. What would be your course of action?
- A. I would first leave a {{test3}} or {{test4}} warning on the user's page, depending on what warnings had been used previously. I would also leave a more detailed message regarding what the problem with modifying the images is, as they may not be actually aware why they should have stopped (as opposed to blanking pages and replacing them by writing 'WIKIPEDIA SUXX0RS' or 'I <3 poop', which is obviously harmful). I would then monitor their edits immediately after, to see if they continued or not. If they were to continue with the image resizing and caption-deleting, I would block them, with the time depending on if there were any previous blocks. If they did stop, I would probably keep them on my watchlist for a bit to make sure they didn't continue in the near future. And of course, revert their changes.
- 2. You are viewing the page for a Fair Use image and you notice that it links to several user pages. You view the first user page and notice that the user has severl custom userboxes with fair use images as well as a fair use image gallery. What would your course of action be initially? What would your course of action be if the user didn't remove the images?
- A. Since Fair Use images are only supposed to be used in the main namespace (with case-by-case exceptions), I would first contact the user on their talk page to explain the general idea of what a fair use image is (since they may not know), and explain why they cannot be used on their user page. I would cite specific references from Wikipedia:Fair use in order to make the reasoning behind why they cannot be used on user pages understood but clear - in particular, the Policy section. If they did not remove the images, I might make suggestions of possible replacements (in an attempt to be helpful), but if they still refused, I would delete them, giving clear explanation of why it was done. If they persisted in repeatedly putting them back on, after warning them about what they are doing, it would likely constitute a block.
- 3. Is there any particular reason you haven't contributed or wrote a Featured article? Is it something you are against, or have you never gotten around to it? Do you not feel you have enough knowledge to do so?
- A. I have the highest amount of respect for Featured Articles, the articles which are candidates, and those who work on them. Certainly I am not against them, if anything I would push for them! When it comes to contributing to a Featured Article. I would say that I've "never gotten around to it". However, I have been keeping my eye on two articles in particular that I think would be good to work up to Featured Article status, both of which I have some knowledge of and an interest in. One of them is Nertz, which is about a solitaire-esque card game. Though the article is in a very rough state at the moment, I could see it being improved very well, especially because there are some dedicated contributors to the article. The other is Hashshashin, about an Islamic sect from days of yore. The article is in better status than Nertz, and while it definitly has a lot more information that could be added, as well as references, I think it would be very promising.
Optional Question from AmiDaniel
- 1. Have you, either in your interactions with users or in editing, made any decisions that you regret? How were these mistakes brought to your attention, and how did you respond? Please cite specific examples where possible.
- A: There are always silly things that I, and probably everyone else, regret doing when we're editing, like leaving out a period or misspelling something (and not catching it before saving the page), but those are all easily corrected. I can think of a couple instances where I really did regret what I did. However, once realizing that I should have done something different, I immediately acted to remedy the situation, and both times things turned out okay.
- The first situation occurred during the Good articles mediation. Much discussion had been going on, and we were moving towards trying to find possible solutions. In hopes that something would show more support over the others, I posted a series of possible solutions, and asked all editors participating in the mediation to comment. However, this did not work out quite as planned, and about no one agreed with anything,. Realizing that a much better option would be to have the editors brainstorm some solutions, I halted that section and created a second section, where the editors discussed their own solutions. This worked out much better, and led to large amounts of productive discussion.
- The second situation occurred during my interactions with a user just days ago. I had been working with User:Carcharoth to clean up the disambiguation page Diaphragm. We were disagreeing on a few things relating to the Manual of Style, and there was a bunch of discussion going on at Talk:Diaphragm. I pointed out to Carcharoth, in a bit of a curt manner, the Wikiproject Disambiguation Pages With Links, having forgotten that he had already brought up discussion there, and must therefore know about it! Afterwards, feeling that I had been much too rude when there was no offence, I apologized, and it was well recieved. Still, I probably should have done a bit more assuming of the good faith in that situation.
Question from ShortJason:
- 1. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: It is an interesting proposal, and obviously one that took a lot of time to craft. However, I feel that its usefulness may be hard to show, and that it would be rather difficult to enforce. The edit count requirements may not prevent users from vandalising, especially if it is an often-used IP. And while keeping track of blocks is a good idea, I can already see a large number of situations arising where people would have been incorrectly blocked or had the blocked removed, and therefore will need to be approved for editing these pages, which may turn out to be more hassle then help. While the current page protection policy is not perfect, no policy ever is, and it does a pretty good job.
Question from Kilo-Lima:
- 1. What would you prefer? Häagen-Dazs or Carte d'Or? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Hmm... this is certainly a tough one. ;) I've had Häagen-Dazs before, but I'm always up for trying new ice cream - bring on the Carte d'Or! (or Walls, whichever it is called) -- Natalya 14:28, 28 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (89/4/2) ending 02:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
KimvdLinde (talk · contribs) -- I am pleased to nominate Kim van der Linde for adminship. Kim has been editing for several months with more than 5000 contribution, is an active vandal fighter, makes good use of project pages such as WP:AIV, and communicates civily with other editors. Kim's recent article rewrite is now a good article candidate. Additionally Kim is multilingual, a big help when dealing with editors with limited english from an admin standpoint. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am happy to accept the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Nominator support. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per xaosflux Talk. Definitely worthy of moving up in the ranks. Mostly Rainy 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor, excellent nominator, excellent rewrite -- a sort of trifecta here! :) Xoloz 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for this worthy candidate. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JoshuaZ 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Antandrus. G.He 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good all-round editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, admins with specific expertise in subject areas are a bonus -- Samir धर्म 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good abakharev 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.™ --Rory096 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work in several arenas. -- Kukini 04:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with no doubts that Kimvd will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good & Sold contributions. Deiaemeth 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support hardworking, sane, constructive, knowledgeable. Pete.Hurd 04:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The little deranged voices in my head are agreeing with the other users above. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very strong editor, I have no doubt he will use the mop well -- Deville (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate for adminship.--Firsfron 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. looks good.Voice-of-AllTalk 07:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and above. DarthVader 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. --Tone 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looked good after only reading opposition. She stays civil under fire. Impressive.--Chaser (T) 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yessrao >> Good Candidate
- Support. I have seen a lot of good work on the troll-paths from this user. Rje 10:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I think Kim would use the admin powers as they're intended. Reyk YO! 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong 12:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks pretty impressive to me. BTLizard 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Limegreen 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. FeedThePigeons 13:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Axiomm 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has been involved in some controversy, but has managed to stay cool under pressure. That's a good quality for an admin, since they'll be expected to be involved in controversy. --Elkman 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support managing your cool under pressure can be a very hard thing to do, so I congratulate you. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rfa cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --ForestH2
- Support, no worries. Deizio talk 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, not bad for someone who wastes time fighting vandals (see user:ShootJar/Proposal for more on why vandal fighting isn't needed). ShortJason 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support combination of expertise and tact, committed to high standards, values contributions of others, and strong committment to WP ethosGleng 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, would make good use of the mop. Highly unlikely to abuse admin powers. Royboycrashfan
16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has a refreshingly different, collaborative and self-effacing approach. Also see my reply to Ted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kusma (討論) 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Getting another evolution-related article up to featured standards was my proposal a few months back; I'm glad someone's actually doing it! --Cyde↔Weys 21:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--blue520 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, level headed, civil, and professional. Kuru talk 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian {T C @} 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, strong technical writer, good understanding of NPOV and has shown an excellent touch in guiding new users in policy. Will be an excellent admin. Rockpocket (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Agree with above statement, will be an excellent admin. Garion96 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. from left-wing Darwinek ;). - Darwinek 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good contributor. Afonso Silva 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bandwagon support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - she's a great asset to the project. Guettarda 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. —Ruud 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted support. Tons of good edits, and a history of constructive comments. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to death Can't beelive she wasn't already admin!!—Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jay(Reply) 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extremely good contributor. With 5,000 + edits she deserves to be an admin.Jordy 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nothing but good contributions fromthis editor - the mop is definetely in order. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contributor who I've observed working well with some very difficult users. Danielross40 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above -- excellent candidate. Jkelly 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, would make a great addition. Sarge Baldy 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. I've seen this user around a lot, the user meets my specs, and I would trust the user with admin tools. ~Linuxerist
E/L/T 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks alright. None of the comments in the oppose votes swayed me. Nephron T|C 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (I was convinced after reading the oppose votes!) Captainj 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dr Zak 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I wholeheartedly support this Request for Adminship. No questions asked. AvB ÷ talk 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wouldn't abuse tools and oppose votes indicate she's doing something right already. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would have kicked myself if I had missed this RFA. Joelito (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I know Natural selection was a tough one to deal with, everything I've seen of Kim has been positive.--ragesoss 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Gurch 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, an excellent editor, and we need more support votes to counter such comments as by Lou franklin below. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Jnk[talk] 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Belated Support SoLando (Talk) 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lapinmies 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support You seem to be getting attacked on the board by vandals and trolls. That's the best recommendation I know of :-). --Bachrach44 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--digital_me(t/c) 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: good editor. Jonathunder 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Joe I 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Like all other editors she has a POV, but as a skilled editor she adheres to NPOV. She has exercised restraint in disputes, and I trust her to exercise appropriate restraint with admin tools. Cleduc 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong Oppose. Unfortunately, Kim tends to use Wikipedia to push her POV. She was unable to work with another editor and started an RfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marcosantezana) against an editor that is basically a POV war. Unfortunately for Marcos, he doesn't follow the rules. Kim uses the rules as a bludgeon. She tries different tactics to get her POV across, such as creating a disambiguation page to push her views (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=51839832). I'm sure she is well-meaning, but I fear her definition of consensus is when editors agree with her (note this comment after several editors tried to work on a decent introduction to Natural selection: [25]. What she is saying is that she is ready to tear apart the article, Natural selection over a dispute with me). What she was trying to do was to recast everyone who didn't agree with her as pushing "Darwinian Natural Selection" and her view as "Modern Natural Selection." She did the same thing to Quantitative genetics, and I eventually stopped editing articles that she owns. Another example of unilateral action: [26]. Basically, I believe that Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth. As I have said on another admin candidate, there is nothing more horifying than an admin who knows The Truth.Ted 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand where TedE's is coming from here (while disagreeing on many points, YMMV, see answer to question 3 for more info on this episode). To address just the one clearest point of disagreement, I think it's really a mischaracterization of the Marcosantezana RFAr to depict it as either a POV war, or as something initiated by Kim alone. In the weeks leading up to the RFAr I had several discussions with at least two other editors who were considering filing an RFAr over Marcosantezana's behaviour on that article. I don't think the RFAr was in anyway inappropriate, and I think it's worth noting the unanimous votes by the arbcomm members against Marcosantezana in the case in question. Pete.Hurd 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Pete, and would add that the disagreements over the definition of natural selection were not solely or primarily driven by Kim; it was something a whole bunch of editors were involved in. In fact, Kim contributed significantly to the eventual resolution of the dispute, which is what your cited disambiguation page shows. I would grant all editors, admin or not, the privilege of being bold. Kim has not to my knowledge engaged in edit-warring with Marcos (in contrast with other editors and admins), but has instead been diligent to seek avenues for conflict resolution, and left space for the benefit of a doubt. Marcos on his part has singled out Kim and blamed various actions taken against him on her, when she was not in fact involved or on occasions informed, to my knowledge. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage any editors who are concerned about the arbcomm case to read the evidence to form their own view. If it does anything it shows what a good candidate Kim is. Please note that I presented most of the evidence in this case having never engaged in a content dispute with Marcos. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ted is 100% correct. Wikipedia needs moderate admins. But this user proudly claims "I am a left wing lesbian" [27]. Additionally, this user is not fluent in English [28][29] and might be better suited to be an admin on the Dutch site. Lou franklin 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to require that all editors either be straight, or stay closeted, to become administrators. I may be wrong, but my guess would be that of Kim's circa 6000 edits, this is the only to discuss her putative orientation, and this diff totally fails to demonstrate any POV pushing. I also note that Arbcomm has indefinately banned User:Lou franklin from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, the article whose talk page this diff comes from, and is on personal attack parole. Pete.Hurd 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is ironic that I used it there because I wanted to illustrate that I, as a lesbian, was agreeing that the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article was at places POV towards being to positive about those societal attitudes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing a candidate on the basis of sexual and political orientation. Brilliant. Luckily this kind of discrimination is illegal in most countries. --Cyde↔Weys 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief. I have worked with Kim extensively recently and I think she has been a model of objective, considered, balanced judgement. Anything she lacks in awareness of subtleties of grammar she more than makes up for in the clarity of her logic - this is a much rarer virtue in WP, and should be the more prized because of itGleng 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia needs editors who follow WP:NPOV; their real-life political views don't matter at all. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing 'crat, this user has been banned indef from wikipedia, see here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ted is right. Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernando Cortez (talk • contribs)
- Hernando_Cortez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account created April 1 just as it appearing that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision was heading towards an article ban for Lou franklin (see [30] under "Proposed remedies"). User made a few small edits then was inactive til 12 May, then began obsessively editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, 3RR blocked on 27 May. Editing pattern very similar to Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with editing times suspiciously correlated with blocks against Lou franklin. Smells like dirty socks around here. Phr (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely a sockpuppet of Lou franklin, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Lou_franklin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, sockpuppetry has been established by checkuser, banned indefinately, see User:Hernando Cortez. Pete.Hurd 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely a sockpuppet of Lou franklin, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Lou_franklin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hernando_Cortez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account created April 1 just as it appearing that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision was heading towards an article ban for Lou franklin (see [30] under "Proposed remedies"). User made a few small edits then was inactive til 12 May, then began obsessively editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, 3RR blocked on 27 May. Editing pattern very similar to Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with editing times suspiciously correlated with blocks against Lou franklin. Smells like dirty socks around here. Phr (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand where TedE's is coming from here (while disagreeing on many points, YMMV, see answer to question 3 for more info on this episode). To address just the one clearest point of disagreement, I think it's really a mischaracterization of the Marcosantezana RFAr to depict it as either a POV war, or as something initiated by Kim alone. In the weeks leading up to the RFAr I had several discussions with at least two other editors who were considering filing an RFAr over Marcosantezana's behaviour on that article. I don't think the RFAr was in anyway inappropriate, and I think it's worth noting the unanimous votes by the arbcomm members against Marcosantezana in the case in question. Pete.Hurd 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Her expertise in certain areas is very good (biology). However, I feel she would use the tools to push her own agenda at times, as discribed by other voters. WIkiman 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing 'crat, this is User:WIkiman's first edit under this account. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Teds comment worries me. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—a position I feel forced into by the answer to my question 6, or rather by the fact that my questions weren't answered, but evaded. I feel an admin should be able to deal with such questions directly, simply and honestly in a convincing way. The response does not convince me and I fear bodes trouble for the future. Her intelligence and knowledge is an asset to Wikipedia but can be an obstacle when dealing with those who have not arrived at the same understanding. In the case cited it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin, because that is, in fact, what most people would expect to find. There are other solutions, e.g. the modern theories could go in an article called "Modern theories of natural selection". There seems to have been an insistence, however, that one way was the right way. This does lend some credence to Ted's objections as above. I would like to state that I have no objection to someone being a "left wing lesbian" or any other personal affiliation provided it does not intrude on NPOV editing—an honest declaration, as in this case, is actually a safeguard. Tyrenius 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The answers I would give on your questions as written down are: No, not helpfull, and No, it is not an appropriate attitude for an admin. And I appologize for not directly answering those questions. And also thanks for confirming that my solution to the content dispute by splitting the article was a correct proposal. I have no problem with that solution at all, nor did I have it at that time. Please see User:KimvdLinde/Modern_usage_of_natural_selection, as I indeed have started that solution pretty much after the discussion with TedE, and I am still willing to pursue that solution. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your second reply, which is clear. However, I am rather taken aback that you think I am confirming your solution to split the article, as that was not something I said. You said that the article "Natural Selection" should be about modern theories, and the information about Darwin should be in an article titled "Darwinian natural selection". I said "it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin." I didn't say I thought it was right to divide the subject in this way, and, in fact, I don't think it should be done. To me it seems obvious that an article titled "Natural selection" should contain all facets of that subject, historic and contemporary, and there should only be other articles split off if the main article became too long. Tyrenius 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to keep the article together as well; we are at the same page with that. If I gave the impression that you endorsed the splitting of the article, my appologies. What I intended to say that I was happy with your assesment that splitting the article COULD potentially be a proper alternative solution to resolve his longstanding content dispute (I cite: There are other solutions, e.g. the modern theories could go in an article called "Modern theories of natural selection".). I am not stuck to one solution, to the contrary, I just would like to find an acceptable solution for this long-standing and ongoing content dispute. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's a misunderstanding. I don't know whether splitting it could be a proper alternative solution or not, but I suspect not. I was just pointing out there are other solutions as to titling and content if it is split. Anyway, I hope the matter reaches a good resolution for all involved. Tyrenius 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearning this up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your second reply, which is clear. However, I am rather taken aback that you think I am confirming your solution to split the article, as that was not something I said. You said that the article "Natural Selection" should be about modern theories, and the information about Darwin should be in an article titled "Darwinian natural selection". I said "it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin." I didn't say I thought it was right to divide the subject in this way, and, in fact, I don't think it should be done. To me it seems obvious that an article titled "Natural selection" should contain all facets of that subject, historic and contemporary, and there should only be other articles split off if the main article became too long. Tyrenius 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The answers I would give on your questions as written down are: No, not helpfull, and No, it is not an appropriate attitude for an admin. And I appologize for not directly answering those questions. And also thanks for confirming that my solution to the content dispute by splitting the article was a correct proposal. I have no problem with that solution at all, nor did I have it at that time. Please see User:KimvdLinde/Modern_usage_of_natural_selection, as I indeed have started that solution pretty much after the discussion with TedE, and I am still willing to pursue that solution. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- neutral: Ombudsman 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason why? --Rory096 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- robchurch | talk 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ombudsman and Robchurch, and minor POV-related concerns – Gurch 10:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Changed to support.[reply]
Comments
User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Viewing contribution data for user KimvdLinde (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 117 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 26, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 30, January, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 73.3% Minor edits: 95.77% Article edit summary use (last 426 edits) : Major article edits: 97.71% Minor article edits: 100% Average edits per day: 78.28 (for last 500 edit(s)) Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 3.22% (161) Unique pages edited: 1222 | Average edits per page: 4.09 | Edits on top: 9.36% Breakdown of all edits: Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 22.12% (1106 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 26.06% (1303 edit(s)) Marked reverts: 16.66% (833 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 35.16% (1758 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 43.06% (2153) | Article talk: 22% (1100) User: 6.7% (335) | User talk: 14.56% (728) Wikipedia: 9.06% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 3.14% (157) Image: 0.36% (18) Template: 0.62% (31) Category: 0.1% (5) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.4% (20)
- KimvdLinde's edit summary usage from Mathbot's tool.
- 97% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
- Contribution breakdown
- Username KimvdLinde
- Total edits:5039
- Distinct pages edited 1290
- Average edits/page 3.906
- First edit 2006-01-30 02:25:22
- (main) 2161
- Talk 1109
- User 358
- User talk 729
- Image 18
- Image talk 2
- Template 31
- Template talk 10
- Category 5
- Wikipedia 452
- Wikipedia talk 157
- Portal talk 7
- Kim was planing on self-nominating eventually, as I found out when I went to nominate (thus the prior edits to this page). — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 will probably be active at different places. I do a decent share of vandalism fighting and I encounter frequently vandalism that has not been cleaned up after days, probably because not many editors have those pages on their watchlist. I expect to frequent WP:AN/3RR and WP:AIV as they have at odd times significant backlogs, and I expect to slowly work my way to more complex cases. Furthermore, things like the deletions of obvious copyright violations, speedy deletions requested moves and closing AfD's at times, moving requested pages when appropriate, etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am personally pleased with my contributions to the Natural selection page, which IMHO, was a mess before. Currently, I try to update the many pages related to the Parrots (order Psittaciformes). The phylogeny in that group has been subject to many changes, which poses its own challenges as the phylogeny has not been resolved fully. By nature of the Tree of life project, this requires updating many many seperate pages. In that context, one of the articles on the Australian Ringneck has been labelled as a good article. I admit, I do not work on a single article to bring it to featured article status, but work on many articles because I think that it is in the first place crucial that the information is correct and updating several hundered of pages related to a whole group of organisms is not going to be recognized quickly in the form of a featuered article, but bringing such a section up to date is essential for the quality of Wikipedia. This has also inflates my edit count, so consider it somewhat lower than it shows. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
- 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: In general, I am not quickly stressed, although I have to admit that I got stressed when I saw this post, especially after s/he had posted this before. The exact motivation why this stressed me out can be found here. In this particular instance, I just slept a night over it, and the next morning, it was pretty much gone. I personally do think that it is not worth to get frustrated with other editors. Everybody does her/his best, and if not, refering to policies and guidelines works pretty well in many cases. And extreme cases, there is the dispute resolution process. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
- Comment Why don't you mention your edit war with Marcos? Have you learned anything from that? I think you are downplaying your stress level -- you seem to threaten to stop editing quite a bit. Ted 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I should have mentioned the situation with Marcosantezana and the arbitration case, however, it has not caused me significant stress. I would like to note that I agree in a large part with Marcosantezana on what the content of the Natural selection article should be. As to the resignment statement, I have learned not to engage in every possible (content) conflict but to choose those that are worth putting energy in. I am here in my own free time to contribute to an encyclopedia, and there are more than enough articles for me to work on. So, I sometimes just do not see the need for endless content discussions when I feel that the large majority of the editors disagrees with me on that content as was the case with the Natural selection article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why don't you mention your edit war with Marcos? Have you learned anything from that? I think you are downplaying your stress level -- you seem to threaten to stop editing quite a bit. Ted 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: In general, I am not quickly stressed, although I have to admit that I got stressed when I saw this post, especially after s/he had posted this before. The exact motivation why this stressed me out can be found here. In this particular instance, I just slept a night over it, and the next morning, it was pretty much gone. I personally do think that it is not worth to get frustrated with other editors. Everybody does her/his best, and if not, refering to policies and guidelines works pretty well in many cases. And extreme cases, there is the dispute resolution process. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
- 4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: see my contribution at the talk page of the proposal, as I think that others can easier add to that when all ideas about proposal are concentrated at a single place. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. I recentally wacthed your responese to some user's "expirement with vandalism." If you had administrative rights at that time, whould you have blocked him/her? And if so, at what point? 59.20.72.35 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: First of all, I do a lot of vandalism fighting, so could you point me to the case you refering to so that I can give a specific answer. The general answer would be that I would block those cases that I sent to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. In general I am at times surprised that other admins already block when I would try another warning. But without a more specific case, it will be difficult to say anything specific. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: I'm referring to the case involving user 216.164.203.90, 59.20.72.35 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first series of events took place in the early morning of May 13 [31]. By the time that I posted the {{subst:test4}} at his talk page, he was already at 8RR, reverted by 5 different editors. We got into a 'discussion' but he did not get the picture that inserting nonsense is not appreciated at Wikipedia and kept insisted that his contribution was correct. After that, I reported him to WP:AIV. The reason that I discussed with him after the warning was because I realised that I should have given him a {{subst:test3}} first. By the time he got blocked, he was at 12RR at Gray Wolf, and had posted this at my talk page including making fun of typo's (which happens when I am typing fast but also because I am dyslectic, I just do not see them). I would have blocked him somewhat earlier, probably at 10RR; requesting an admin’s intervention takes some time.
- The next afternoon, when still blocked, he posts this at his talk page. *Shrug*. I responded with this and would have left it at that. He got himself blocked on the 15th for personal attacks; while at 4RR at the same page, I was not involved that day.
- May 17th, he posts this. If true, and because he had attacked me primarily, I lost my calm. In posted it at the WP:AN, now here at archive. I would not have blocked him that day for anything, because I was angry so this was for another admin to handle.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: I'm referring to the case involving user 216.164.203.90, 59.20.72.35 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: First of all, I do a lot of vandalism fighting, so could you point me to the case you refering to so that I can give a specific answer. The general answer would be that I would block those cases that I sent to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. In general I am at times surprised that other admins already block when I would try another warning. But without a more specific case, it will be difficult to say anything specific. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 Optional Question from Tyrenius
- In Natural Selection:talk this exchange occurred:
- I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am ready to do that, precisly over the type of arguments you are putting forward. KimvdLinde 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In Natural Selection:talk this exchange occurred:
- It seems to me that Ted was trying to calm things down and put them in perspective, and instead of responding positively to this and trying to work with him, you replied in a confrontational way which would be likely to only escalate the problem. Do you think you replied well or do you think the tone of this reply was unhelpful? Do you think it shows an attitude that would be appropriate for an admin?
- For the context, see the Natural Selection article at that time. In my opinion at that time, the article was pretty much unreadable, and described Darwinian Natural Selection, which is roughly equivalent with Evolution by means of Natural Selection. Nowadays, Natural Selection is much better defined, and I think an encyclopaedic article should be up to date, with a history section dealing with the older ideas. Therefore, I had proposed at that time to split the article along the Darwinian and the modern usage of Natural selection, because a month long and intense discussion, with several people involved, had not resulted in a decent solution. So I wrote:
- I think we should rename this article to Darwinian natural selection. The focus is to much on his ideas, and not enough about the current understanding of that idea. We can than also make a separate article about the current usage of that term. KimvdLinde 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- To explain a bit more. I think the lead paragraph is getting worse, not better. And I think there are to many people who are to much focussed on Darwin this, Darwin that. I think we have to seriously think about NatSel, but I have the feeling that splitting the article in a Darwinian and a modern version might be needed. KimvdLinde 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- These remarks were about the whole article, but in the discussion that followed, the focus was primarily at the lead section. This discussion did not resolve either, and the focus remained at older definitions. In a response of TedE, I wrote this: Sorry, the current definition is evolution/adaptation by means of natural selection, which is not natural selection, but the result of prolonged natural selection., on which TedE’s responded (the complete version):
- I disagree. Take out the last sentence of the second paragraph. Change "less adapted" to "least fit" and "adapted" to "most fit". It may be poor English, but it is a core definition of natural selection. I would love to take out the last sentence. However, I can read adapted in a non-evolutionary sense -- and it may actually be understood better by the general public than using fitness. I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- My response, Well, I am ready to do that, precisely over the type of arguments you are putting forward, was a response to the continued insistence of keep the article focused on Darwin’s definition. The discussion had been limited to the lead section and some minor wording issues in that, but was essentially about the fundamental difference of opinion on the article, not just about one sentence and a couple of words because those words are defining the article as a whole.
- For the context, see the Natural Selection article at that time. In my opinion at that time, the article was pretty much unreadable, and described Darwinian Natural Selection, which is roughly equivalent with Evolution by means of Natural Selection. Nowadays, Natural Selection is much better defined, and I think an encyclopaedic article should be up to date, with a history section dealing with the older ideas. Therefore, I had proposed at that time to split the article along the Darwinian and the modern usage of Natural selection, because a month long and intense discussion, with several people involved, had not resulted in a decent solution. So I wrote:
- Would I have done it differently now? Probably, the incident took place 3500+ edits ago. I would have responded with a longer explanation, why I think the article needed to be split, because it was not just those one sentence and a couple of words. As I wrote above in response to question 3, I have learned to pick my discussions, and one thing I know, is that I am avoiding all discussions with TedE, just because they are not going well between us. Our main difference, his focus on older literature against my focus on the current state of the topic based on the current literature is not going to work. The rewritten NatSel article, which I wrote together with Gleng, is already changed towards the more Darwinian evolution definition, and that is probably where it will slowly go to again. I am not going to resist that, I have given my arguments and if the community thinks the article should be on a different topic, so be it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:18, 29 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Request for adminship/lavakille
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.