Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eluchil404

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:22, 19 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Eluchil404

[edit]

Final (25/19/8) Ended 20:12, 2006-07-24 (UTC)

Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) – I have been a registered wikipedian since March 2nd, with IP contributions going back to at least November 2005 (156.33.140.149 is me beginning on November 1 but I also used other IP's). In the last few months I have increased my activity on Wikipedia and have been involved in behind the scenes activities especially WP:AfD. I am requesting the mop so that I can help deal with the sometimes annoying backlogs in areas like AfD and WP:RM. I believe that my contributions are sufficient to demonstrate my good faith and ability but I await the judgement of the community on these matters. See also below for my answers to the standard RfA questions. Eluchil404 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my self nomination. Eluchil404 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this RfA since there is little chance that 3 more days will generate further usefull discussion or a change in result. I want to thank everyone who took the time to express an opinion, especially those users who gave specific advice for my improvement as an editor. I also want to say things I don't think it appropriate for admins to say about the AOL IP vandals who choose to vandalize this RfA, but I'll leave it at that. Eluchil404 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. An AfD Wikignome who has courage to speak his (?) mind, and expressed very sound opinions in all the two dozen contribs I checked. I see no harm. Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support - this one was really close, but meets my standards with exactly 350 of 350 required total talk edits and 1006 of the 1000 required article edits. —Mets501 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Adminship would really help this user's work on Wikipedia. ~ ctales *blah* 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - no real reason to oppose, user seems fine, has done plenty of things in the Wikipedia space that brings him in contact with others. pschemp | talk 23:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lone Star Support I think this user has done valuable and diverse work, and its great to have a different working style in an admin. Too many of those machine-produced Wikiholics. This Fire Burns Always 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This user has amazing talent as an editor, and making him an admin is far too petty. KING OF WIKIPEDIA, ANYONE? (chuckles) --Kitia 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea - let's start planning Jimbo's overthrow. First step - take over ArbCom. This Fire Burns Always 23:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the support, for the record I neither want not expect to take Jimbo's job.. Eluchil404 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just kidding. Ha-ha. Jimbo will be forever. Sorry you didn't get my joke. --Kitia 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. DarthVader 23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. support Reggae Sanderz 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Talk edits aren't everything, and your work on AfD convinces me you'd make a fine admin. BryanG(talk) 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Meets my criteria. Grandmasterka 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A close one, but, doesen't seem like the user will abuse the mop. No big deal, and all... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Merovingian (T, C, @) 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'll vote support. Mostly Rainy 09:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support Self nominations are fine, however I think this one may have been a little too early - otherwise, I don't have a problem with the candidate being an admin. --Draicone (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Perhaps a bit early, but otherwise no problems. Seivad 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I don't see anything in your contribs to be even mildly concerned about - you seem to have a great attitude and seem to be developing a well-rounded base of experience. Keep up the great work! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as per METS501. --Clyde Miller 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support A bit new, and not a ton of article edits, but user seems active especially in AFD, and could use admin powers to help out there. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I always do. --Terrancommander 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, Mailer Diablo 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - user does a great job as an editor, no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. BigDT 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I have no concerns about this user that would preclude me from supporting their adminship, and don't see anything on the Oppose side that is persuasive, either. Will check back before finish, of course. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per nom. Merorffjs 11:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First edit outside userspace. Tintin (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was added by 205.188.116.137
    support per nom. Stifle 11:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has only ever edited this RfA and his userpage - six total edits. - Samsara (talk • contribs)
    User has since been indef blocked as an impersonator of Stifle. Gwernol 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Megatron 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    This was added by 205.188.116.137
  25. Support per the lack of meaningful reasoning of the opposition. "Doesn't smell right"? What the hell?  Grue  18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Tony Sidaway 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) a little worrying. Hardly any talk page involvement; many talk page edits seem to be formatting and adding tags [1]. User talk involvement is also low [2]. Strangely in those circumstances, substantial involvement in AfD and so on [3] --a surprising amount in one so new to Wikipedia and with so little personal interaction outside project space. This one doesn't smell right.[reply]
    While I can't speak for Tony's olofactory response, I did I quick count to quantify his Talk page concerns. I count 122 sustantive edits expressing opinions, concerns, or asking questions, 95 just placing {{Oldafdfull}} tags, and 28 other minor edits having to do with formating and the like. The numbers don't quite add up but they should be a fair estimate of the actual contributions. Eluchil404 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was an interesting, perceptive observation that got my attention. Spot-checking 10 or so of his AfDs, I'd say in perhaps half of them he was closing the AfD -- a useful task. In the others he cast very reasonable, civil votes displaying good familiarity with Wikipedia policies. After looking at the AfDs, I'm more inclined to support this adminship.--A. B. 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. 1ne 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Vast majority of talk/user talk edits are also AfD related (and some warning templates).Voice-of-All 20:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Agree with Tony Sidaway and a bit too new. Roy A.A. 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - per Tony -- Tawker 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - per Tony and for short experience. Having 6 months is too short.--Jusjih 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Tony-too new and inexperienced. Michael 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Tony Sidaway; not enough experience interacting. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Tony; Too new. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose You can accuse me of having editcountitis, but the Usertalk and Wiki namespace edits look a little low to me. Also, perhaps this is perfectly explainable and justified, but here the candidate removed a significant amount of information and just redirected it because another article on the same subject exists. If he checked to make sure all of the infromation was contained in the other article, that's fine and I withdraw my comment, but if not, that's a serious problem. AdamBiswanger1 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I was, perhaps, a bit quick on the draw there. While my initial judgement that the article I redirected was unencyclopedic and uncomprehensive in comparison with Kalov (Hasidic dynasty) stands, a closer reading does reveal some information that might be worth merging. I have moved it to the relevant talk page. I would note that I am not generally quick to delete useful content. Compare my handling of Kalantiao and Kaminia (Piraeus), Greece which were similarly situated articles that I thought had some possibly worthwhile material. Eluchil404 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Tony Sidaway, just needs more experience. Silensor 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose due to concerns raised by recent events. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you indicate (to me privately if you prefer) which recent events you are refering to? Eluchil404 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, too little communication with other users. — Jul. 23, '06 [18:29] <freak|talk>
  15. Oppose, I find this rfa premature.--Aldux 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Kelly. Rebecca 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per criteria. Good editor tho. Will support in due time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per the above. Self-nominated, yet there is a lack of open communication, and then requesting that Kelly Martin privately inform him, and then a mildly confrontative response to Tony Sidaway. Those aren't good signs. Speak up Eluchil404. --HResearcher 12:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see ANI for some of the reasons Eluchil might have wanted to talk with Kelly somewhere else about her oppose. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My responce to Tony wasnt meant to be confrontational; I was a bit surprised by his comments and so decided to quantify his concerns about low substantive Talk edits. I posted it here so that people could quickly evaluate my contributions in that area without having to go through and count them themselves. I don't generally follow the ANI so I honestly have no firm idea of what Kelly Martin was talking about. Because she refered to her concerns obliquely I sensed that she might not want to share them openly so I gave her the option of communicating them to me privately if she didnt want to state them in the RfA, though that would actually be my preference since I do in fact favor open communication. Indeed the comment about a lack of open communication stikes me as odd. I prefer open communication with other users via Talk and Wikipedia pages. Valid concerns have been raised that I don't do so enough, but I certainly have no preference for "closed" or "private" communication in which I have never engaged with respect to wikipedia. Eluchil404 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Xoloz 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could ask, if not you specifically, any of the "Oppose per Tony"s, why do you find a high % of involvment in Afd to be a bad thing? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. My personal standard is that a user be registered for at least 6 months before supporting, but this is not enough on its own to oppose... You seem to have a clear reason for wanting to be an admin, and seem to have done more than enough mainspace and wikipedia edits to be familiar with everything. The only thing that seems a little light is User talk edits, but that doesn't particularly concern me. I will most probably support on reapplication in September. Themindset 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I usually avoid this vote, but I'm going to have to give it. I don't have any issue with your length of time on Wikipedia, and you certainly have a very high level of involvement in WP:AFD. I'm a little concerned about what Tony Sideaway is saying. Your numbers are just a little bit strange, particularly the user talk. I'd like to see a little bit more before coming down on either side of this RfA. Alphachimp talk 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff gives some of my thoughts on User talk. Eluchil404 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to clarify that. I'm still a bit worried though. As an admin you'd have to remain contactable and in contact with other users. An admin is, quite literally, a public face of Wikipedia. User talk, at least for me, is the primary vehicle for staying in contact (particularly for issues particular to an individual user). I'm just worried that I'm not seeing that much experience in interacting with other Wikipedia users. This is all tempered by the admin duties that you refer to below, particularly requested page moves and WP:CSD, which don't require a high level of user talk. Alphachimp talk 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true I don't have vast amounts of community interaction in any namespace, as Tony Sidaway's coners about (Article) Talk make clear. Obviously this is something for me to work on regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Eluchil404 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Themindset. --WillMak050389 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for now -- I was going to oppose until I spot checked 10 or so AfDs; these actually favorably impressed me for the reasons noted in my response to Tony Sidaway above. I still would like to see more total experience (but then I'm more cautious about RfA votes and editor experience than most voters).--A. B. 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Good quality, civil editor, but could use some more time experience. WOuld support later nom. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Alphachimp. Baseball,Baby! balls?strikes 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral: The article and WP counts are okay, but you're not having enough interaction with other users. I'm also worried about your work outside those fields. Your chance at the mop has come way too soon at the moment. Please do better and I'll see you again in 4-6 months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, per S1grandson.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Eluchil404 (over the 2069 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 140 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 20, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 2, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 94.97% Minor edits: 94.41%
Average edits per day: 51.13 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 521 edits): Major article edits: 98.9% Minor article edits: 95.97%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2069 edits shown on this page and last 5 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.24% (5)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 8.8% (182)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 28.95% (599)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 59.09%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 5 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1435 | Average edits per page: 1.44 | Edits on top: 27.84%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.71% (1132 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.91% (412 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.34% (214 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 11.5% (238 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 48.62% (1006) | Article talk: 12.23% (253)
User: 2.46% (51) | User talk: 3.24% (67)
Wikipedia: 30.98% (641) | Wikipedia talk: 1.3% (27)
Image: 0.34% (7)
Template: 0.19% (4)
Category: 0.43% (9)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.19% (4)
Username	        Eluchil404
Total edits	        2061
Distinct pages edited	1432
Average edits/page	1.439
First edit	        23:15, March 2, 2006
	
(main)	        1006
Talk	        253
User	        50
User talk	66
Image	        7
Image talk	3
Template	4
Category	9
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	635
Wikipedia talk	27
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:My primary focus, at least initially, would be AfD where I have some experience and Requested moves where there are lots of non-controversial moves that are blocked by redirects that can be made. I would also expect to help out with CSD and prod patrol. I would continue to revert vandalism when I see it, but do not expect, at least for the foreseeable future, to do much RC patrol. As I grew more exerienced and confident with the admin toolset I plan on increased involvement in other XfD discussions and watching the Administrator's Noticeboard. 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:For people who are interested in my article contributions there is a list of articles that I have primarily written or otherwise contributed to majorly on my user page. Vatta's War is the least stubby of these but it still needs plenty of work (mostly to fully comply with WP:LEAD and WP:FICT). I am quite pleased with some of my behind the scenes work such as recently creating and populating Category:Slasher films per the emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slasher films. The work was pretty botlike but I figured I could do it faster and more acurately than I could find someone with an appropriate bot (Cydebot maybe?) and ask them to add the cat. 19:09, 20 July 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:I hav never been invloved in any major conflicts. My highest level of wikistress was probably due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus where my argument per google was overruled and I appealded to DRV. The DRV was resoundinly against me as well, but several users took the time to address my concerns, explaining that the sites I was appealing to failed to meat WP:RS, and I had the content userfied. I have done some work gathering reliable sources (see User:Eluchil404/Emmaus Resources) but have not yet worked on writting up a new version per WP:FORGET for various reasons. My primary modus operandi in this and other conflicts is to seek clarification of other's positions and to seek compromise if possible based my understanding. Sometimes ([4] and [5] per [6]) this works excellently; othertimes ([7] and Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Check History) nothing comes of it and I just leave the matter. I tend to avoid highly controversial subjects and most of my conflicts like the ones above are mostly pretty petty. 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Cyde↔Weys 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC):[reply]

1. What is your opinion on cross-namespace redirects? (Note: See WP:ASR, WP:RFD for more).
A:I am opposed to cross-namespace redirects in almost all cases since they unecessarily confuse the distinction between the encyclopedia and the process used to write it. I believe this to be the consensus of thecommunity as well as common sense. The WP: (and I suppose CAT:) pseudo namesapces would be the only obvious exceptions. 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
2. What is your opinion on userboxes in template space?
A:While I don't have any personal objection to most userboxes in template space, I think that the German solution makes good sense and is a reasonable compromise to end the so-called "userbox wars". Following it, all (or almost all wikiproject and Bableboxes could be possible exceptions) userboxes should be moved to userspace where only the most polemic should be subject to deletion. For a number of reasons I have substed the most POV of my own userboxes, but I don't object to their transclusion (from userspace) unless they are borderline personal attacks. 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eluchil404&oldid=1150710051"