Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CheNuevara

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vilerage (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 21 July 2006 (support!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CheNuevara

Discuss here (19/6/2) Ending 9:10, 2006-07-27 (UTC)

CheNuevara (talk · contribs) – CheNuevara has thoroughly impressed me with his strict fairness and impartiality and his ability to bring warring sides together to achieve consensus. This was amply demonstrated during the recent fracas on Democratic Underground. Needless to say, an article on such a controversial political topic brings out heated passions on both sides, and a full-fledged edit war was developing or underway, when Che stepped in, calmed both sides down, and initiated a process which achieved amicable consensus over the controversial issues. I suspect that his politics differ from mine, but he's demonstrated that he can go beyond politics to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:EL, and other Wikipedia policies intended to keep bias out. He'd be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia administrator team. VoiceOfReason 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination :) - CheNuevara 09:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support, despite the low edit comments I can see you have 'changed your ways', I was a little unsure about the low article edit counts but you are a good active participant in AFD which wins some points with me. I think you would make a good admin -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Reggae Sanderz 09:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. DarthVader 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support and good luck.  :) Mostly Rainy 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, no apparent reason to oppose (always a good thing). RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support good user. Seivad 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support have only seen good things really, Highway Return to Oz... 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I'm concerned by the low number of edits to the mainspace, but it seems you still have made major article contributions (per your answer regarding translating a couple pages) and I don't see a large reason to believe that would make you a bad administrator that would abuse the additional privileges. -- joturner 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support This Fire Burns Always 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Froggy 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please sign in and vote. Tintin (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, for the reasons for which I nominated him VoiceOfReason 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support While the edit count is a little small I know that this user is dedicated to wikipedia and its principals. I've only had good contact with him, so it is a pleasure to support. Thε Halo Θ 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cliché Support Computerjoe's talk 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral - Aceptable explanation for the mistaken action of defending a link in violation of WP:EL. No support because judgement in case is wrong, but at least judgement exists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Strong Support reconsidering his role in the conflict, we were actually both doing the right thing against forces on both sides arrayed against us. It's still a violation of EL, but EL isn't a policy, and he makes it clear that he saw it as questionable. In light of review of answer, change to strong support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But thats Your judgement though... :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Hipocrite, for your willingness to reconsider. I appreciate it a lot. And I'm very glad that everything worked out for the best on that article. :) - CheNuevara 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support meets all my criteria and looks like a great user. As long as he keeps using edit summaries from now on he'll be an excellent admin. Eluchil404 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I always thought CheNuevara was already an admin! He is levelheaded, fair, and a very good contributor, editor, and vandalism-reverter. 85% edit summary in both major and minor edits is acceptable, in my opinion. All in all, I think CheNuevara will be an excellent admin. Good luck! Srose (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Cliché support. 1ne 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems fine after glancing through edit history. Let's cut the requirement creep, shall we. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support It's no big deal, afterall. I don't think the user will abuse the mop... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Sorry, he fails my standards in the areas of At least 1000 article edits; and 85% major and 85% minor edit summary usage (although that may be excusable because he has changed recently). Remember, this is foremost an encyclopedia, so I believe that 1000 edits to the article space are necessary. Also, the very low rate of edits concerns me slightly. If someone can convince me I may change my vote to a neutral. —Mets501 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note, I'm not trying to change your opinion (I only want The Tools if the rest of the 'pedia thinks I should have them) but I would like to give a little context to one thing you pointed out. I've been abroad in Germany this year for studies, and it's been a lot of work with very little time for many other things. My edit frequency is much higher pre-August 2005 (before I got here), in February 2006 (on winter break), and since the middle of June 2006 (since the semester's winding down). Once I'm back in the US (in a few weeks), my life will be a lot easier (reading in my native tongue takes a tiny fraction of the time) and I'll be able to keep up this more regular contributing frequency. - CheNuevara 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose inexperience, edit summaries. This RfA is premature. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose very liberal with the "minor edit" option, but viewing his contribs, I see no reason to think that this is a guy with about 1500 standard edits. His participation in AfD is standard if not better than average, but still, 367 is not nearly enough. This year, the editor only began editing heavily in Jan/Feb, dropped off the face of the earth, and then came back in June. With about 1500 more edits, particularly to the Wikipedia namespace, I'll be happy to support. You seem like a very talented editor. AdamBiswanger1 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per Crzrussian, low edit count and edit summary usage. Roy A.A. 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose -- too few edits -- about the same as I have and that's sure not enough. I'd be happy to support in the future. (Comment: I'm probably more conservative and cautious in voting than most voters, so don't take my opposition personally.)--A. B. 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for too few edits and low edit summary usage.--Jusjih 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose 1500 edits is too few, recommend withdrawal and resubmission in future. MichaelZ526 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - I have this ominous feeling that there is something that means I shouldn't suppiort, but I have no idea what it is. I'm either going cenile or am totally insane. Probably both, so I'm staying neutral (please try and persuade me to change my !vote, since I have no idea why I'm voting neutral...) —Celestianpower háblame 09:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be happy to address any criticisms you have or can come up with, and of course take them in stride. If nothing comes to mind, well, that's cool too. Bottom line is, ask my anything you like, and I'll be more than happy to respond. - CheNuevara 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Needs more mainspace edits to tilt me over to support. Themindset 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user CheNuevara (over the 1459 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 427 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 20, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 20, April, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 42.34% Minor edits: 92.64%
Average edits per day: 20.21 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 228 edits): Major article edits: 60% Minor article edits: 98.86%
Analysis of edits (out of all 1459 edits shown on this page and last 14 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.27% (4)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.92% (28)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 6.72% (98)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 55.21%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 9 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 665 | Average edits per page: 2.19 | Edits on top: 9.6%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 19.88% (290 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.22% (295 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.24% (91 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 51.2% (747 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 21.73% (317) | Article talk: 17.27% (252)
User: 12.27% (179) | User talk: 9.73% (142)
Wikipedia: 25.57% (373) | Wikipedia talk: 11.17% (163)
Image: 1.17% (17)
Template: 0.55% (8)
Category: 0.41% (6)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (2)
  • See CheNuevara's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • I would like to raise an issue myself which I foresee coming up in this discussion: namely, my low percentage of edit summaries. I admit to a less-than-desirable percentage of edit summary use in my first year of Wikilife (since last April). I recently, however, submitted a request for editor review, upon which it was pointed out to me that I need to use them more often. Since then, I have (I'm pretty sure) used 100% edit summaries, not just in the article space but in all namespaces. The fact remains that in that time I have not accrued enough major edits in the article namespace to heavily influence this statistic. I believe, however, that a look at my contributions for the last few weeks will demonstrate the fact that I took this criticism to heart and intend to, from now on, absolutely use edit summaries in all my work. - CheNuevara 09:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summaries? Who cares? Could we see his edit count, though? Moreschi 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	CheNuevara
Total edits	1433
Distinct pages edited	657
Average edits/page	2.181
First edit	22:47, 19 April 2005
	
(main)	        313
Talk	        242
User	        179
User talk	138
Image	        17
Image talk	1
Template	8
Category	6
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	367
Wikipedia talk	161
  • My edit count, thanks to Interiot's Tool2. I would like to note that a lot of the userspace edits are my sandbox - CheNuevara 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just wanted to say, as the nominator, that I realize that Che's edit count was perhaps a bit lower than average for admin nominees, but as a veteran of a number of bloody Internet political battles on dozens of forums, I'm still amazed that someone was able to wade into the middle of a brewing one and get all parties to calm down and reach an amicable solution. That's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia work; that's what enables Wikipedia to have articles on controversial topics without degenerating into an endless series of flames and edit wars. It seemed to me that that kind of consensus-building ability would be extremely valuable in an administrator. If the consensus here should be that Che needs more experience before being elevated, I very much hope that this nomination won't hurt his chances in the future. VoiceOfReason 01:25, 21 July 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 make it a point to participate in AfD regularly, every day when possible, including to look for instances of copyvio that are missed. I watch recent changes for vandalism, and I recently acquired the VandalProof tool to aid me in that. I also regularly check up on the Wikipedia backlogs, particularly the NPOV disputes (many of which, as I've noticed, turn out to be copyvio issues). As an admin, I would like to take part in the closing of AfD discussions and the execution of speedy deletes. Rollback would be helpful in my recent changes patroling. I would use the protection/blocking privileges sparingly and reluctantly -- I would always rather see an issue worked out than enforced -- but they could possibly be appropriate and useful in attempts to mediate disputes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've translated two full-length articles from the German Wikipedia, Katholikentag and Mainz Cathedral. I've been working on Walk to Canossa, a significant historical even which was a stub when I first found it. Also, I opened and had a guiding hand in Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse, which has flourished into a vast project which has touched many articles. As part of that project I've pioneered efforts to merge minor characters, saving time and space for both readers and editors, such as Sunnydale High School students and Initiative members. I'm also developing a navigation tool for easy Wikipedia surfing, found here.
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 doubt that there is a single Wikipedian who has contributed significantly over a lengthy period of time who has not rubbed elbows with any other user. The important thing in my mind is how one responds to these incidents. I always try to be fair and level-headed in my dealings with Wikipedians, preferring to work out and understand the other editor's point of view. The most significant incident that comes to mind was a disagreement with User:Paxomen over an ambiguity in some of my text at WP:Buffy. After discussing the matter at some length, we realized we really didn't disagree, we just said it differently, and both went on our happy way editing our separate articles.

Optional question from Hipocrite

4. Your solution to the DU problem was to include all of the links that would have caused any sort of conflict, regardless of their adhereance to guidelines. Do you feel that all of the links kept were acceptable in terms of WP:EL, with specific attention paid to a blogspot blog (9) that was added by a drive-by spammer(4)(3) that has little or no fact checking(2), and adds little to the article(1)? How would you apply this method of resolving edit conflicts to more serious policy disputes, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: My solution to the DU problem was to remove links that had a clear remove consensus, and use my own judgment on those that didn't, as per my reading of the guideline. The links which were clearly to be removed were removed, and the links which were not necessarily clear-cut removes were, for the most part, kept in order to allow further discussion and evolution. (I took your opinion into account, by the way, when I made my decision, but I interpreted the guideline differently than you and therefore came to a different decision. Your methodology, though, was amusing and quite appreciated.)
Specifically, the CU, LU, and NU links I felt were relevant as demonstrations of the cultural reaches of DU. The DUFU link was a more sensitive case, in my eyes, but I ultimately decided (after careful reading of not only the consensus "votes", but also of the discussion leading up to the process) to err on the side of caution and keep the link as a resource to back up the "Criticisms" section of the article.
The guideline WP:EL is just that: a guideline. My judgment was that the page (which does not sell a product or contain significant advertising, releasing it from 4, and which was removed at one point but put back by a different user, releasing it from 3) was relevant given the information in the article (1), and, while it is not of particular quality or reputation, it's the best that we've found at the moment (9), so it's an ample compromise. Please note that I did include a note in the links section that, should a more appropriate link be found, it should probably be replaced.
In short, I interpreted the guideline WP:EL as per the other guideline WP:CON. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, on the other hand, are all official policy and thereby non-negotiable under local consensus (although overall community consensus can, of course, affect them). In cases of guidelines, I feel that the best possible solution should be sought, which is what I attempted to do. In cases of policy, there is (almost always) a correct solution which needs to be followed. I am of course absolutely ready to put aside my personal opinion in cases where there is a "correct" solution as per policy and do take the correct course of action. - CheNuevara 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CheNuevara&oldid=64983166"