Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sethmahoney (talk | contribs)
6,233 edits
Pcb21 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
20,408 edits
Line 20: Line 20:
''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''
''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''


===[[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] (26/13/3) Ends 23:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ===
===[[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] (26/14/3) Ends 23:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ===
*Effective editor, lots of great edits, works hard to maintain Wikipedia integrity. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]]
*Effective editor, lots of great edits, works hard to maintain Wikipedia integrity. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]]


Line 73: Line 73:
# Lucky is a great guy, but he seems to take disagreements personally too often. I'm willing to reconsider sometime in the future. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 18:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Lucky is a great guy, but he seems to take disagreements personally too often. I'm willing to reconsider sometime in the future. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 18:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose for reasons 1 and 2 above. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|✉]] 15:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose for reasons 1 and 2 above. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|✉]] 15:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. Lucky appears to be a student of Rick's bull in a china shop approach to adminship. I'd rather not WP went further down this road. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 10:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral'''

Revision as of 10:51, 12 August 2004

Shortcut

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop." Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here. For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users that were recently made administrators, see recently created admins.

Rules

Administrator status is granted liberally to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and 500-1000 edits.

If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear. Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, so reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people disagree with removing any nominees from this page, on the grounds that it is censorship. If your nomination is rejected, perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination.

Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote.

Current nominations

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top.

Current time is 19:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 (26/14/3) Ends 23:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Effective editor, lots of great edits, works hard to maintain Wikipedia integrity. RickK
3,989 edits since March 15, 2004. Mike H 23:23, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
This candidate has accepted the nomination.

Support

  1. RickK 23:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. I feel that in Lucky 6.9, we have an editor who will most definitely do much to make Wikipedia a place to be proud of, even more so than it is now. Mike H 23:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —Kate | Talk 23:08, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  4. Lucky does a lot of work with sub-stubs. I think the ability to delete them would be extremely handy for him. →Raul654 23:12, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  5. —No-One Jones 23:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. I couldn't be happier to see this listing and to see that Lucky has reconsidered his decision to leave Wikipedia. Definite support. —Stormie 23:19, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Seconding all that has been said previously. I'd have nominated him myself, but Rick beat me to it. Ambi 23:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian✍Talk 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Bishonen 23:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support, very much, and welcome back, Lucky.
  10. David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). (Is he back, then? Welcome back, Lucky!)
  12. I don't entirely know how the admin's diet of death threats, slanderous "cabal" bleating, and miscellaneous underinformed moaning from the project's gin-soaked mailing-list geriatics is going to improve Lucky's satisfaction-quotient, but my concern for Lucky's happinesswellbeing isn't a material reason for Lucky to not be an admin. Lucky is an even tempered, productive, forebearant, and dilligent wikipedian, in whose calloused hands the keys to the wikipedia mop&bucket cupboard can safely be placed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Just STAY AROUND long enough to use these powers!!! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Rhymeless 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) A user I greatly respect; absolutely support.
  15. Strong support. I'm glad you couldn't stay away, Lucky. SWAdair | Talk 02:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. I cannot express the strength of my support enough. In the "B-movie bandit" episode, Lucky was tireless at cleaning up the mess left in his wake. If you look at Lucky's contributions, you will not find them in meta or in tables and borders. Those things are important, but Lucky's contributions are in the articles, giving Wikipedia content, endlessly rescuing orphaned items from the Clean Up list, thinking carefully about how he can improve our site. I have never seen Lucky fail in his principles, his energy, or his desire to make us a better project. Geogre 03:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. I was gonna nominate him if he came back, but Raul beat me to it. I support full-heartedly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Tεxτurε 04:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. Lucky has proven himself to be a responsible user, if somewhat, uh, rash. However, I believe in demystifying the position of sysop, and I think Lucky can handle this position well enough. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. Andris 11:05, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  21. I have every confidence thwt Lucky 6.9, as demonstrated on his numerous VfD contributions, will not abuse admin powers. -- orthogonal 14:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Huh??? I thought Lucky 6.9 was already an administrator. Strongly support. --Lst27 23:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. He has helped me multiple times. Strong support. Neutrality 02:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Always been impressed with the gruntwork he does. Lyellin 11:28, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  25. I trust Lucky's judgment, let's give him reasons to stay. Burnout can be prevented by community support rather than denying him the sysops right clearly due to him. JFW | T@lk 16:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Jiang 05:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. His work is good, but we need a commitment to stay with Wikipedia, and not to quit every time the going gets tough. Danny 23:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't that better than choosing the wrong side and losing one's head? --Merovingian✍Talk 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • No. Participation is better than abandonment, and I'd rather see an editor make mistakes than throw temper tantrums and storm off. Cribcage 01:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Oi, don't let's be nasty. Mike H 01:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • I wasn't trying to specifically accuse Lucky of throwing "temper tantrums"; I was trying to answer Merovingian's theoretical question. Having said that, I'll readily admit that I have little tolerance for people who loudly pronounce their departure from internet forums -- particularly since such people rarely follow through on their ultimatums. [Put another way, and directed at no one in particular: If you're going to leave, shut up and leave. If not, just shut up.] Cribcage 01:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Good editor, but I don't like statements like this on the Childlove VfD page: "Let's get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this. No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities. If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well." He needs to be less hot-headed and stay on the NPOV bandwagon, especially as a sysop, when he has the power to actually speedy-delete pages he finds offensive. Gzornenplatz 00:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. VV 00:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with the last comment; I am quite surprised to read that. Lucky, are you going to speedy delete articles you find offensive?
  4. With all due respect to Finlay McWalter's vote, I think it's ridiculous to describe this user as "even-tempered." Cribcage 00:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. It's nice to see that he keeps coming back, and I have no complaints to make about his work. However, he's just barely returned from his latest departure, and under such circumstances I can't endorse him for admin right away when he keeps leaving out of frustration. Needs more time, not to learn the ropes in this case, but to show he can hang on to them. --Michael Snow 01:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Having never dealt with Lucky personally, I can only attest to my superficial impression of him as a loose cannon. I'm apparently not alone in my concern over granting this person deletion powers. Austin Hair 02:57, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Given past experience with user on VFD, and noting the nominator, I fear that he may may also consider niceties like {{subst:test}} and other warnings as "too mealy-mouthed". - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. I'm afraid I must oppose. Lucky is a great contributor, but is not suited for adminship--I've warned him multiple times about zealotry in using the speedy deletion template, as have other users. Some users are simply more valuable contributors without adminship. No mark against him personally, but strong opposition. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:03, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  9. Good user, but not ready yet, IMHO -- perhaps in another couple of months. BCorr|Брайен 15:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Opposed, for reasons 1, 2, and 9 above. -Seth Mahoney 18:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Acegikmo1 13:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC). I really like Lucky and I think he has done some excellent work on VfD. However, he seems too prone to burnout, and I don't think that granting administrator status would help. I would be very willing to support a future nomination if Lucky spends several months without leaving the project or threatening to.
  12. Lucky is a great guy, but he seems to take disagreements personally too often. I'm willing to reconsider sometime in the future. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for reasons 1 and 2 above. --Conti|✉ 15:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Lucky appears to be a student of Rick's bull in a china shop approach to adminship. I'd rather not WP went further down this road. Pcb21| Pete 10:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. My only concern is that Lucky keeps leaving Wikipedia. I'd like to see that he's not going to let himself get overly stressed out again. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Seems to have done a lot of good work - but sometimes appears to lack objectivity, and has shown occasional poor tolerance for opposing viewpoints. I'd like to see greater consistency before supporting.--Gene_poole 00:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Everyking 19:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  1. This user wants to become an admin in order to delete poorly written stubs, isn't that right? I tend to object to that on principle, but maybe there's more to it? Everyking 00:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I would think that labeling that one reason as wanting to be an admin is selective viewing and really oversimplifying the issue. Mike H 00:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to comment as well. For the last several hours, this site has been bombarded with unformatted substubs about "Twilight Zone" episodes, specifically those from the mid-80s revival. The user, naturally, is ignoring all attempts at contact. This is the kind of nonsense that I would revert on sight, not the articles I disagree with. I ask those who oppose my nomination to reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you saying you've changed your mind regarding your comments on the Childlove VfD page? Seems like a pretty good example of you stating plainly that you wanted to delete a page with no vote because you disagree with it. -Seth Mahoney 06:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, I have.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I am and I do.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I'd like to watch for vandalism and trolling. I'd also like to be able to directly address the problematic substubs left by a misguided user dubbed the "B-Movie Bandit." Substubs per se are welcome contributions and should be expanded as such. However, until such consensus is reached in regards to the handling of this problem, under no circumstances would I abuse the privilege and delete these on sight. On the other hand, it would be a pleasure to immediately wipe out the vandal bot stubs that have been coming in as of late. These are the ones with the contents of the article matching the title.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'd have to say Ford Mustang. The article history shows that it began as an anon vanity article about the poster's own car. I helped grow it to featured status.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've helped revert vandalism, pointed it out wherever I've found it, have changed substubs into more useful redirects and have voted extensively on VfD. In addition, I've cleaned up some new articles that were written by folks whose primary language wasn't English. See Nuno for an example.
6. 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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Admittedly, I have had issues with other editors. The frustration I've felt was enough to make me abandon the project on a couple of occasions, but I'm pleased to point out that any conflicts have been resolved. I have also fought for and voted for the inclusion of articles I found offensive. While I find the inclusion of the "childlove movement" article to be patently offensive, I would never unilaterally delete a factual article of any kind without putting it up for a vote. If the community decides to keep any article that I feel is offensive, then that article should be kept.
Thanks and good luck!

Geogre (31/2/1) Ends 14:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geogre is conscientious, well-read, and well-spoken. Avoids controversy and edits carefully. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 2000 edits since November 2003. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Plus he has a great sense of humor. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I thank you for the nomination, Wile E. Heresiarch. I hope that any who have questions feel free to contact me by IRC or on my talk page, and I'll be happy to answer any concerns. I accept the nomination and hope that I can serve to make the project stronger, as well as better. Geogre 00:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 15:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I've met him in passing, but check out this guy's contribs. He's practically obsessed with WP:VfD.
  3. Strongly support. This user does allot of important work on wikipedia including cleanup and voting regularly on VFD. From my interactions on irc and from what I have seen from his edit history he seems to have the proper temperament and abilities to be a good administrator.Arminius 16:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. He has been very helpful to me in my quest to write sound articles. Support. Mike H 17:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I agree with all of the above. Adam Bishop 17:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Kim Bruning 19:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is getting kinda old but err... "wasn't he an op already?" O:-)
  7. Salasks 19:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 23:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Danny 23:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. I havn't seen many edits by this user, but am impressed by the "Questions for the candidate" statement. Sam [Spade] 04:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Level-headed, hard-working, active contributor with a good understanding of policy and a proven desire to improve the Wikipedia. That would be a "YES!" SWAdair | Talk 10:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. GeneralPatton 13:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Merovingian✍Talk 16:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Strongly support. --Lst27 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Andre 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) top bloke.
  18. Stormie 11:41, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  19. --ShaunMacPherson 15:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) ; It is good he likes to look at votes for deletion, and I think his votes have been reasonable, esp. for articles I thought that should stay. Lets not delete too many articles, just the bad ones.
  20. Bishonen 21:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia would be lucky to have Geogre as an admin. He's such a wikimaniac already that I'm not equally sure he'd be lucky to be one, but that's something else.
  21. David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) (even if he is a stinkin' deletionist) - he also deserves a medal for his dives into the cesspit that is Wikipedia:Cleanup.
  22. Lucky 6.9 02:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support wholeheartedly. Deserves a medal for his work in the VfD cesspool as well!
  23. A conscientious editor who does not see adminship as an important and ponderous privilege but as a responsibility. -- orthogonal 04:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Andris 10:33, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support. Gdr 19:32, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  26. Geogre would undoubtedly be a great asset to the administration of Wikipedia, our paths have crossed only a couple of times, but his professional dedication to the project has been very evident. If elected he will probably be glad he has a sense of humour.Giano 21:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  27. Neutrality 02:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  28. Support. Geogre seems decent. - Mark 08:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support. James F. (talk) 14:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  30. After spending some time with him on IRC, I think he's a downright jolly good fellow. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  31. • Benc • 18:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  32. Zocky 02:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC): Geogre is opinionated, but he is rational and not rude. Exactly the kind of person I want as an admin.

Oppose

  1. Reluctantly oppose. While I have no doubt about the integrity and good intentions of this user, and it's obvious they care about Wikipedia, I do not feel comfortable voting for someone with whom I have such strong and fundamental disagreements regarding what Wikipedia should be and how it should be run, at least while people consider adminship to be an important and ponderous privilege (to borrow someone else's words: but I feel this is quite a widely held sentiment). —Kate | Talk 15:16, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
    That's a broad comment. Could you possibly elaborate so other editors know what your difference of perspective is? Cecropia | Talk 20:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Broadly, Geogre's opinion on what we should and shouldn't write about, and the level of detail we should go into when writing, is a lot more restrictive than mine. Obviously this isn't any reason to oppose adminship by itself. However, I also get the feeling that the community in general thinks of sysops as the people who 'run' Wikipedia, in that they're expected to make (as well as enforce) policy and so on—they have the 'mark of adminship', as such, that is seen as corresponding to established and senior users. Rather than being a small thing that should have hardly any relevance, adminship is an important characteristic of a person. As I feel that Geogre's ideas for what Wikipedia should be would be harmful & limiting to the project, I can't support his adminship (and thus advancement of his philosophy) in good faith. —Kate | Talk 22:15, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
    Regarding the statements you have made, I wanted to mention that while I disagree w you in the case of User:Geogre (he seems a nice guy to me),
    Oh, I quite agree there. My problems are with his opinions rather than his personality.
    I agree w you generally. I bought onto some of the BS about admins being a janitorial/cleanup position when I first came here, but I have since realized that many (perhaps most?) admins don't view it that way at all. I have seen people time and time again come to a discussion with the assumption that admins are more right, more deserving, and more capable of wielding power than other "lay" users.
    I'm not sure that only admins hold this view - a lot of users seem to start with "mis"conceptions about what admins are.
    This philosophy tends to be found along with prolific usage of the word "troll", a tendency towards policy violation/bending (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), and the idea that anon editors are contemptible.
    While I can't emphasise enough that "there is no cabal", I do get the feeling that there's a very "them and us" attitude at times, and certain recent policy suggestions seem intended to codify an excuse to use "common sense" as an admin deems suitable. And that's a lot more power than any admin should have... —Kate | Talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC) (Apologies for off-topic ramblings :-)
    What to do about it is an interesting question for which I do not yet possess a ready answer. Sam [Spade] 22:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Guanaco 23:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Writing comments and answers here was the last thing I ever wanted to do. I don't think it will help the neutral, convince the opposed, or bolster the approving. However, with the extended comments above, I suppose that saying nothing might be taken either as pride or lack of anything to say.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kate that admins do not possess greater power, and I hope to help disabuse those who think that administrators are anything more than Wikipedians to whom some janitorial trust has been extended. I know that we have had Sysops acting in blocks in the past, and I, too, am concerned that people have been using the RfA to pick out friends and to ensure ideological orthodoxy and thereby create power in what is intended to be merely an administrative position.
Since administrators do not and should not be Power Users, I'm not sure how my moving to administrator status would make my personal philosophy more limiting or determining for Wikipedia. Since there is no additional power to change Wikipedia, the argument seems puzzling. I respect Kate's right to disagree, but I cannot see how the misperceptions of some people that administrators are the Voice of the Project are a rationale upon which we should proceed. The only thing I will say in my particular case is that I have never, in all my time on Wikipedia, been anything other than consensual. I re-review every article I have voted for on VfD to see if I can change my votes, never redirect without gaining a consensus among users, and I always, always yield to the wishes of the group over my own feelings (even when I am sure that I the one who's right). Unless Kate feels that I will use Speedy Delete or in some way change my practices to become peremptory, I don't really fully understand her concern.
It's quite true that I believe that we should not break out articles on minor subtopics when they belong in the master subject. However, I completely deny that there is validity in "inclusionist," "deletionist," and "eventualist." These are, to me, rather bankrupt terms. To me, there are only individual topics, individual articles, and indvidual Wikipedians. Those who operate in good faith, with a belief in the project, are people I can work with. The most I hope for is a coherent and consistent set of criteria from our editors and administrators individually. If we know each other, and if we can count on each other, we can navigate between the strengths and weaknesses of our personnel.
Again, I apologize for the unseemly debate, and I respect Kate's opinion, even as I wish it were different. Geogre 03:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Briefly (hopefully); I deliberately avoided speaking about 'inclusionism' and 'deletionism' for exactly that reason. However, whatever you want to call it, there are always differences of opinion on such matters. I would, preferably, have chosen a more .. inclusive method of imposing my wishes. However, lacking the ability (or knowledge) to change the community's thinking, I can only work within them; which is to say that while the community regards administrators in a certain fashion, it's in the interests of both me and my vision of Wikipedia that the administrators should be made up of people whose views I feel are good for Wikipedia. —Kate | Talk 04:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

I actually agree very much with Kate. I just disagree with hir voting stratagy :-P If an admin is supposed to be a janitor, then anyone who we can trust not to Blow Things Up should be handed the keys to the broom-closet, even those who strive for janitorarchy. Kim Bruning 10:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I do. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Votes for Deletion and Clean Up maintenance are already duties I perform pretty much every day. I believe that I can aid the others who already work on those areas. I also hope to be able to help other editors and, I hope, to help in defusing some of the conflicts that sometimes arise between motivated, interested, and informed editors. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. My forte is ecclesiastical history and British history and literature in the 18th century. My best article is probably A Tale of a Tub, but the article I think I am most proud of is a Clean Up rescue called Spire. I tried to turn it from a substub to an article, and then I sought and found another wikipedian with an interest in architecture (Giano) to add more bulk, and I felt that the two of us, working cooperatively, made it a good article. The ugly duckling transformation of that article was a real joy to participate in. Finally, on numerous occasions I have sought to rescue VfD entries. Ethos was a fair example of that. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. My greatest contribution to date has been in aiding both in VfD rescue items and in setting forth what I hope are consistent criteria for judging articles. In general, I have not attempted to get into vandal spotting because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my particular strength was not in that area. I will, absolutely, offer my help from this time forward (if my nomination is approved) to any who seek it on these issues. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. 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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I haven't. Like everyone, I have been exasperated by the opinions of some fellow users, but I seek, and wish that each of us would, to differentiate the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians from the intentions or actions of them. I believe that if any of the self-created "groups" of ideologies were to triumph, Wikipedia would be doomed. At the risk of uttering a cliche, I think that diversity is our greatest strength. My taxonomical interests balance against another user's exuberance. My paring and pruning aid, I think, the creativity and energy of another contributor. At the same time, my own articles, with their tweedy and academic bias, are solitary things without the contributions and powerful imaginations of others. The closest thing I feel I have come to an extended gripe has been at watching admins fall into a philosophy that this is their club or that there are social components that trump the one overriding duty of all Wikipedians: We must look to our encyclopedia, and the articles remain after our private tiffs and jokes have faded. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck!

Shallot (28/0/1) Ends 17:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shallot made his first contribution here all the way back in 2002, and (see comments) has well over 8000 contributions since August 2003. He's done especially good work in improving our articles related to Central Europe and the Balkans, and even though these subjects are sometimes contentious, has managed not to provoke serious disputes. I think his even temperament, good sense, and demonstrated skill at reducing conflict would make him an excellent administrator. Shallot has said he's always been able to find other admins to help delete pages or revert vandalism, but making him an admin would let him take care of things just that much quicker. Anyway, I believe this is a case where the community needs him as an admin more than him needing admin status for any kind of personal validation and ego boost. --Michael Snow 17:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Michael Snow 17:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. Shallot will make a first-rate admin. —No-One Jones 17:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Shallot is certainly well qualified, in my opinion, and Michael's confidence in him is the clincher, for me.
  4. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Elf-friend 20:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jiang 21:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. 172 21:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Good work.--Neutrality 22:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. VV 00:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Has he accepted?
  10. Everyking 01:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. A reasonable contributor. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian✍Talk 10:59, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Ambi 11:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Asim Led 14:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Salasks 19:33, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Danny 23:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Geogre 00:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Shallot has been with us for a very long time, has never thrust himself/herself forward, and is dedicated to the project.
  18. SWAdair | Talk 10:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. Good contributor, also diplomatic. GeneralPatton 13:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. Of course! He has been here for a really long time, he should have been an administrator 3 months ago. --Lst27 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Gzornenplatz 00:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  23. Austin Hair 03:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) I've been acquainted with Joy for a number of years, having served with him on OFTC staff, and wholeheartedly support him as an all-around stand-up guy.
  24. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 13:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree completely. Even though we had a dispute or two , I think he is a great contributor.
  25. Zocky 14:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC): Shallot has been a voice of reason on many potentially controversial issues about the countries of ex-Yugoslavia.
  26. -- orthogonal 14:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  27. Andris 14:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Strongly agree with Zocky's opinion already stated above. --Romanm 16:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I'm neutral because this voting is becoming a xerox of Enver Hoxa's/Hafez al Assad's elections with 100% approval. Mir Harven 18:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks, my head was going to explode, too :) --Joy [shallot]

Comments

Actually, those things dated 2002 on my contributions page are a result of the fact that the date on newly moved pages doesn't change after the move, so it appears as if the new page was created back when the old one was. This behaviour makes sense in page histories, but it's not exactly intuitive in the lists of contributions. Anyway. --Shallot

Questions for the candidate

Yeah. :) It'd be nice, but note what Michael and myself have written on his and my talk pages. Nota bene, I've recently requested a change in username to Joy which may get fulfilled in the meantime, but this discussion should be titled shallot because the Wikipedians know me by that handle. Thank you again. --Shallot 17:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should also mention that I've read a lot of the docs related to the topic and that I promise I won't use any new feature without reading up on it again. In fact I don't really plan to use the new features if I am chosen as admin, at least while I'm fresh... Also I can't honestly remember the complete list of noteworthy contributions :), and I have also read a lot of the docs related to the topic of how to handle various conflicts that arise in editing and practiced a lot of it. --Shallot 17:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.



Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Other requests

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=5163730&oldid=5159519

Leave a Reply