Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Reflex Reaction[edit]

Final (30/2/3) ended 20:15 October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reflex Reaction (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for Wikipedia Administrator. I have been active in wikipedia since February of 2005, and have accumulated 2,100+ edits distributed across the namespace. I am most active in the Missing articles project having started the Catholic Encyclopedia project and having a hand in the creation of the Hotlist of topics working with User:Quadell. For those of you with editcountis, I recognize that my count is a little bit lower than some other nominees, but I make frequent use of the Preview button and have over 90% edit summaries for my entries. In anticipation for this nomination I have spent some time in AFD and monitoring Recent changes using CDVF and enjoy using both. This is not say that I don't already and wouldn't continue to fight vandalism, I would like the adminship to make those jobs easier. Reflex Reaction 20:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination Reflex Reaction 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Seems like a decent editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a better place. I've had/seen no problems with him. --DanielCD 21:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Having checked his past contributions, I think he is a hard-working editor appropriate for the admin job. --BorgQueen 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — though I believe that you could use a bit more Usertalk namespace edits. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make sure to communicate with more users, especially vandals. --Reflex Reaction 04:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - He's very hard-working, and has shown himself willing to do the difficult and tedious work all over Wikipedia, not just on a single topic. I've had to delete wikiproject pages that he'd finished up, and I always thought it was odd that he didn't have the ability himself. He should. – Quadell (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Works on double redirects and encyclopedia topics. Spots suitable AfDs. No adversarial encounters AFAIK. What more can we ask. Rich Farmbrough 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support does grunt work. freestylefrappe 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Seems like a good user nice work with double redirects which is tough --JAranda | watz sup 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, good editor. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support I don't ever give full support to self noms due to my beliefs, but my main belief is that beliefs should be modified slightly when they don't fit the situation, and this is one of those situations. The edit count is more than sufficient, despite not hitting 2000 because of the Wikiproject work, using CDVF(which is the quintessential admin tool), and the fact that sockpuppets are already opposing him is the clincher. Considering that sockpuppets could be anybody, there is a chance that Reflex could have made the sock on his own(seems unlikely)to gain some more support from people like myself who dislike sockpuppets, but even if that's true, i'm gonna WP:AGF and say The Karmafist believes if that was true, The Reflex Reaction should earn extra points for creativity ;-) Karmafist 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I was that clever. . . and I wish I had read your suggestions first, I might have gotten your full vote. I know Quadell well enough to ask him to have nominated me but I think that asking someone else to nominate you is equivalent to nominating yourself while making them do the work. --Reflex Reaction 05:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good editor --Rogerd 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He's a dedicated individual and you can't criticize his edit count because he's one the few who uses previews and edit summaries. Support whole heartedly, good luck! --Patman2648 18:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per above... -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Andre (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Wiki-gnomes who do the hard work. Give him the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd(?!?) 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Martin 09:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Astrotrain 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Why name reasons when all the above reasons are pretty good? :-) The Minister of War 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Shauri smile! 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Zach (Sound Off) 06:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Magnus Manske 10:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. FireFox 13:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support although I don't know 'em. V/M
    19:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Womble 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support -- Francs2000 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. El_C 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Kefalonia 08:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I support the Reflex Formatting guy. I like the username because it's real! I believe that would remain true after the upgrade! -- Svest 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  29. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Private Butcher Supports, yes Private Butcher is making fun of another user's use of 3rd person. So ha! Private Butcher in response to you all. Private Butcher 20:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. OpPoSe Not enough edits for The Wheelhouse, The Wheelhouse needs a lot more edits for an admin. Atleast over 2000 especially for as long as this dude has been around. The Wheelhouse 21:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    (account created just today)
    That doesn't mean anything, I just never created an account. I used to contribute as an IP, so get off my strap, it was The Wheelhouse's choice to oppose. Ho. That's what The Wheelhouse proclaims! The Wheelhouse 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please take it easy; no reason to get deffensive. Maybe Im also misinterpreting it, but did you call someone a "Ho?". Please watch your language and you might also need to take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure he was using ho! as an interjection, rather than as insulting slang. See Westward Ho!. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You remind me of a certain banned user who was known for talking about himself in the third person. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I was about to note that... though Sasquatch thinks that the Wheelhouse probably isn't he/she/it who shall not be named but that a new user voting oppose on an RFA right away is somewhat suspicious. Sasquatcht|c 03:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, gkhan must say he agrees with Sasquatch, although he has no idea who you guys are talking about. gkhan now goes to ArbCom-town, and will peruse archives. gkhan out. gkhan 12:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, nothing wrong with talking about oneself in the third person. BTW, Ho! has also been used as the first word in English translations of the Norse saga Beowulf. Ummm, I've finished being random for now. The Land 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    2 numbering problem
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Campaigning should not be done on RfAs, so I do not feel comfortable supporting, for the reasons given by Dlyons493, but Reflex Reaction seems like a wholly good editor and would make a fine editor, so I'm not willing to oppose. So, Neutral. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Nothing personal but Reflex Reaction is a self-nom who has contacted users notifying them that he is on Rfa. I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again. On balance I feel opposing is too strong - changing to neutral. Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Neutral changing as per my note above.Dlyons493 Talk[reply]
    I was completely unaware that campaigning should not be done, so my apologies. I have seen the "remnants" of other campaigns on other peoples talk page and assumed that contacting other users with whom you are familiar was not a problem. I also looked over at least a dozen failed nominations and did not see campaigning as a problem mentioned. I know that ignorance is a poor excuse, but it should be mentioned on the instructions or the recommendations so that future candidates do not make the same mistake (such as voting for your own nomination). --Reflex Reaction 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Neutral: dislike the message I just got on my talk page: very aggressive when I was just trying to add to the missing encyclopedia project. Could do better with the way he writes messages: I felt pretty slammed for doing what I thought was right. Also assumed that I won't be keeping on adding to the Baker's list, can't see how this assumes good faith. Incidently, this is a bit of pot calling kettle black as I'm a prime offender and an admin, so if the admin/beurocrat doing the counting wants to discount the vote, feel free. I am pretty concerned that he'll ruffle the feathers of newbies badly or react badly. I could be pre-judging here myself, but have concerns. Prepared to wait and see. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent was not to be agressive but only to give you reasons for why it had been removed from the template. Before I left the note I checked how many edits you had (20,000+), and thought you deserved some comments as to why it was being removed, my apologies if it came off wrong. As far WP:AGF the truth is that many well intentioned projects on WP:MEA languish for many months (see 1 and 2), though you may decide to make a pet project and listing it on the template would be appropriate. In the end though, I will put try to preface more of my comments "Thank you for your contributions to 'X' but I am removing/modifying/etc it for 'Y' reason..." (because in the end that is how I truly feel, most people are trying to make Wiki better).
    I stand by the innappropriateness of putting your user name in a template. --Reflex Reaction 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my interaction with this new user. I would definitely reword my initial message to Hector with a nicer starting sentence, but feather ruffling is way too strong of a word. I hope more interactions are like this, though I fear picking up the "mop and flamethrower" more interactions will be like this. I tend to be blunt and matter of fact, but will remind myself to assume good faith and try to preface my comments the above statement. --Reflex Reaction 17:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept this explanation, still want to wait and see. Neutral vote is in order. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Regarding his number of edits, keep in mind that many of his edits have been massive amounts of work, such as helping to set up new encyclopedia projects and update long lists. A few recent examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] I think his 1800 edits are worth much more than they appear. – Quadell (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I am already involved with preventing vandalism, I have over 400 (and increasing) pages on my watchlist and revert vandalism on a daily basis. I will continue working at AFD and be careful to following the consensus of the community, deleting articles where necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am very pleased with my work with the Catholic Encyclopedia. While I am an agnostic, I'm fairly familiar with religious history and concepts and would like to see the incorporation of as much material from the CE as appropriate, retaining historical, verifiable information and perspectives while removing POV information strictly directed at Catholics. This can mean the deletion of innapropriate CE entries such Diocese of Aberdeen and Physical Effects of Abortion. I am also proud of my cleanup of the Atlantis article, compare [[5]] and [[6]], as well as my contributions to Racquetball.
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. While I have not found myself directly in and edit conflict, I have found myself annoyed with the actions of others, but try to remind myself to assume good faith. I was tertially involved with the Gambling conflict, reverting actions of User:Trail Guide. While he has his right to speak he does not have the right to corrupt the work of others and the opposite is true. I was also (wrongly) annoyed with User:Hemanshu when I thought he had undone a great deal of my work, see Missing articles hotlist, though I did my best to be diplomatic.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reflex_Reaction

Leave a Reply