Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renesis13

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

[edit] Renesis13

Final (27/6/8) Ended 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Renesis13 (talk • contribs) – I've been an editor here for a little over a year, and I have worked on many different tasks and in many different areas of Wikipedia over that time. I have worked mostly on cleanup tasks and spam/vandal fighting, and these are the areas which interest me most. I don't use the AutoWikiBrowser or anything (besides popups -- I don't see how anyone can live without them!) and I tend to be a little more careful and thorough with my edits so I probably don't have the edit count many are used to around here, but I hope that can be seen as a positive rather than a negative. I'd like to be an administrator here so I can help out more directly with the tasks and problems I come across, and feel I would benefit the community more than I can now for the same reason. I originally started editing Wikipedia because I wanted to return the help it had given me (I'd been using it for research for quite a while already). I am impressed with the progress, particularly in professionalism and presentation, that Wikipedia has made in the time I've been here and I'd like be able to serve it better in the time to come. Renesis (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nom). -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I have spent a lot of time fighting spam and vandalism, and would like to help out with AIV when needed. I also have been active at RFD and AFD, and recently WP:TFD, and would be able to help clear the backlogs there as well as at other XFD discussions. I'd also like to help at Requested Moves and CSD, and other areas I've often needed help with before.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: While more than 60% of my edits are article-space edits, some editors might be wary that I have not participated significantly in bringing articles to Featured status or other similar tasks. However, I'm most proud of the work I've done implementing various Manual of Style standards in badly-needed areas and other beautification tasks. Specifically, I've organized the archives at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and many other pages, worked extensively on implementing MOS:TM and MOS:DATE, done some fun work with templates and parser functions such as adding the current day to the common usages on Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news, created an AGF spam warning template and organized the spam template set, and initiated removal of the unnecessary "-n" convention on user warning templates. I've also done a lot of cleanup on what seemed to be long-forgotten or poorly-tended areas of Wikipedia such as List of countries by population where I converted the unmaintainable percentages column to a series of expressions that can be easily updated. I also am particularly proud of the work I did rewriting the Ballajura, Western Australia article and adding proper citations.

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: Other than brief rough encounters with semi-vandals, I haven't had any conflicts that I wouldn't consider a reasonable discussion. In particular, I participated in quite a lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) concerning what exactly is a user's nationality. The community gained a pretty good consensus (with the exception of mainly one user), and I learned a lot about policy and Wikipedia's Biography guidelines. I also had quite a long debate with a user over a particular trivia item at Superman Returns where he has been the most prominent editor, but we resolved it, everyone was happy and we have since had pleasant encounters continuing to improve the article. My approach for dealing with edit conflicts has been to take the discussion to the talk page as soon as there is a sign of stress. Even when the initial feelings have been tense, things have always worked out well this way and I would continue to take this approach. I've even had some great discussions this way with users who were originally adding inappropriate external links, and found out that they were doing so because the article's existing links were unbalanced and needed to be mostly removed anyway.

4. Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. Hi, Renesis13. Thanks for submitting your RfA. I did not see in your answer to Question #3 a mention of the matters discussed atUser_talk:Renesis13#Talk:Jack_Vance and User_talk:Renesis13#Personal_attacks..... Can you tell us what happened, what you learned from them, and if you would do anything differently today. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A: Hi Dlohcierekim. Thanks for your question -- that spawned out of the incident I referred to above as "semi-vandals" (in which I meant User:Arvin Sloane and the many IP addresses he uses). User:Peter1968 is a good editor who supported some of the same ideas as Arvin Sloane, and as such got embroiled in an argument against the {{WPBiography}} template that was removed by Arvin Sloane and re-added by me, Gamaliel and others. Arvin Sloane repeatedly blanked the talk page, vandalized Gamaliel's talk page and made numerous personal attacks. The Talk:Jack Vance page seemed to have a cabal that would have none of Wikipedia's biography-related guidelines. I associated Peter1968 with this group after he made a comment referring to our "guideline fetishism". After a couple messages on the {{Blp}} talk page, we took it to our own talk pages and I found out he had nothing to do with Arvin Sloane and was just a little fed up with what seemed to him like policy zealots, and we had a good discussion. In retrospect, I should not have associated him so quickly with the other vandals, but we had a good conversation and I don't regret getting to that point. With respect to Arvin Sloane, I hope we are done with him. He was just trying to cause trouble, and I felt the only way to stop it was to try to reason in some way with him, since his IP changed every few hours and his removal of the templates and reversions of Gamaliel were relentless. In the end, he acknowledged he was just trying to get his way through outlandish behavior, and he did stop. We haven't had any problem since.

General comments

• See Renesis13's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. I prefer Wankel support! --Aguerriero (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. First Second Support I see nothing I don't like. --Daniel Olsen 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good, with participation in XfD discussions, vandal warnings, etc. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support good editor. Rama's arrow 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak support Surprisingly low edit count. Given quality of edits, should do ok. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Looks fine by me, and satisfies my standards.-- danntm ^T _C 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support John254 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per record of good contributions, solid answers to questions, no issues of concern. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support semper fi — Moe 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Nice answer to the optional question --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I like what I see, and I like how you have handled disputes. Viridae^Talk 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Good answers to the questions, well-rounded user...sounds good to me. I live without popups, though! :-P 1ne 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Merovingian ※ Talk 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Looks like he will make a good admin. NauticaShades 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Kimchi.sg 08:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Rotary Support Looks fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support FireSpike 23:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, Aye. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support although more edits are desirable, I see no reason why this editor would abuse or misuse the tools. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Zoom zoom zoom Nothing to oppose and assuming he drives a Mazda, that's a reason to support. SchmuckyTheCat 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
23. --Dario vet 13:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Very good edits, even though the user has a somewhat low edit count. Hello32020 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
25. --Rudjek 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Granted, Wiki stats aren't something that is stellar. However, strength and not number of contributions is what matters here. I think if Renesis takes a cautious clear headed approach, he will be fine. His edits display a sound knowledge of policy. Yanksox 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Candidate looks well-qualified and dedicated to the encyclopedia. I have no qualms supporting him, despite objections. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose This diff shows a misunderstanding of the WP:EL guidelines. There is nothing that says fan sites are not allowed as long as they fall in line with the rest of the guide. The guide recently underwent a full-scale rewrite, but even before a link to a major fansite was acceptable. Now, I have not looked at the link nor am I familiar with the concept of the article, so it remains possible that the link may not have been suitable anyway. However, I would not feel comfortable handing admin tools to this user, as he might be a bit loose with the block button towards users who have done nothing wrong.--Mike 23:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to sound defensive, but I do need to say something about this example. About 6 months ago, that article was a magnet for fansite links. There was talk about only allowing one reasonable link, but as I recall, a user more experienced with articles that typically dealt with fansite links said that the usual standard was to not allow any, and all of them were removed. Since that time I've kept the article on my watchlist to maintain this standard, and every week or so someone would re-add the site "chrisdaughtryfans.com" (a site with ads placed prominently at the top and no real new content since May) and I would remove it. I realize that my removal of the latest links (to "chrisdaughtryhome.com") might appear harsh out of context, but considering the circumstances, it is the most fair/proper thing to do. I have studied the WP:EL guidelines quite thoroughly in order to make fair judgments in many other cases. Since they are so subjective, I try to consider each case as it comes, and I feel this is the right thing to do in the Chris Daughtry case. I respect your decision however, and I just thought you should know the background behind those edits. -- Renesis (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll switch to neutral given the circumstances. Mike 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Editor has insufficient experience in wiki-process at this time. Xoloz 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Xoloz.  Jorcogα  04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose now per Xoloz, especially if you want to close XfD's. Future support likely. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Since this is becoming somewhat of an issue, and the standard questions didn't really offer me a chance to explain my history with Wiki-process, I should explain what experience I do have. I feel that Radiant's observation below is somewhat misleading, in that although my contributions to various XFD's has increased quite a bit lately, my experience (specifically, in AFD and RFD) goes back to at least last December/January. I participated quite heavily in RFD for a while beginning in December, and have been back many times since then (WP:RFD has been on my watchlist since then). I first nominated an AFD at the beginning of January and have nominated/participated in many since then as well. I may have been through the various processes less than some editors, but I wouldn't like my recent increase in participation to hide the participation I did have in the past. -- Renesis (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Disapprove of "fighting" in an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Could you provide an example? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   From self-nom: I have worked mostly on cleanup tasks and spam/vandal fighting. ... aa:talk 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   For more on avriette's approach (quite different from most editors) to RfAs, see the comments at the Gogo Dodo RfA nomination, above. John Broughton | Talk 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Xoloz. - crz crztalk 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose sorry. Just not enough experience for me. You've been editing for over a year but only have 2000 edits, 232 in WP, 226 in talk. I don't think this is anywhere near enough experience for an admin candidate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. User looks good, but appears to have little experience in process except for the last week or so. (Radiant) 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, as per Radiant. --SonicChao ^talk 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Radiant. Half of the XfD edits have been made in the last two weeks or so. I would definitely support if I could see a bit more participation in XfD's for the next month or so. Nishkid64 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral a good user with a great attitude. I just need to see a bit more experience before supporting Lostkiwi 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Radiant. I've been here 2 years or so, but I've only clocked about 2 months serious time on Wikipedia. If, say, you had been on here a year with over two or three months solid work, I would be glad to support your Rfa. However, until that time has come, I must remain Neutral. If you do run again sometime after 3 or so months, I would be glad to vote for you. Sharkface217 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral changed from oppose. The standard was never not to allow any fansite links, but given the circumstances I can understand Renesis' actions toward the article. I still don't feel 100% comfortable supporting this RfA, but I don't think there is a need to oppose. Good luck! Mike 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral a good user with a helpful attitude. I need to see a bit more experience before supporting. Chavatshimshon 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral inasmuch as, whilst I am altogether sure that Renesis is possessed of the cordial demeanor and deliberative disposition the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am thus quite confident that Renesis would not, qua admin, abuse or misuse volitionally the tools, I can't conclude to any reasonable degree of certainty that he/she is sufficiently well-acquainted with policy as to be unlikely to misuse the tools avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he/she does not well know), such that I don't think it categorically plain that the net effect on the project of Renesis's becoming an admin will be positive, and so, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I must, rather regretfully, remain neutral. Joe 19:28, 28 November 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.