Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Idont havaname

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Idont havaname

final (58/3/0) ending 05:15 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Idont havaname (talk • contribs) – I would like to nominate Idont havaname for adminship. He has been here since November 2004 and has 4146 edits evenly across all namespaces. He normally participates in RFA's and AFD's and explains why he does that action. Idont havaname also does excellent work with baseball biography's. He is kind and civil and I think Idont havaname would make a good admin. Jaranda wat's sup 03:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks for nominating me! --Idont Havaname 05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support as nominator --Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Must....resist....cliché.... NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ouch - such strong support it hurts to think about it! BD2412 T 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Fine user deserving of full confidence. Xoloz 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Idont Havareasonnotto. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Lawdy. Supportissimo. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. I'd advise you to get a name at some point, though. ;) Nightstallion (?) 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, as above, get a name. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 08:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support All of the times Idnt havaname comes under my little radar screen he has left a good blip, and an even better impression. Banes 09:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Phaedriel 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Idont oppose. Good experiences with this user. Radiant_>|< 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. 'Support No reason to oppose and seems like he would be a good admin. --Chazz88 11:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good article contributions. David | Talk 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. FireFox 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose until anon gets a name umm... Support, user has shown a willingness to perform janitorial work. --Deathphoenix 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Good editor, good egg! Hamster Sandwich 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support, Idont havaproblem with this user. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. In deference to the dreaded RfA cliche, I won't mention the double-take I experienced when seeing his name here and realising he wasn't already an admi ... oh, whoops. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Wow finally. I have seen him around and he seems like a good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. King of All the Franks 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Cliché, cliché, cliché. Hermione1980 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. I got a very good vibe from past experience. [1] Seems like a very good editor, and I have no doubts he'll be a great admin. Oh, and the flattery is appreciated. ^_^ Coffee 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. --TantalumTelluride 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. PJM 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support deserves it.Gator (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Idont haveareasontooppose. Thryduulf 00:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support - Great contributor. Sango123 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Francs2000 04:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Dele--- uh, Remo--- um, Oppo--- - oh, IdontknowwhatImdoing. SUPPORT. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support.  Grue  08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Definite support -- nice catch, Jaranda :) +sj + 09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support: On deliberative matters, he or she (it could be a female name she doesn't have) has been considerate and careful, and on contentious issues she or he (or a male name) has been clever in seeking a new alternative. I must say, however, that I'm willing to give the user a name. Henceforth, I shall call him "Bob." Geogre 12:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Needs a name, though! El_C 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support good editor --rogerd 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support: --Bhadani 16:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  40. must ... resist ... NSLE ... (nope, couldn't do it) Support. Sensible nomination for nonsensical nomen. Tomertalk 09:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support Good editor, gave me my welcome message! Nice edit count, we could use an admin like him. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Strong user with a good history of edits and participation. -- Jbamb 17:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. We are getting so many weird user names these days that I have stopped opposing people on those grounds. Hopefully the newbies will adopt. JuntungWu 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, good user who could make good use of the admin tools. JYolkowski // talk 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Seems to be a good editor --Kefalonia 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Though I'd reccommend this user find a name before it's too late ;). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, hopefully he can withstand the pile-on. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support, seems like a great choice. I always like to see 100% edit summaries, so that is a bonus. -- PS2pcGAMER 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Kingturtle 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support The opposition so far seems ill-founded. CarbonCopy (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Per all above DaGizza Chat 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support, there seems to be a general pointlessness to voting, as all we are doing is racking up the thankyous that Idon't havaname will have to do. It is totally acceptable to me if he does not issue out thank you's to users who voted for him. Croat Canuck 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. OpposeSUPPORT On the grounds that you dont have a name you have made a difference. Boot^H^H^H^H  ALKIVAR™ 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Since its clear no one else got the joke this time, I will no longer do Boothism votes.  ALKIVAR™ 07:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Good. --Jay (Reply) 04:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support --Mihai -talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose per Alkivar. freestylefrappe 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    That is absolutely ridiculous, this person has a user name, it happens to be titled Idont havaname. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Methinks you missed the joke.  ALKIVAR™ 06:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    No I didn't, I missed why you thought adding an oppose vote was necessary. These two votes should be considered void in my opinion, Alkivar, I know you mean no harm, but you are opposing for a very odd reason. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you are joking, then don't actually cast a vote in opposition. That goes against the integrity of Wikipedia. Kingturtle 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, the integrity of RfAs has been compromised long ago, I see only a popularity contest and a political game by some editors. I believe that the above two votes are a violation of WP:POINT. One thing, which I will present at a Wikipedia conference that I will be attending on January 14, that I absolutely hate about Wikipedia Policy is that it applies to some and not all. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- too many userboxes. --Pjacobi 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I have just removed most of them, though I really don't see why this should have any bearing on whether or not I would be good at doing admin tasks. --Idont Havaname 19:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I concur, the RfA process is very, very antiquated. This is just ridiculous to oppose someone because they have "too many userboxes." If Pjacobi ever has an RfA I'll be sure to oppose him per this vote. I hope I am not getting you in trouble, I dont have a name, but I am saying things that need to be said. If oppose votes are ridiculous, and they try to prevent an able user from being promoted, I find malice on their parts, and, therefore, to a degree, think that these three votes above should be anulled, while the proponents should be blocked for some hours as a penalty. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    When this vote was cast, the nominee had fourteen userboxes on his user page. By this reasoning, all of these users are unfit for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Totally agree. Thanks for the list. --Pjacobi 12:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    @Idont Havaname: Larger comment on your talk page. I'll withdraw my oppose if things get tight, which seems not be the case. --Pjacobi 12:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. Demonstrates lack of knowledge about why Wikipedia actually exists. [2] Carbonite | Talk 19:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    How does that diff demonstrate a lack of knowledge? --TantalumTelluride 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia exists to create an encyclopedia. Everything else is a distant second (at best). In that comment Idonthaveaname places userboxes above the task of creating an encyclopedia. I also find calling the deletion of userboxes "censorship" to be quite unhelpful to the discussion. Carbonite | Talk 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply, but I still disagree. His vote is very much in line with the overwhelming concensus of the discussion, and it seems like a very reasonable argument to me. --TantalumTelluride 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
    • A perfect score! Do you want to keep your prize, or risk it all in the bonus round? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It's funny that you mention that; I was wondering if anyone would catch that (but I wasn't going to say anything :-) ). I checked my edit count using Interiot's tool when it was up, and I saw that I haven't missed an edit summary since June 2005. I have a habit of always using specific edit summaries, and I try to make them descriptive enough that RC/watchlist patrollers don't have to know (or look at) the edit summary legend to figure them out. I've looked over large RC, watchlist, and revision history pages, and I find it a relief when editors use summaries. --Idont Havaname 04:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a "he", by the way. :-D --Idont Havaname 16:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So "Bob" should be fine. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • much too confusing. Well have to call you Bruce. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A.
There are many areas where I would like to help out, but most realistically, I see myself clearing out speedy deletions (making sure they are justified per WP:CSD) and *fD backlogs. I've been participating in AfD since my first edit and have therefore become familiar with much of the deletion process. As needs (and my spare time) arise, I'd also like to continue helping out in mediating content/NPOV disputes, working on speedy category renaming and requested moves, and doing more RC patrol. (Most of my edits are made from a dialup connection, so often, other editors revert vandalism before I can get to it. Rollback would thus allow me to do RC patrol more efficiently.) Also, I would like to help out in dealing with controversial blocks. A new user who had been indefinitely blocked recently without warning emailed me thinking that I was an admin (I've since posted a note on my user page explaining that I'm not) asked me over email to unblock him, and I would have liked to have unblocked him myself rather than waiting for someone else to do it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
I'm still pleased about one of my earliest stub expansions, Inaccessible Island, which was initially a one-sentence substub. That expansion required a fair amount of research on a topic that I didn't know existed until I read about it here. More recently, I wrote most of the article on Alexander Semin by myself, taking care to draw upon a wide variety of citations, particularly when discussing the recent controversy over his military duty. Also, I contributed most of what is currently in Florida Marlins#2005 season and Florida Marlins#2005 offseason. As far as contributions about Wikipedia, I'm pleased about having a written Wiki philosophies subpage to my user page; I still update it, although somewhat irregularly. I've noticed Wikiphilosophies subpages popping up on several other editors' user pages as well.
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've had two somewhat significant conflicts lately. First, I brought up concerns about POV in this version of Asian fetish. To deal with that, I emphasized the need to cite sources from all major viewpoints, and to not make personal attacks against other people editing the page. I also listed the article at WP:3O in the earlier stages of the conflict, and after another user nominated the article for the Article Improvement Drive, many more editors knew about the page, and my role evolved more toward that of a mediator, reminding newer users of policies relevant both to writing the article and to user conduct. Second, I have been serving as a mediator in a content dispute at Gothic metal, where again I have emphasized following policies established by the Wikipedia community. I noticed a revert war going on at that page, and took steps to ensure that an administrator protected the page. While the page was protected, discussion became much more productive, and I had the users involved work on a rewrite on a subpage. The rewrite has since been completed and moved to the main article. Keeping a somewhat large watchlist (with well over 800 pages at present), I do occasionally find problems with articles, but I try to help resolve any disputes on talk pages, avoiding RfC and RfAr where possible.
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Idont_havaname_59e5.html"