Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ABCD

final (26/7/1) ending 00:13 April 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have been a user here since late October/early November 2004. Most of my edits have been minor in nature, and mainly dealing with janitorial type stuff. If I become an administrator, I will probably continue helping with the janitorial stuff and maintenance. I currently watch VfD, RfD, and CfD regularly, and will continue to do so. I anticipate helping with the maintenance of VfD, RfD, CfD, and TfD. I know and understand most of Wikipedia's policies, and abide by them. My first nomination was rejected, on basis of my not having spent enough time before then. – ABCD 18:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Contributions

I hereby second this nomination, insofar as policy allows this nomination to be restarted and insofar seconding has any effect.
ABCD meets my criteria for nominating a person for admin. If anyone would have asked me, I'd have done nom. in one month as per jguk in talk. I hope seconding here still helps a little, at least. Kim Bruning 12:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original vote on ABCD has been nullified because it has been determined to consensus satisfaction that this editor is not a sockpuppet, disproving an impression that caused many to vote against him. For those who wish to refer to that prior vote for information purposes and to see the justification for determining that ABCD is not a sockpuppet, see this archive. The vote is restarted with a new 7-day cycle. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For discussion about the appropriateness of restarting the nomination, see the talk page.

Support

  1. Full support. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. I think ABCD has been through enough. Despite all the accusations, he has remained civil and enthusiastic. With his interest in janitorial work, I think he will make a good administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Still support. -- Scott eiπ 05:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Still support. --Carnildo 07:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. dab (ᛏ) 08:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Still support. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Very well, with his name cleared, ABCD gets my full support, now without reservations, as he meets my normal criteria for admin. Kim Bruning 12:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Still support, ABCD is a great janitor. The fact that he is willing to stay with the project after what he went through can only be a positive. Rje 15:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Still support, maintains good attitude under heat. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 19:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Full support, he has handled this bizarre situation quite expertly. Andre (talk) 18:15, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, based on dealing with vandalisms. It would be possibly better to have categories of Admins, one of them being policeman/judge. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Kbdank71 18:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. We can always use more vandal police. Kaldari 21:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 (talk) 00:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 03:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, as before Squash 11:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. utcursch | talk 12:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, but I want to question on who really has authority to nullify a vote SYSS Mouse 21:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support — the more people dealing with vandalism and with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia, the better. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Just to add to my comments, given the present voting situation: there's an awful lot of everyday, unglamorous admin work that needs doing, and not enough hands to do it. With regard to the flood of page-creation vandalism and advertising, for example, I've often found that an article containing nothing but a bit of childish obscenity, or an advert for some on-line scam, hangs around for quite a while after I've tagged it for speedy delete. The more admins like ABCD, who want to get on with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia, without being distracted by other matters, the better. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support, as before. jni 07:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Obviously has a real interest in doing admin work. Rad Racer 14:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Anyone who wants to turn wrenches on this site as much as ABCD does needs the keys to the tool chest, especially when dealing with vandal stubs and the like. - Lucky 6.9 07:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Grutness|hello? 10:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. PedanticallySpeaking 19:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. OK, so a lot of ABCD's edits are janitorial in nature, but that is basically what an admin is supposed to do- keep WP free of vandalism, disputes and so on --Cynical 20:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support, we always need admins to do the grunt work.-gadfium 22:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Still oppose Does not meet my admin criterion. If he did, there wouldn't have been all this fuss anyway, as people would have seen that he had the project's aim at heart, jguk 06:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Still oppose Not enough experience. Daniel Quinlan 07:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  4. I find this to be an interesting nomination. ABCD's work in organizing and categorizing articles is worthwhile and is to be commended. However, I find the overall volume of editing effort to fall short of that now considered minimal for adminship. I find a lack of engagement with the community. Finally, I am suspicious of self-nominations, since I believe that any editor who qualifies should be able to find someone to make a nomination for them. I would hope that ABCD will keep up the good work and, in time, become and admin. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. I am reluctant to support a nomination for admin for someone with less than 6 months on wikipedia unless there is some really compelling reason, such as an outstanding track record. Xtra 08:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agree with jguk's comments. Number of major edits should be above 0. Smit 13:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. No substantive edits. RickK 21:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Still oppose. Again, keep up the good edits, but I simply don't see a need to be an admin and I believe admin's should have substantial experience contributing content, not just janitorial work, though both are important. And as before the overeagerness (self nominating twice, soliciting votes) does not lend extra confidence. - Taxman 15:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Substantial support from others and no evidence of improper edits makes me say why not. If he causes problems later, that can be dealt with. I still prefer admins that understand and have experience adding content, but I do commend the work ABCD has done. - Taxman 20:04, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • 3082 edits, 1055 to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 07:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • 0 major edits to articles, 0 articles created, jguk 08:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • jguk, what fuss are you talking about? --jag123 09:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look through his user contributions you will see that he has made no edits of any size (even those not marked as "minor" are minor, if you look at the diffs) and he has not created any new articles (ignoring redirects and page moves). Since this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a social club, I'd have thought actually writing articles once in a while was quite important, jguk 22:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A random sampling of his 400 most recent edits indicates that he's doing a lot of the sort of janitorial work that keeps Wikipedia running: tagging nonsense articles for speedy-deletion, reverting vandalism, improving article formatting (boring stuff like [1]), disambiguating links and fixing redirects, etc. --Carnildo 23:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Janitorial work is just as important as writing articles, for what is the point of writing articles if nobody is protecting them. What is more it is the janitors, such as ABCD, whose lives are made easier with sysop powers and not those who only contribute with text. Rje 00:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is, but it's not the be all and end all - and ABCD does not need admin rights to carry on that janitorial rights. We already have users who never contribute anything major trying to dictate who may even use Wikipedia. Whilst I trust ABCD will not go down that route, I still believe that anyone without experience of writing and contributing to articles does not have suitable experience to become an admin, jguk 07:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm new here, maybe you can explain something. You don't need to be an admin to do janitorial work, but it does make it easier. And you don't need to be an admin to write articles, but um... Hey, being an admin has nothing to do with writing articles? Am I missing something? It sure seems that to be an admin, you'd need to have experience with, you know, things that admins do. What's the big to do if ABCD hasn't created any new articles (since being an admin wouldn't have helped with that anyway)? -Kbdank71 01:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not a huge deal (to me) that an editor hasn't written a lot of content, but adding content, and having the interaction with others that comes along with it is important in gaining the type of experience that makes a good admin. That's why at least some balance is important. - Taxman 14:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you oppose the nomination, Netoholic? Rad Racer 15:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that seconding ABCDs nomination does kind of move it out of self-nom territory at least part of the way. There's no wikipedia policy determining how to count a seconded self-nom though, so the choice is up to the voter as to how much they see this as a self-nom and/or how much they see it as an ordinary nomination, I think. Kim Bruning 13:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I notice that many people who either voted oppose or neutral based on false sockpuppet concerns the first time around either still oppose the nomination or haven't voted at all. Also, I believe dedication to the project has nothing to do with how many articles you've written/edited. Denying someone the tools to do the best job they can do is like not hiring someone for a computer programming job because they don't have a Master's in Basketweaving. Doesn't make sense. -Kbdank71 19:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As I have said on some other RFA votes I prefer as admins those who write articles. Part of the reason for this is that article-writing is a good way of ascertaining POV (which we all have), and also of what happens when the user comes into contact with others who do not share that POV. Here we have someone who has made no real editorial contribution. There simply is no evidence as to whether he is trustworthy or would misuse admin powers. Therefore I am unable to vote. Dbiv 20:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)