Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anetode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Anetode

Final (41/0/0); Ended Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:08 (UTC)

Anetode (talk · contribs) - I am nominating User:Anetode for adminship. Anetode has 6,600 edits distributed well across all namespaces and has been an active editor since September 2005.

Anetode is:

  • Civil
  • Thoughtful
  • Responsive to criticism
  • Mediative (outside view in RFC that's endorsed by many others)
  • Non-polemic
  • Uses edit summaries

Anetode has Wikipedia experience in:

  • Policies, e.g. keeping WP:PORNBIO sane
  • Deletion discussions, e.g. AFDs and IFDs; has insightful opinions, and seeing repeated "per Anetode" is always a sign of good judgment
  • Evaluating sources and verifiability; removing unreferenced trivia and original research
  • Community, e.g. welcoming new users, RFA, participating in WikiProjects, giving barnstars
  • Vandal-fighting: reverting, warning vandals, reporting at AIAV
  • Dealing with trolls, vandals, sockpuppets, POV warriors
  • Images, including uploading new ones and monitoring those uploaded by others

Anetode has mainspace interests in:

I believe Anetode is unlikely to abuse administrator tools and would benefit from having them.

—Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 11:55Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:06, 19 February 2007 (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 participants:

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 suspect that most of my efforts would be focused on the image backlog. The IFD and PUI pages have grown to gargantuan proportions and I'd like to lend a hand in closing/deleting nominations. Being able to block vandals would prove very useful as well, since there have been times when I've ran accross vandal bots that managed to rack up dozens of edits before any action was taken. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Wikipedia is an enormous entity and my contributions are fairly randomly distributed. Initially I focused on video game related articles and AfDs. Since joining I've racked up almost three hundred edits to the Xbox 360 article (not counting the related Xbox 360 launch, Xbox Live Arcade, Xbox Live Marketplace spin-offs) but a lot of the the actual content of these contributions has been edited out by now. My favorite contributions dealt with fixing up stubs nominated for deletion, these sometimes resulted in editors reconsidering their votes to delete (examples: Tairus, Jewish Science). After that I moved on to finding free images to illustrate articles and replace the fair use stand-ins. To date I've uploaded at least a few hundred images, the bulk of which are now at Commons (see gallery). I tend to keep all edited pages on the watchlist, so a good portion of my contributions are perfunctory vandalism reverts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Early on I ran accross several obsessive editors and engaged in prolonged debates which ultimately deteriorated into inconsequential stalemates. One of these, dealing with User:Brazil4Linux, caused me to take a break from the project for a few months. I now prefer to avoid heated content disputes and favor a polite but impersonal approach to dealing with such conflicts. I have also found that taking the time to properly explain ones actions is incredibly effective in defusing (even reversing) hostility. Although, in full disclosure, there have been times when I've responded to incivility in kind. Oh, and I constantly abuse parentheticals. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from ST47 (talk · contribs)
4. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: Like many others I started editing to correct spelling mistakes and remove vandalism. The more articles I read, the more I edited Wikipedia. To this day I spend more time reading Wikipedia than editing it. And the reward for contributing is very tangible to me in terms of earned knowledge, experience, enjoyment and mental exercise. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 12:20Z
  2. Support Looks good. Garion96 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Yes, everything looks quite good. Dar-Ape 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Anetode isn't as active as I'd like in a candidate, but there are no concerns and he promises to help with backlogs. ST47Talk 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak support The edit pattern is erratic, but no reason not to support. I may change my mind in the future, however. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    I was being too picky. Sorry. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per the nominator :). Yuser31415 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support The candidate is unlikely to be among the most active admins, but he will use his mop effectively if we give it to him. YechielMan 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support You are a strong contributor to this encyclopedia. You've made thousands of edits, are extremely dedicated, and are willing to help in differnt ways. Enjoy your mop.Ganfon 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Good contributions to the article space; reverts vandalism and warns vandals; contributes to XfD discussions with a knowledge of policies and guidelines. In short, a good-quality applicant for adminship. (aeropagitica) 05:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support relatively low level of activity but dedicated and should do a good job on the backlogs. The Rambling Man 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I don't think there's a reason to oppose this great candidate. James086Talk 09:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong support Always exhibits excellent judgement at AfDs. Trustworthy candidate. riana_dzasta 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support not likely to abuse the tools. Level-headed and dedicated. Good candidate. - Anas Talk? 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Proto ► 12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support: Won't abuse the tools. Regards, S.D. ¿п? § 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support looks fine. — Deckiller 14:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Axl 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support: excellent editor who should make a fine admin. Jonathunder 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Seems well suited, especially temperamentally by learning to be cooler in hot situations. PigmanTalk to me 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Carpet 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - looks good. Metamagician3000 14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Everything seems fine to me. Nishkid64 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I thought you were one already. Darthgriz98 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Michael 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. PeaceNT 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Plenty of experience, good judgement and civil. Came across anetode multiple times and can't remember any significant things that would stand in my way for supporting this nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support--MONGO 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. The discussions on WT:RFA are working. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)23:16, Saturday, 24 February '07
  37. Jaranda wat's sup 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, defintely a deserving user, hope it works out for you --Mr.crabby (Talk) 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Good candidate. Dionyseus 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Good candidate, judgement. Daniel5127 | Talk 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, per experiance with Wikipedia. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose Just because someone makes a bunch of edits, regardless of quality, they don't necessarily need Administrative access - why add to the bureaucracy? Nothing against the mentioned in question, but I doubt that Wikipedia severely needs any more administrators right now. --164.107.43.251 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please log in before commenting at RfAs. riana_dzasta 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous users are perfectly welcome to comment on RFAs (but not to vote). Proto ► 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Acutally less than a percent of the users is administrator. With the increasing amounts of vandalism and abuse, we can use all the hands we can get. -Mgm|(talk) 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.