Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buchanan-Hermit

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] Buchanan-Hermit

Final (66/15/2) ended 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs) – My turn to nominate someone I believe will be a strong admin. Buchanan-Hermit joined the project on 11 January 2006; now, four months later, he has amassed more than 8,000 edits. Despite a relatively narrow focus (he is the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver) that continues to expand, his efforts at vandal-fighting are huge, his interactions with fellow editors are frequent and civil, his knowledge and implementation of policy is strong, and he's already well into self-education of administrative duties. It is my pleasure to recommend the mop, bucket and keys. RadioKirk talk to me 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom. RadioKirk talk to me 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Benon 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support for same reasons as nominator. Ciraric 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Usgnus 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Ding Ding Ding I believe we're looking at a promotion here! A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    Note: This is this user's fourth edit, the other three having also been on RfAs. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support An experienced, solid contributor. —Mets501talk 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support good user. --Tone 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Great UBC article and very active Vancouver project. Gadig 21:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support - fist he's from Vancouver, my good ole little city, he's been super friendly in various discussions and amazing photos. Almost no chance of abusing the tools and could use the mop a fair bit -- Tawker 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom. Great user. DarthVader 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support A very engaged editor, evn with only a few months here.--Bookandcoffee 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per above abakharev 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support ForestH2
  15. Strong Support all my interactions with this user have been strongly positive. Mopper Speak! 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    Very astonished support per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    Change to oppose per Mackensen & Doc :) Dlohcierekim 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Struck "per macand doc. :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I have seen his name a few times on WP:AIV, and every time it was a legitimate request for blocking. This alone tells me he is ready to be an admin. -- JamesTeterenko 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. - Patman2648 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Despite no having the pleasure of meeting him prior to this nomination, a thorough review of his contribs deserves nothing short of an enthusiastic endorsement. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Although the nomination mentions a narrow focus in article space, a large fraction seems to be to non-Vancouver articles. Everything else is in order. JoshuaZ 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Great candidate TigerShark 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per the above and great answers to questions below. Badgerpatrol 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support fabulous contributions and interactions with the community, great answers to the questions, understands admin role well -- Samir धर्म 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, per nominator. I would like to know how we can have exponential growth of the website and too many admins at the same time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support excellent attention to detialßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC).
  26. Support Has great patience and time in reverting vandalism--Canuckman 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. More support for you.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Buckets of support (despite having no portal edits). -- Bucketsofg✐ 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Cursory exam of contributions shows a pattern of hard work in keeping the project together. In the words of the immortal Tone Loc, "Let's do it." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. User appears ready to begin mopping. Kukini 04:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Terence Ong 06:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - Fine admin material. -- Tangotango 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong support and we do need more admins. --Rory096 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support contribs look good. Kimchi.sg 12:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support --W.marsh 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support--Jusjih 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Buchanan-Hermit is a prolific contributor who has managed to avoid any major controversy, limited range does not concern me in the slightest. The answers below display the necessary knowledge of policy, making this an easy decision. Rje 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Excellent contributor. Will make an excellent admin too. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. support per Ardenn :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support Will be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC). Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support (January 11, 2006 - wow, I must be old); would make a good admin. --Jay(Reply) 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Seems to me that he will make a very good Admin.Jordy 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Good work on the Vancouver project, and seems to be a generally all-around positive user.Tony Fox 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, good work all around. JohnnyBGood t c 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support good user, ready for adminship. gidonb 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, looks good. Kusma (討論) 01:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Strong support per nom and Rory096. Joe 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support, no serious problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. As a UPA judge, I'd like to say that your userpage is quite something as well! Great user. haz (user talk) 20:34, 18 May 2006
  54. Support yes yes yes; and being an admin is no big deal. Teke 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per nom and what I've seen of this editor's work. Fluit 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support seems good.  Grue  10:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support It was this editor's civility and calmness during this content dispute that impressed me. He was clearly able to keep a cool head and focus on the content issues being addressed. An excellent candidate. -- backburner001 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment After taking another look at the contributions listed below, I can't help but notice this: "Wikipedia 666." Is this a bad sign?  :) -- backburner001 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Why, no, I'm not Satan and I did not have sexual relations with Saddam Hussein... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Good. I was afraid I'd have to change my vote. :P -- backburner001 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Suppport - civil, trustworthy ed and has some sense of humour. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support per above. Good user and will make great admin.—G.He 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Joe I 04:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support.Bharatveer 05:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. User:Prince 06 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support good admin candidate. --rogerd 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support per above. Royboycrashfan 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support I just saw that his RfA was almost over and came to check that I had indeed voted, and alas! I had not. So here's my much belated support--he's a great, friendly user, and I'm sure that I can trust him with the mop. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose nothing against him, but there are too many admins, and I think each of these should have one opposition. I also don't think he's been here long enough, or has enough edits. Aren't you supposed to be here a year before becoming an admin? Ardenn 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do you think each of the candidates should receive one opposition?—G.He 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no requirements about how long someone needs to be here to be an admin, it's up to the voters. --W.marsh 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "nothing against him" - please do not try to make a point on Wikipedia. By your own self admission, this vote is to make a point not a reflection on the candidate -- Tawker 03:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Tawker, with my absolute respect, and WP:POINT notwithstanding, isn't it up to the 'crat to determine the tally? RadioKirk talk to me 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to pile on but, Ardenn, please stop doing this to every RfA that you see in order to try to prove an unrelated WP:POINT -- Samir धर्म 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I cannot find the standards page anymore. I prefer 4-6 months and about 4,000 edits. A year might be better, but ocnsensus says less. This candidate certainly does not need to wait a year. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with this vote. Ardenn simply thinks that there are enough admins already, and that (given the special weight given to unanimous RFAs when desysopping is later considered) no RFA should be unanimous. A user's RFA voting standards are the choice of that user. The closing bureaucrat is supposed to establish what people's opinions are, not make a subjective analysis on how 'good' or 'bad' those opinions are. Cynical 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. oppose 1) Edits are primarily Vandalism revert. 2) Poor judgment. Bastique▼parlervoir 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, I've made some contributions through Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver (which I started and helped take off) and made over 100 photo contributions too. I've been doing a lot of vandalism reverts lately but it's not usually my area of speciality (as other editors have it under control most of the time already). --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As Bastique notes, most of your edits seem to be vandalism reverts. This is useful, but administrators need to do more than that. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. A little more rounded experience first would be better. --Doc ask? 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Doc. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. As per Ardenn. Anwar 22:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Bastique, Mackensen, and HOLY JEEBUS THAT SIGNATURE. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. DGX 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Change to oppose per Mackensen & Doc :) Dlohcierekim 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC).
    Change reason to Needs more time. Almost there. :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    If that's your reason, then technically you didn't need to strike out the "Doc" part... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmmm- You are pretty well rounded. You’ve come a long way very quickly. I wanted to remove the implication that you were too much a vandal fighter and not enough of anything else. Time will also show if burnout is a consideration. That’s a lot of edits even without the vandal fighting. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think people think I do a lot of vandal-whipping because I tend to do tasks in bunches -- so they see a bunch of reverts and think instantly, "This guy's a vandal-killer." That's not true, as I only do it when there's nothing else to do (which explains why I want to clear out the AIV during the wee hours of 1am-3am...). :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. If he can manage nearly 7000 vandal reversions in 4 months without the rollback button, he doesn't need it. Not enough experience in policy etc in general to convince me otherwise. Proto||type 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Based on a quick perusal of his last 2000 edits, may I suggest a recount is in order? Most of this user's time is spent working on, and communicating with others about, WikiProjects. RadioKirk talk to me 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    COMMENT- Hmmm, I hand counted about 1970 (out of user's total edit summaries) containing the word “revert.” :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't understand how 1970/5000 becomes most. Most means at least over 50 percent and often implies close to all. --Usgnus 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Assuming he warned the vandal each time he reverted, that would bring total vandal fighting related edits to about 3800. I thought that was out of 8,000 not 5,000. ANYWAY, that's NOT "almost 7,000". It's a good ratio.
    I was actually trying to support RadioKirk's point that this user had done more than "fight vandals". I'm sorry that I did not make myself more clear. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I need to strike "per mac and doc". Just needs a little more time. Will make a great admin. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Doc. Too little experience yet for me to judge accurately user's administrative fitness. In particular, more wiki-space contributions are needed here. Xoloz 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Opppose more time needed. Sandy 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Not enough contributions to creating an encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism is important but does not on its own further the aim of Wikipedia. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:38 UTC
  14. Oppose reverting vandalism can be done with popups. Cynical 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: may I ask those opposing based on reverts to please thoroughly review the candidate's contributions (if it's not too much trouble...). I count approximately 225 reverts within his last 1,000 edits. RadioKirk talk to me 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    I am not saying that the candidate has not done enough reverts, or has done too many reverts, I am saying that, on the basis of the candidate's answers below, all he seems to want to do is revert vandals, which does not require admin tools. Cynical 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    My read is, he wants to delve into backlogs and do reverts/as-needed blocks when no one else is available. RadioKirk talk to me 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose; I don't feel this user is ready for adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, dedicated, prolific user but has accepted an RfA nom after barely 4 months yet demands 4,500 edits as a minimum to support other RfAs. This seems like a weird case of editcountitis, and I need to be convinced this user sees the editor and not just the numbers. Deizio talk 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    To tell you the truth, I don't look at numbers all that closely. That was a ballpark estimate (and I often overlook numbers altogether). --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Based on my standards, you need to be here for a year before you're ready for adminship. However, I didn't want to slap on another oppose vote because of it. Steveo2 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Comments Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Buchanan-Hermit (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 72 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 6, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 85.57% Minor edits: 99.08%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 95.59% Minor article edits: 99.77%
Average edits per day (current): 69.74
Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 3.36% (168)
Unique pages edited: 2120 | Average edits per page: 2.36 | Edits on top: 19.3%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 30.9%
Minor edits (non reverts): 36.54%
Marked reverts: 26.58%
Unmarked edits: 5.98%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 51.4% (2570) | Article talk: 4.44% (222)
User: 12.64% (632) | User talk: 18.76% (938)
Wikipedia: 7.16% (358) | Wikipedia talk: 1.16% (58)
Image: 2.08% (104)
Template: 0.58% (29)
Category: 1.46% (73)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.32% (16)

Username        Buchanan-Hermit
Total edits     8700
Distinct pages edited   3847
Average edits/page      2.262
First edit      23:25, January 10, 2006
        
(main)  4152
Talk    710
User    1167
User talk       1579
Image   161
Image talk      2
Template        65
Template talk   15
Category        85
Category talk   12
Wikipedia       666
Wikipedia talk  86

—G.He 03:00, 22 May 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, 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: I noticed a huge backlog in the Commons images section. I'd love to help clean that section up. As well, I'm often online during 1am to 3am Pacific Time, when most people here in North America are asleep. At that time, WP:AIV usually gets MANY vandals (mostly from computer schools in Britain) but there are no admins to help out. I'd love to help out with the AIV backlog in the wee hours when I can, because there is a real lack administrator supervision there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm particularly proud of University Endowment Lands. It originally started out as a four-sentence long article, even though the area is really significant. I did some research and found out that there was a long history attached to the area, which led it to its present state. However, I am most proud of being able to write this article without involving the University of British Columbia too much, and keeping the two entities separate yet linked in some way.
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 remember having a little debate about category sorting a while ago. It was partially my fault (and I admit that) because I came up with a really stupid name for the category related to Vancouver, but some guys wanted to put all the Greater Vancouver articles in the same category, even though the metropolitan area is composed of independent municipalities (this differentiation is almost always recognized by locals). I had a hard time convincing them to consider having smaller categories for each municipality (and not simply insert them all into Vancouver's), but I think I managed to keep a relatively cool head because Wikipedia has taught me to laugh some things off. That is often the only way to get over things. I react the same way when someone vandalizes my userpage. Just calmly smile and give that user a warn. No sense in getting all worked up over something.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.