Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Centrx

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] Centrx

Final(52/8/3) Ending 09:18, 2006-07-25 (UTC)

Centrx (talk · contribs) – After tagging 50+ old, unclaimed copyvio's ready for deletion per WP:Copyright problems in the last couple days, and just now requesting unprotection/deletion of a dozen deleted-protected pages per Category:Protected deleted pages (see also Administrator's noticeboard: Protected, deleted pages & Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this?), I ask that I be permitted to do these and other administrative tasks directly and more efficiently. Other than normal article and policy-, style-, and process-related contributions, discussions therefor, common dealings with vandalism, and the aforementioned activities, I have been involved in AfD discussions (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) and unequivocal-keep closures (e.g. [4]); helping New, Short, and other Specially wanting pages likely to need verification (e.g. [5]), wikification/cleanup, or empty and vain deletion; and more recently RfD discussions and closures. I have been a registered user since January 2004, especially active May 2004–January 2005, July–August 2005, and March 2006–present, and have made 6000+ edits. —Centrx→talk • 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support
  1. First support!! Seen Centrx around, and I believe he is a good, level-headed user. As you can see he has good reason for getting a mop, so let's give him one! Thε Halo Θ 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I see no reason to decline the request for moppery. Yanksox 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, without reservation. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support a very eager user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. He always seemed like a great user to me (I keep bumping into him). I could say the cliche, but I won't Alphachimp talk 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support seems good.  Grue  11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Always good to have an extra janitor around, especially in clearing of CP backlogs. :) - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Reasonably Strong Support I don't like it when people repeatedly state their position in an RfA (especially if that's an opposing position), but I don't think that means the candidate has a lack of good judgement about what makes a good admin but rather a single lapse of judgement on when to stop. And to be honest, it wasn't even that. -- joturner 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. support. me too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bogud (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian (T, C, @) 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support; great contributor. --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support: thoughtful opinions and have had constructive engagements with this editor on Wikipedia pages. Stephen B Streater 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support --Jay(Reply) 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Thought he already was one. 1ne 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Nomination and answers to questions were a good start. A relatively quick scan of contribs seemed to suggest a good contributor. I'd hate to oppose based on expressing a valid (even though I disagree with it) opinion on someone else’s RFA, especially as that opinion doesn't seem to have affected anything outside of that RFA (I'm assuming good faith by believing "I have no disdain for that user..."). Good answer to my email check. Overall, this looks like someone suitable to help us out as an admin. Petros471 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support good stuff hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Uneasy Support I see the logic of Psychemp's comments, although part of me believes that Psychemp's interpretation of Centrx's message was a victim of circumstance and wording. I don't want to ease in another wikipedian with an elitist attitude, but it doesn't seem like Centrx is going to turn out that way, so I am inclined to support. I'm also reassured for the same reason that Lar is opposed—Centrx goes out of their way to check whether or not they are doing the right thing, and I believe that communication is an important thing with admins, no matter how anal process can be.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Excellent reasons for request, seems to be a level-headed contributor. Rjm656s 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - no convincing reason to oppose, and has demonstrated a need for the tools. RandyWang (raves/rants) 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - hard working, dedicated, and honest. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support This Fire Burns Always 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support this user's work on Objectivism and related articles shows a strong understanding of policy and fairness, I think this user would make a fine admin. Crazynas t 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. I support you. Reggae Sanderz 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Looks like you're ready. Mostly Rainy 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. DarthVader 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong support -Personally I can't see how his RfA standards are relevant, unless he is holding someone to a higher standard on an RfA than what he expects of himself, which isn't the case. In any case, I like to see debate on RfAs but I can understand why non-admins are afraid to discuss their opinions......Blnguyen | rant-line 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support good, determined editors make good admins abakharev 04:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - I looked at his comments on Kylu's RFA and honestly, I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I don't really agree with everything he said. You can't really expect someone to already be doing administrative type things before becoming an administrator because ... well ... they aren't an administrator. But still, nothing there raises a red flag. I've looked at his edits. [6] doesn't thrill me - I'd suggest saying "please" or in some fashion making it a polite suggestion rather than a command. Still, the user on whose talk page the message was left found the comment helpful, so I'm not going to get too upset. I've looked over his edits, recent and older, and see nothing of concern. Extensive edits to Wikipedia Talk show a firm grasp of policy. I see no incivility whatsoever. Basically, I can come up with no reason not to trust this user with the tools. BigDT 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    "No reason not to oppose" is precisely as it should be. One of my issues with this candidate is that the candidate seems not to use that standard in thinking about other candidates, but rather seems to require a good reason to support instead. See:[7] and the thread above it, in which the candidate states a desire for "positive evidence". Wrong view of adminship, it tends to suggest that the candidate views adminship as an elevated status, or something that should be restricted to a select few, and further, can't let go that the candidate opposed but feels the need to, in a page filled with congratulations, continue the argument. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I assume this quote is what you are talking about - "I found no other body of evidence to indicate that you had sufficient experience in administrative matters." However, in the case of Centrx, there is substantial participation in policy discussions and other pseudo-administrative matters. So by his own standard (which I don't necessarilly agree with) I don't see how he would fail. Regardless of that, why did you post this under my support vote? It has little to do with what I said and would be better located on the talk page or as support for your own vote. BigDT 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - No reason to believe the mop and broom would be abused. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - seems a fine candidate --Guinnog 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong support an intelligent and rational user with enough experience. What more could we want. Also, I detect some resentment on the oppose side regarding Kylu's RfA, with one user stretching his oppose argument into a reason why he shouldn't be an admin. I personally feel that is ridiculous, because he was showing how Kylu's editing style is unfit for being an admin--he was not saying that he does not embrace Wikignomes or small-time editors. Centrx's answers to the questions are perfectly satisfactory, and he has shown what is in my opinion incredible maturity and dedication, especially given the length of some of his well-crafted responses on Kylu's rfa. AdamBiswanger1 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support I have met this editor and IMHO s/he is very reasonable and handles disputes well. RN 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Weak support per nom, YankSox, and Mailer Diablo, with a note to the effect that, even as some of the issues raised infra by Lar, et al., are rather off-putting, I am confident that the user's judgment is sufficiently strong as to suggest that his use of the admin tools will have a positive net effect on the project (and that, FWIW, is the [perhaps liberal] standard by which I adjudge prospective admins). Joe 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support A long standing member of the community with a good reason to become an admin. Seivad 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. No major issues, and while I respectfully disagree with his comments on Kylu's RFA he's well within his rights to oppose for whatever reason he wants. BryanG(talk) 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. support as per BigDT & AdamBiswanger1 Pete.Hurd 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support! I just don't see holding one's voting against one. I for one, am glad that this user even bothered to participate in the RFA process. I see no real reason to beleive that this user will abuse the mop. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support a friendly and reasonable user, will use the tools thoughtfully. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Reasonable user who knows the limits of what experience will allow him to start using the mop on. I'm extremely concerned about the opposes based on his votes in Kylu's RfA, as they look like retaliation for taking an unpopular, if personalized, view. Have not seen any evidence of incivility, and I cannot find the "IRC is useless" (or whatever he actually said) comment here or on his talk page. Diff please? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support as per above. --Draicone (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support I've seen nom in action and think nom has the experience and judgment to use the adm tools well. FloNight talk 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Jaranda wat's sup 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. I don't really agree with his views on Kylu's RFA, but those are hardly sufficient to make him likely to use admin tools inappropriately. He's indicated that he'll probably use the tools a lot, too, so all for the good. Support, no reason to oppose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Don't think I've done it yet. --Terrancommander 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - concerns have been addressed -- Tawker 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - I have worked with this candidate on a controversial article and found him to be a reliable and level-headed contributor. I was going to nom him myself, but I waited too long :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Nothing wrong here. Will be a great admin. SynergeticMaggot 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Uneasy Support: Icey's stats and the Oppose/Neutral sections make me worry about how well this user will handle the mop; otherwise, he'll make a really fine admin. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Impressed with his stated reasons for wanting adminship. This work is necessary and his commitment to it outweighs any reasons to oppose.Tyrenius 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am very concerned about Centrx's apparent lack of good judgement about what makes a good admin, as evidenced in the recent strident and persistent oppose of Kylu in the face of very good counters to the objections raised. Also I wonder if the edit count isn't a bit inflated by needing to repeatedly minor edit things in order to get them right. I think this user is a textbook case of the assertion that time on wiki is not necessarily proof of sound judgement in and of itself. Finally, not enough portal and help edits. (tossed that one in so you can see just how ridiculous a reason that is to oppose) Oppose with regret. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Centrx has a different idea from you about what criteria are needed to make a good admin. Will this "apparent lack of good judgement about what makes a good admin" affect Centrx ability to as an admin? If so in what way do you think his admin actions will be worse because of this? Petros471 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Excellent question. You and I work together successfully even though we don't agree on everything, which shows it's not really about differences in criteria, I can totally respect that. It's about judgement as to when they apply and flexibility. Judgement is not a thing that is divisible by category (except to a limited degree when it impacts personal things) and either you have it, or you don't, so yes lack of judgement does affect Adminship. Adminship requires good judgement and I am not convinced, based on what I have seen of Centrx so far, that it's present. I admit I haven't deeply scanned all contributions, but this one interaction was concerning enough. While we're raising things, though, I'll also mention I'm concerned about the spottiness in contributions. If "might go away later" is a valid oppose criteria, and I'm not sure it is, then it's a concern too. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    I still don't get it. His not being "flexible" here just means that he isn't changing his opinion from being opposed to yours to being in agreement with it. Is it thus a lack of judgment to be in staunch disagreement with you and not give in under pressure? If so, where does it end? What if someone's wikipolitics (or even real life politics) are totally opposite yours—does that automatically mean the person lacks judgment? --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    There are differences of opinion which one can reach consensus about and there are fundamental disagreements that can't be compromised, so yes I guess if you go too far then yes, it is an issue of lacking judgement. Is that the case here? Sort of. I think he was wrong enough about Kylu that it's of concern to me, because what an admin actually is and what it takes is very important, conceptually, to being a good one. Further I think he lacked judgement in how he approached the discussion, which is a bad sign for conflict resolution skills, something that some admins do get involved in from time to time. Note that I'm not blameless here either, I now realise I possibly got way too contentious on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch_4 myself... There's a fine line between good debate about a topic and belaboring the point too much. So I dunno. I'm convincable I guess that this is an isolated issue, maybe a few more diffs showing better approaches will convince me. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Supported ++Lar nomination for Kylu. Acknowledge there is an element of truth in the Centrx critique, but admins should not all be clones. My editing discussions with Centrx have been constructive, and evidence currently points to fairness and clarity. Stephen B Streater 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I'm sorry, but his opinion (as shown on Kylu's RFA) that people who do work in wikipedia's back channels are "insignificant" is arrogant and shows little understanding of community. We don't all have to be splashy obvious editors, and his disdain for those who do this important but unnoticed work is troubling. Also, his average edits per page is *very* high.pschemp | talk 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    If he thinks it's so insignificant, why is he now doing it? And incidentally, 2.5 edits/page is nothing. Some of our best admins have ratios significantly than that (User:Essjay, 3.06; User:Nichalp, 3.08; User:Filiocht, 4.51!)--Spangineeres (háblame) 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Incidentally, User:Saravask had a ratio of about 10. I think User:Cyberjunkie is a great admin and his was 3-4 off the top of my head. Also Kylu is by no means doing "unnoticed work" because look at her award gallery and then compare them to the contributions of say, User:Thebainer/Contributions and what he got for. As for the comment about "significant contributions", I'm guessing he was trying to scale the edit count with the magnitude of the edits, rather than criticize peoplewho do organizational work? As for those people who think that writing articles is glamorous, all I can say is ............. well, I'm rather speechless. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have no disdain for that user. I specifically stated that the user's contributions were insubstantial for the purposes of RfA, that is, for deciding whether this user should be an administrator. I did not state nor did I mean to imply, and I have no reason to believe, that this user's contributions are insignificant as contributions to Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community. —Centrx→talk • 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per pschemp. --Shizane 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    I am honestly not sure why this oppose comment has garnered so much support. Can anyone honestly say, apart from pschemp's one example, which is tenuous enough as it is, that Centrx does not value the community aspect of Wikipedia? Can anyone honestly say that his passing comment about IRC channels being "insignificant" is enough to prove, or even suggest, that Centrx has a disdain for the community? I don't follow that "argument" at all, and it seems to me that the original response eminates from the direct conflict between Centrx and Pschemp in Kylu's RfA. AdamBiswanger1 17:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose- I've changed my mind at least six times about this nomination. I'm sure Centrx is sincere, but more than 3500 of his 6000 edits have been made since May 1. That bothers me for a self-nomination, and it bothers me more because of the nature of his statements on Kylu's RFA. I haven't been voting for RFAs very long so I could certainly be way out in left field, but it doesn't sit right with me. Oppose, and I hope he'll prove me wrong. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    so he did about 58% of his edits in the last 2.5 months...Well to compare with Kylu that would be about 85% for her. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    As I noted above, Kylu wasn't a self-nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Same concerns as pschemp are shared. --Pilotguy (roger that) 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - per pschemp. The "IRC is useless" concerns me, and seems to make me question overall interaction with the community a little, however, if anyone has any diffs to the contary, I think I'm pretty open and have been known to change my mind given evidence.-- Tawker 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see how a single comment like that can be stretched into an analysis of the candidate's character and attitude towards wikipedia. Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't base an oppose vote on such a small piece of evidence-- AdamBiswanger1 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Centrx apparently uses IRC (see below) and also is also part of the community. RfA is not a witch hunt. Stephen B Streater 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - the majority of discussion is quite irrelevant to improving WP actually. Also, I didn't have IRC before my RfA and I don't see how that hindered me much. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I did not say that "IRC is useless" or anything like that. I use IRC on #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, mostly if I have a question. Using IRC to communicate with other users, to coordinate vandal-fighting, and to socialize is absolutely useful. Please review my RfA comment. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Some of his comments trouble me, nothing else really to say about it. TruthCrusader 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - my first ever oppose in an RfA indicates I'm extremely worried. Although this may appear as a grudge against Centrx for what he posted on Kylu's page (I consider Kylu amongst the best and most friendly editors on Wikipedia), it was instigated by that post. Centrx, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to show a disregard for all the users who do the small, tedious, yet essential tasks around WIkipedia to keep the project heading in the right direction with maximum efficiency. Described as Wikignomes by some, I think that these types of editors - who hover in the background, not drived by ambition or recognition - is what holds the self-prominent and attention-overloaded editors in line (many consider me to be one of the latter...). You also imply that "stub sorting or wikilinking" isn't a very helpful contribution to Wikipedia, and is merely edit-filling. Stub-sorting is what allows writers (like me) to expand on articles in certain areas of interest, and stub-sorting allows these articles to gain a greater chance of being expanded on in the future. And now, something directly related to Kylu's RfA; you were totally shot down with your arguments, and yet you refused to back down. As an Administrator, you would gain extremely powerful tools, and with it comes a greater magnitude of mistakes - that is, your mistakes will be larger and more negatively-affecting than normal users' mistakes. You showed to the community on Kylu's RfA that you have a problem with backing down and accepting your mistakes, and fixing the problem (which would have been removing your vote in that case). Imagine what would happen if you blocked someone in error, but because of the behaviour you showed to us on Kylu's RfA, you wouldn't accept your error and correct it - is that the sort of situations we want in our community, when it could be avoided (by not accepting you RfA)? If you can explain to me to a satisfactory level why I am misguided by voting like this (by explaining my substantiations), I will be more than happy to change my vote. Until then, however, I have to oppose this request. Killfest2 (Talk) 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral per discussion with nominee on IRC. Killfest2 (Talk) 08:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I see no interest in mediation and per the above, I doubt this user can responsibly hold the position of an admin. The ability to mediate fairly and competently is a big criterion for me. Technical experience might be the next criterion. --HResearcher 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose As a newbie my first encounter with Centrx left me wanting to stop contributing, and an admin should provoke exactly the opposite feelings from a new user. During my editing of Lowell, Massachusetts, Centrx just about blanked the entire list of famous people from Lowell. We had a brief discussion about it here but in all honesty I felt he was just going to do whatever the hell he wanted after seeing he had done the same thing here. Anyways, I felt as a newbie I was being bullied and again that is not the feeling someone should get from an admin, so I oppose. DrunkenSmurf 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I did not know you were new and I did not intend to be at all overbearing. I am sorry I made you feel that way. I made a change to the article, you explained why you thought the change was bad, I explained what I thought, you responded, and based on your comment I thought you agreed with part of what I meant (all at Talk:Lowell, Massachusetts#People from Lowell). I was interested in discussion throughout. I individually checked each name on the list and removed select ones that were mostly or wholly unrelated to the city.[8] I then checked them again after you objected, and in addition to the ones you objected to found another one I was wrong about. I have trimmed notable persons on perhaps 6 articles, with some of the persons apparently having no relation whatsoever with the town. In these few, if someone has added them back, I don't revert it; if someone brings it up on the Talk page, I explain why I thought they didn't belong. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Can't support, can't oppose. Roy A.A. 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm not going to vote as I'd look biased (considering your position on my own RfA), but I have no problems discussing things: When users start using editcounts and namespace-count requirements, it's just as silly as Wikibirthday and type-of-editor requirements. I didn't mention at the time that it took six edits for you to get in your single oppose correctly, as I've had to multi-edit things before, but would you still qualify to some people's arbitrary RfA standards if they divided your contributions by six or more? I firmly beleive that you have to look at the overall candidate before you give your opinion either way in a matter such as this. If you do make admin, I do wish you luck, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral comment (changing "vote" to supp,) For what it's worth, I thought his points re Kylu were valid, if a bit too persistently stated. I see lots of sour grapes and hard feelings in evidence in the oppose votes above, rather than honest discussion, which is disappointing. It just goes to underline his point, that RFA is largely a popularity contest among a clique of habiual *fD/RFA voters and vandal reverters. Pete.Hurd 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    This was not the point of my RfA comment. This point could be inferred from my comments in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but I make no claim that RfA currently is a popularity contest, only that the current system makes it possible for it to become one. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I did rather put words in your mouth there. My words, and inferences, not Centrx's. Pete.Hurd 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    It was told to me (IRC is handy!) to try to avoid doing controversial things during one's RfA period or immediately before. I failed on this point and got my share of opposes for it, and your own discussion may have created that exact same effect, I'm afraid. Popularity contest or not, repeatedly going after the candidate multiple times may cause them to no longer AGF with respect to your opinions on the page. It's easy to lose faith in someone when they seem to be determined to sink someone else. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per IRC conversation with Centrx regarding my Oppose. Killfest2 (Talk) 08:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • See Centrx's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Mathbot's Edit summary usage for Centrx: 100% for major edits and 84% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
  • Edit Stat from Interiot's Tool2:
Username Centrx
Total edits 6089
Distinct pages edited 2443
Average edits/page 2.492
First edit 01:00, 13 January 2004
 
(main) 3117
Talk 1006
User 183
User talk 312
Image 3
Image talk 1
Template 182
Template talk 83
Category 87
Category talk 37
Wikipedia 606
Wikipedia talk 471
Portal 1
  • Edit Stat from VoA's JS:
--Viewing contribution data for user Centrx (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 673 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 18, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 14, August, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 63.01% Minor edits: 50.8%
Average edits per day: 139.45 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 329 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 86.01%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 5.26% (263)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 30.98% (1549)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 61%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2122 | Average edits per page: 2.36 | Edits on top: 14.94%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 30.34% (1517 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.98% (1049 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.12% (556 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 22.4% (1120 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 49.04% (2452) | Article talk: 17% (850)
User: 3.64% (182) | User talk: 5.84% (292)
Wikipedia: 10.02% (501) | Wikipedia talk: 9.24% (462)
Image: 0.04% (2)
Template: 2.32% (116)
Category: 0.92% (46)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.92% (96)

--WinHunter (talk) 09:38, 18 July 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: Initially, old copyright problems, CSD, PROD, closing xfDs. I may also find myself monitoring ANI and AIV, and updating protected items like Template:In the news, with which I was long ago involved before it was protected.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: One of my most recent major contributions was a complete reorganization and clarification of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page, which had become a convoluted hodgepodge—and likely daunting or inexplicable to inexperienced editors—that had not been edited since before RfCs and RfC listings had been split out into separate subpages. I also apparently helped some new users at Alcoholism with more productive discussion (starting at Talk:Alcoholism#Starting our work) and by writing a neutral introduction[9] to serve as a foundation. I don't remember right now what else I've done.
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 don't think I have been in any edit conflicts with other users, at least not toward the reverting side of an edit-conflict spectrum. Rather, disagreements are resolved by discussion with specific reference to the encyclopedic issue in question and relevant policies and sources. I basically just ignore any side commentary irrelevant to that. I think the most uncivil comment I have made might be [10].
4. (Optional) Why do you have such a high edits-per-page count? Is there a particular article or WP:space page you've edited a huge number of times that would cause this statistic to creep up? - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a few pages which I have edited over the course of two years. For example, I wrote the Metre article in May 2004[11], and have 23 edits on it; I wrote the Julia Child article in August 2004[12] and have 17 edits on it. This would be a consequence of reverting vandalism, incorporating and wikifying random contributions, and making improvements over two years. If the average also includes Talk pages, there are also, for example, pages like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style (dates and numbers) where I have been involved in discussions and proposals. Also, that statistic maybe should be a truncated mean rather than an average. —Centrx→talk • 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is already recorded...) ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If six editors in good standing propose recall and a strong majority of interested parties agree, then that administrator should not remain, but if that were to happen after 70+ percent support in RfA, it might mean the administrator had already undertaken actions so severe as to warrant de-adminning by ArbCom anyway.
While sound in principle, procedural matters like what constitutes an editor in good standing, how strong a majority there must be, and how soon after the successful RfA, would need to be ironed out. With 10,000 or more users that qualify to nominate under the listed criteria of 1 month and 500 mainspace edits, it may not be unlikely that there would exist 6 zealous ones after a couple of rather normal content disagreements or, worse, after rightful administrative actions in accordance with policy. The administrator most likely to be nominated might be the administrator who most enforces policy. As such, the qualifications must be higher or different, and perhaps a nomination should need to include some administrators, overall including users who have broader interest in Wikipedia and who are more likely to know about and have experience with policy, which the currently listed qualifying statistics do not ensure.
Another effective procedure might be to require that some of the nominating editors be users who supported the nominee in their RfA, who afterward find the administrator to be an outrageous disappointment. Similarly, a procedure might require that the nominations specifically cite evidence that the nominee was misrepresented in the RfA, that a more thorough examination of his contributions would have shown that he should never have been made administrator, or that he acted contrary to statements and indications in the RfA. That is, to have the administrator recalled because the reasons for which he was sysop'ed in the first place were ultimately invalid.
These are a few ideas about that. For the other: if, as it would appear, Category:Rouge admins is just a joke, then there we have it. I have its corresponding Wikipedia namespace page in my list of humorous pages. Although, it could be confusing to a new editor, to find a knavish or deprecating page about those who would appear to be involved in running this major repository of human knowledge. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 21 July 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.