Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ESkog 2

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] ESkog

final (91/1/0) ending 23:26 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ESkog (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating ESkog for adminship. He's one of our friendliest users and has been very active over the past couple of months. He does everything, RC patrol, AFD work and even writes articles! I cannot think of a good reason not to trust him with the extra privileges and think that promoting him could only benefit Wikipedia. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words. I accept. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support looks good. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Contributions look good, and his patience in waiting 2 1/2 months since his first RfA is a good sign. NoSeptember talk 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support looks good.--Jusjih 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support I like and trust the nominator a lot. The nominee's great too, btw ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. You really aren't an admin? Wow. NSLE (T+C) 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per NSLE. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-17 01:23Z
  12. Support Seen him around, seems sensible. –Joke 01:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Per NSLE, Are you certain you're not an admin :-) Great user, seen him in AFD often. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support good editor --rogerd 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Rory096 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - Good editor. Put him to work. No Guru 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Good vandal patroller. Merecat 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Trustworthy editor. Happy to switch from a previous oppose; no reason for any doubt now. Xoloz 05:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --AySz88^-^ 05:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. good work. pschemp | talk 06:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support looks good.--MONGO 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose for beating me to too many vandalism reverts. err.. Very Strong Support, awesome user, warns on every revert; no reason to oppose here. Well... never mind. (Added a very after seeing through the whole situation with User:Maoririder.) -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Emil Skog? This candidate looks all OK to me. JIP | Talk 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Insert cliche about thinking he already was one here. Totally deserves it. Mo0[talk] 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. LordViD 08:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Excellent work. Appears very conscientious. Marskell 10:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per ↑↑↑ jacoplane 10:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. — FireFox • T • 10:36, 17 February 2006
  29. Support - Liberatore(T) 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, yes, definitely. Proto||type 11:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support of course. Good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. I see no reason why not. :) --Ashenai 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Excellent Wikipedian. Even reverted a vandal to my userpage once (ref). Essexmutant 13:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Of course! Siva1979Talk to me 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, with lots of reasons; so to save you all from my usual RfA essays take a look at my RfA criteria, and add on "nice work on mediation/mentorship/general helpfulness". Petros471 17:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Moe ε 18:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support  Grue  19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support; good asset to the project. -Colin Kimbrell 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support See him around and is a good editor. Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Good contributions, good interactions with people from what I have seen. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. +sj + 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, and use the mop wisely. --M@thwiz2020 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support SeanMcG 6,000 edits. wow.
  47. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Mjal 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Good editor, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support' a worker; give him a broom. John Reid 05:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support, good and diligent editor. --Terence Ong 16:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Thunderbrand 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. 'support, per everything said above Benon 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support: Obviously. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Good editor, very friendly - I doubt we'll have any trouble with this one. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Edit history looks good, see no reason not to--Dakota ~ ° 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  59. Support --Ixfd64 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support: RENTAFOR LET? 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. The run of wonderful users continues.Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven4x4x (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 February 2006
  62. Support! Sango123 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. PJM 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support: I am sure that I am not the "last". --Bhadani 07:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support: I'm sure he'll do a great job. I've enjoyed his open minded attitude particularly on AfD. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. Butter Support Sceptre (Talk) 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support, looks like very good admin material. Kusma (討論) 15:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Not that another support vote matters. I've seen some pretty good edits from ESkog on a number of articles. Jim62sch 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. Strong Support - I'm not sure if any more votes help at this stage, LOL -- Tawker 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support --Ugur Basak 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support - random meetings seem to have left a positive vibe.Blnguyen 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support per nominator. --Ghirla | talk 12:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support per above. I seem to have been unlucky in not meeting the user before. Hiding talk 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Why not? -- Banez 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  76. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Balanced, polite, unlikely to abuse, good person to get the mop all sudsy. -- Avi 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support seen him around, very good user.--Alhutch 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support - Excellent user from what I've seen! -SCEhardT 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support DaGizzaChat © 09:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Tempted to put fake votes on oppose and neutral columns because they look lonely. Karmafist 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support Mjal 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support VegaDark 03:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship. gidonb 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support Of course KnowledgeOfSelf 02:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support without hesitation. Hansnesse 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support, I just hope not to see his level of activity level off. --Cyde Weys 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  88. Strong Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support I've seen this user around. A solid editor, should be a good admin. FloNight talk 17:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  91. Pileon Support Seen this user around, liked what I have seen. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Off! 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually challenge votes, as I think of it as assuming bad faith, but would you mind explaining your reasoning which led you to the decision to oppose? --Latinus 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See ESkog's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • First RfA

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 would probably continue working with RC patrol and AFD for the most part, using the tools to rollback (and block when appropriate) and close deletion debates. I'd also participate on the Admin Noticeboard and evaluate requests for protection and claims of 3RR violations. I have looked a little bit at image copyrights but I would want to learn more before I got in and did anything that couldn't be undone. Rest assured that I won't "push a button" until I'm very sure about what it does.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. On an article level, I haven't really done a whole lot from scratch - Allen Fieldhouse, Mark Mangino, and Memorial Stadium, Lawrence are mostly my own work. I'm more proud of my work behind the scenes, both on recent changes patrol and in informal mediations. I have worked with disputes at Quixtar and Naked short selling (the latter is still in progress), and also tried to help Maoririder/Jingofetts/MaoJin who had a great deal of trouble adjusting to Wikipedia.
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 suppose there have been some minor content disputes at Mark Mangino, but that was quickly resolved on the article's talk page. Quixtar and Naked short selling, as noted above, are conflicts where I tried to step in and informally mediate disputes between other users, but I think I did an okay job of remaining neutral in both cases.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would probably point that user to Deletion review, which is designed for careful review of controversial decisions such as this. If I were considering more serious action such as undeleting the article myself, I would seek the advice of other admins on either the Noticeboard or IRC before taking that action - but I think DRV would normally serve this situation the best.
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. My usual practice is to revert unexplained blankings of whole paragraphs, and either warn the user in question or ask for clarification on their talk page. If it is not clearly in bad faith, I would (and, in fact, I have) point them to the article's talk page and possibly help them open up a discussion of their concerns with the article.
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would answer on their talk page that, in my judgment, their creation violated criterion A.3, and so I deleted the page. I would also include a brief description of why this is an important criterion for speedy deletion - an article with no actual content is not useful to our readers, and simply including an external link can be viewed as spamming. If they showed some interest in contributing (and not just railing against all things Wiki at that point), I would try to help them use the Sandbox or create a temporary space in their userspace where they could polish their article/stub/whatever a little before posting it in the land of articles.
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.