Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eagle 101

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] Eagle 101

Final (63/3/1) Ended 09:16, 2006-08-26 (UTC)

Eagle 101 (talk · contribs) – (co-nom Martinp23, AmiDaniel, SynergeticMaggot, and Lar)

Martinp23 - A great user who fully deserves the extra buttons and responsibility and who would certainly make great use of them. An avid Vandalfighter (VP moderator) and fanatic Wikipedia improver, Eagle has been with us since December 2005, amassing nearly 9 months of editing and 8214 edits, which indicates to me trhat he is extremely experienced. Eagle has authored WikiVoter, which will simplfy the process of voting on, and closing AfD's (and other votes discussions (like XfD and maybe RfA)). As such, he knows the processes involved in article deletion inside out, and his helpful personality guarantees that he'll always pass on his knowledge to those who need it. Eagle has co-headed a couple of wikipedia projects - Wikipedia:WikiProject_AfD_closing which aims to prevent (uninformed) repeat AfD's and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_removal, which aims to remove redundant stub tags from articles which are no longer stubs. Eagle is always quick to help, both on IRC and on wikipedia itself, giving many users lots of help starting out with VP, helping users with other problems, however small, and welcoming users (both anons and registered). All of the above features make Eagle a conscientious, kind, helpful wikipedian who will not hesitate to fight vandalism and do whatever he can to improve Wikipedia. Martinp23 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar - I am nominating Eagle101 first and foremost because he's a toolsmith. We need more admins that are good with creating tools to help us all do our jobs better. I have encountered him many times and he is always courteous, thoughtful and helpful. He rarely gets in conflicts but when he does, has shown coolheadedness and thoughtful responses. He's also a Wikipedia:wikignome with lots of experience cleaning things up and making things flow better. If you look at his contribs you'll see what I saw... someone with a great record who is ready for the mop. It gives me great pleasure to co-nominate this fine candidate++Lar: t/c 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SynergeticMaggot. I cant even begin to count the times Eagle_101 has helped me, newbies, and seasoned editors through IRC (leading to WP:HD and the helpme bot). His skills in technical matters have confirmed a very strong belief that he would never abuse the tools. SynergeticMaggot 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AmiDaniel - Wow, talk about stacking on the co-noms =D. Eagle and I go back a long, long way, and it is with great honor that I get to be his fourth co-nominator. Frankly, I'm not sure there's much I need to say about Eagle_101 -- if you've had any interaction with him, you must clearly know that he'd make an excellent, excellent administrator, and if you haven't had any interaction with him, then what are you doing voting on his RfA? He's one of the hardest-working Wikipedians I've ever encountered, eagerly taking on the most tedious tasks, such as organizing and archiving VP's bug, discussion, suggestions, and abuse pages and--well, now that I think about it--pretty much completely managing the entire VP project. I believe he's responded to and dealt with more bugs and problems users have had with the app than even I have, and I'm persistently amazed by both his ability and patience to deal with new and confused Wikipedians. He practically lives in #wikipedia-bootcamp, a channel that's always been quite frightening to me, dealing with some of the most difficult individuals Wikipedia has to offer--both those who have no clue what they're doing and those enraged that their artcles have been deleted or that they've been blocked, etc.--and consistently he responds to their concerns in a civil, practical, and professional manner, pointing them to relevant policies and forums. And yet while he's excellent at providing help, he's also not afraid to ask for help when he needs it or is unsure of something, a quality which many, such as myself, do not possess.

Despite all the time that Eagle has invested in my various projects and in helping new users with their problems, he also invests a great deal of time into a plethora of other projects, many of which are his own. He recently began developing WikiVoter, an application that I'm beta-testing, and I have to say that, although it's an app I likely won't use much, it's very well-written, even in its early development stage, and quite useful. This program, I believe, demonstrates that he possesses tremendous technical skill, understanding of how Wikipedia works (both from a technical and political point of view), patience, and diligence, all of which are highly important qualities in an administrator. He's also recently begun a quite ambitious stub-sorting project, seeking the help of many experienced users and developing a variety of scripts to aid him in this task. As his project progressed, he continually displayed all of the traits I've previously mentioned, as well as his ability to lead and organize.

Yes, as I said, anyone who knows Eagle knows that he would make an excellent administrator. In all situations and circumstances, he has demonstrated his civility, helpfulness, diligence, intelligence, professionality, sense, and, before all else, his ability to be one of Wikipedia's best administrators, and I have no doubt that with all his shiny new buttons, he will do nothing but continue to impress me. Not only does Eagle_101 deserve the tools, but Wikipedia will be a much, much better place with his name on Special:Listusers/sysop. </rant> AmiDaniel (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nominations. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:01, 19 August 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: To start, I am always willing to help with backlogs, though recently I have been using my time for other things to benifit wikipedia. If I should be chosen to be an admin, I would like to assist with the following tasks:
  • WP:AIV though not as much of a backlog as it used to be, I am willing to keep an extra set of eyes on this.
  • WP:AfD and in the far future WP:xfD. I plan on expanding WikiVoter to cover all of the voting proccedures on wikipedia, and hopefully to semi-automate admin tasks. I already have a 'keep' autocloser in the works which will allow automatic closing (in one click plus the closer's reason) of an AfD. This includes putting the {{AfD top}} and {{AfD bottom}} on the AfD page its self in correct format, removing the AfD notice on the article page, and putting the {{afdoldfull}} tag on the talk page (with all the parameters filled in).
  • I am also willing to help close AfD's and other xfD's. When I start I will only delete those that are clear deletions. After a few with out any problems I will start to work on those that are not so clear cut.
  • I also willing to deal with the WP:CSD backlog.
  • I also will keep an eye on WP:DRV.
  • Another backlog that can use some help is Category:All images with no fair use rationale. Checking the status of these images and taking action on them is something I am willing to devote some time to.
And of course I am always willing to help new users.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
My contributions include Stubsorting, Vandalfighting, sitting on #wikipedia-bootcamp. I have been a moderator for VandalProof for several months now. I have created several new programs to help with things on Wikipedia. I have done some cleanup duty. One of them is a backup helpmebot that does not depend on the toolserver and can be run by anyone in the channel, as long as they have .NET 2.0. This means that the channel is able to be "on" even when the normal channel bots are down. The channel bots seem to go down one to three times a month. Right now while I am typing this one of the two bots is down (at 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)). The bot went down when Wikipedia had problems with the upstream ISP. Another is Simple AfD Close Finder which looks for improperly closed keeps. By improperly closed I mean keeps that don't have the {{afdoldfull}} tag on them. The person running it simply saves the output and copy-pastes to a Wikipedia:WikiProject_AfD_closing subpage.
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 really have not been under much stress when contributing to wikipedia. I have never been blocked or warned during my time on Wikipedia. I always assume good faith and WP:AAGF. The one major conflict I have been in was over Gnome (Bot). This bot was approved to work on the cleanup backlog. Its job was to look for certian features of articles and depending on what was wrong with the article, add more specific tags and remove the cleanup tag. Somewhere between where the bot was approved for a trial run, and the first trial by the bot, consensous changed, and the cleanup tags were not to be removed. The bot ended up blocked after doing approxamently 50-60 edits. After this, I requested unblock, with the promise that I would not run that task agian. Really that was all there was to that. Since then I have focused my work on programs like WikiVoter and a backup helpmebot for #wikipedia-bootcamp.

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Eagle 101 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 198 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 20, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 5, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 34.87 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 89 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 3 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.12% (6)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 10.32% (516)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 3 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 98.06%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 4.24% (212 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 1.62% (81 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.58% (29 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 0.12% (3 support vote(s)) || (3 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.2% (10 edit(s)) (6 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.26% (13 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 3.02% (151 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1871 | Average edits per page: 2.67 | Edits on top: 15.18%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 24.34% (1217 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 69.58% (3479 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 5.24% (262 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 0.52% (26 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 13.88% (694) | Article talk: 1.16% (58)
User: 15.66% (783) | User talk: 49.76% (2488)
Wikipedia: 12.86% (643) | Wikipedia talk: 3.22% (161)
Image: 0.06% (3)
Template: 3.16% (158)
Category: 0.12% (6)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (4)

See Eagle_101's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)

  • Edit count using Flcelloguy's tool (as of 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)): (Martinp23)
Statistics for: Eagle_101
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 8214 -
Main: 3398
Talk: 185
User: 841
User talk: 2624
Wikipedia: 704
Wikipedia talk: 195
Image: 3
Image talk: 1
Template: 174
Template talk: 1
Category: 8
Category talk: 78
Portal: 2

Total edits: 8214
w/ edit summary: 8046 (97.95%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 7875 (95.87%*)
Minor edits: 6424 (78.2%*)
First known edit: 01-Dec-2005

Support

  1. Support. Proud to be the first to support, per co noms. SynergeticMaggot 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. As fourth co-nominator, though I beat two of the others =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support All my experiences with the candidate have been positive; he's always willing to help out, he does great work with vandal reverting, and is creating some cool tools. I believe Wikipedia would be better off in giving him the extra buttons as he'll certainly put them to good use. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per all 4 noms and Hoopydink! A brilliant contributor :) --james(talk) 09:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A fantastic contributor who has helped tremendously with VandalProof and has also created some other really handy tools - no question he is deserving and zero chance of abuse, A++ - GIen 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks like another good admin candidate. How many co-noms does it take to make an admin?  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support A helpful contributor to this project. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Not much left to say, the oh-so-many nominators have covered everything. Eagle has been an axcellent contributor thusfar, I have no doubts that this will continue. Rje 10:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support oh what to say now, per all above. --Ageo020 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support! I have nothing but good experiences with you, from your work helping newcomers, to your efforts at WikiProject Stub removal, to your valuable time as a VandalProof moderator. You've done a lot, you're dedicated, and I have no reason to believe you'd abuse the extra buttons. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 11:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. VP cabal support Computerjoe's talk 12:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per above. ForestH2 t/c 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong (Cabal?) Support I've been consistently impressed with the tools Eagle is developing, and the speed at which he responds to queries. Eagle has identified some high-need areas of Wikipedia, and is working to solve them using his great programming skills. I almost conomed, btw. alphaChimp laudare 14:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per trusted nominators. Xoloz 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Although I've only known Eagle 101 for a short period of time, he's helped me a lot with many so many things around Wikipedia, answered numerous questions, and is very welcoming and kind to new users. Would make a brilliant administrator. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yup. G.He 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support I think he would make a great administrator. He helped me with my VandalProof problem, so, this is how I will say thanks :) . EEPROM Eagle 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support as co-nom - one more co-nom left to vote ;) Martinp23 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support to Eagle from the Books WP. Good work so far. feydey 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support: Thanks for the WikiVoter tool! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per nominators --CFIF ☎ 21:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support He deserves to be an admin. Daniel's page ☎ 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per Daniel. —Khoikhoi 00:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong support per all of the above. --Nishkid64 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support, Nothing left to be said that hasn't been covered. Teke 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. I was told this wasn't going live for a bit so I am late to the party but obviously I support, as a co nom... ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Super I wish I had known about this earlier support. GeorgeMoney (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support without a doubt. Stubbleboy 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Super Super Support He has been a great asset to wikipedia i Thought he was an admin allready or i would have nominated him my self I feel that Eagle will provide a great new asset with the mop for both new users, IP's, Policy, Veterian users, and every other part of wikipedia. Betacommand 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support, I thougt he was an admin. Good and friendly user. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, can think of no reason to oppose. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 07:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support: A great asset to Wikipedia. Helpful and patient, he'll do great work with the mop. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Wikipedia certainly can use an admin who is talented with tool development and vandal fighting.-- danntm T C 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support -- per nom, and per nom, and per nom, and per nom --T-rex 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per noms and AbsolutDan and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - Looks fine. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - and can you start working on WikiMediator to clear up the backlog at MedCab? Thanks. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, per nom, co-noms and other supporters.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support seems to me that he would be an excellent admin. Dionyseus 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support He did a lot! TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. #wikipedia-drillmaster support The noms have summed it up quite nicely. I have seen nothing negative from Eagle in the whole time I have known him. We need more backend savvy admins. He has process down and has a bunch of quality communication skills as evidenced by his work on #wikipedia-bootcamp and the fact that 50% of his edits are to the User talk namespace. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Plus one more support cause there is enough for this fine contributor. --WillMak050389 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support - do I even have to state why..... the reason is visible from space! -- Tawker 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Merovingian - Talk 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Toasters are currently on backorder, will you accept a blender? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support per all those above. —Jared Hunt August 22, 2006, 11:45 (UTC)
  51. Support per noms and all above. Good user, can use tools effectively, no worries. Any concerns about Wikivoter can be discussed elsewhere and do not reflect on qualifications for admin'ship. Newyorkbrad 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Sometimes we are rightfully scared of the word "vote," but I didn't have an issue with the name and the promotion of this, and he changed the name due to concerns. No issues, go for it. Yanksox 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support per all of the above Weird Bird 16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support —Xyrael / 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per nom Anger22 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Prodego talk 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Clearly well fitted.--Runcorn 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Vandalfighters are welcome here. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  59. Proud Support Good vandal fighter and great with programs. Needs a mop however. Æon Insane Ward 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support - good contributor. Michael 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  61. Why didn't I support yet? Misza13 19:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2006
  63. Support ....... (that's my reason and I'm sticking to it) plus all of the reasons above etc. etc.)Crazynas t 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support He's a nice guy and knows what he's doing on Wikipedia, what more do you need? TehKewl1 09:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose. Creation of Wikivoter is wrong. WikiVoter is an extremely bad idea which contributes to the idea that AfD is a vote, and discourages valid participation in discussion. Anyone who creates such a tool should not be an admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Have you tried WikiVoter? Dionyseus 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Zoe, see discussion page for WikiVoter discussion. --WillMak050389 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose while trust the nominators, I see almost nothing in article writing, this is an encyclopedia first. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Jaranda. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral yet again! User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter makes me uneasy. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    What's wrong with Wikivoter? Have you tried it? alphaChimp laudare 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    I suppose it should be renamed to WikiDiscusser. —Centrx→talk • 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please see talk page for the rest of the conversation. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    And please everyone note that the software has been renamed WikiDiscussion Manager. --kingboyk 14:50, 22 August 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.