Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eleassar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Eleassar

Final (42/0/0); Ended 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleassar (talk · contribs) - I have been Wikipedian since January 2005; first editing as Eleassar777 (talk · contribs). I stumbed upon this web site through Answers.com and liked the idea from the beginning. All the time, I have predominantly been editing articles about medicine and other science topics. I have also been writing, checking, updating and correcting articles about my country. Now I am mainly active in the Slovenian Wikipedia (more than 31800 edits [1]) but come here frequently too (altogether more than 7000 edits [2], [3]). As I have recently started editing the English Wikipedia more extensively again I would like to ask for the status to improve the interface in Slovenian language and to be able to add interwikis to protected templates without having to use the editprotected tag all the time. I would also like very much to help with possibly unfree and other problematic images (I am quite actively uploading images to Commons and have the status of administrator there) and with templates as I have some experience in programming them. --Eleassar my talk 08:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As stated above, I would like to help with possibly unfree images, improve the interface in Slovenian, and help with template editing (adding interwikis, fulfilling other editprotected requests and general technical help).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have made many small and larger improvements to the articles about medicine, biology, Slovenia, astronomy, and other topics (of the more extensive e.g. Antibody, Gastric acid, History of neurology). Unfortunately, I did not realize at that time how important it was to add references. As this has been stressed so much recently (in the Signpost and elsewhere) I am now much more conscientous here and am planning to add them to the articles cited above too.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In general, I try to stay as calm and polite as possible and find arguments and reliable sources to support my opinion. By finding the relevant sources I have been (with a lot of help from Dystopos; I did not understand the process of mediation at that time) able to sort out the trouble two editors caused the community by constantly edit warring over whether it is better to use Slovenian or Slovene. This question first arose in February 2004 but was finally solved only in August 2005. Edit wars at my watchlist really annoy me.
4. Could you give an example of when an {{editprotected}} request should be declined? Could you give an example of when a request should be left open for a while? --ais523 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I would decline it if there were opposing views on what should be done (e.g. [4]). The request should be left open for a while when the change is potentially useful, but is not entirely clear to me and affects a lot of pages (e.g. [5]). Some cases (e.g. adding interwikis) are simple and unproblematic. Elsewhere consensus should be formed first and in any case I must understand what the change means actually.
5. As you seem to be more active on the Slovenian Wikipedia, is there any reason you are not an admin there? Rigadoun (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A: Actually, I was an admin there from June 2005 till June 2006. I decided to give it up as I did not have enough time to use it much and was discontent with the way things were done there: promoting users to admin and bureaucrat status without asking the community at all, constant reverting of good faith edits with the revert button, protecting pages by admins even if they themselves were involved in edit warring, constant quarrels and insults. We tried hardly to resolve the problems, but to no avail. The atmosphere was so awful.. Many users (including me) left the project at least temporarily at that time. Fortunately, the situation has improved tremendously in the last year so I'm thinking of reapplying in the near future.

Optional question by AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: There are plenty of good and even brilliant articles that I like to read from time to time, but if I have to choose the three that capture my imagination the most, I would choose the Shroud of Turin, Contact (novel) and The Matrix. They present a search for objectively verifiable evidence of the kind that a skeptical scientist would want to find to answer the deepest questions of our existence and our connection with ourselves and the world we live in. I would also like to say thank you to all contributors of the Signpost. The stories are really enlightening and help me keep in touch with the community and the development of the project.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eleassar before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Definite support! I though Eleassar was already an admin! - Ta bu shi da yu
    You mean he isn't?!?!? Stwalkerster talk 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - wel the contributions look ok and the user is also very experienced :)..--Cometstyles 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Looks good, contributions all over the place, civil, and trust is evidenced by adminship on another project as well.Pedro |  Chat  12:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - sure, a little bit more activity might be desired, but overall you seem to have been here a long time and seem to be experienced. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 12:51, 18 June 2007 UTC)
  5. Support as a fellow relative-outsider. A decent human being and a great help on templates, it would seem. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. ZA; Good user, no problems and clearly trustworthy. - Zeibura(talk) 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Good user, who wants adminship for the 'right' reasons. Multilingual admins who can coordinate work across multiple projects are always an asset. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support He looks good. He knows what he is doing. I would like to see a healthier edit count, more than 3500+, but other than that, he should be an admin! Politics rule 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    That makes no sense. Eleassar has made over 38,000 edits, with 7000 in English, which beats even your ludicrously inflated minimum of 3500 hands down. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    On the talk page it says that Eleassar has made 3500 edits, so that is where Politics rule makes his statement from. I am confused about the 7000 edits claim, however. Captain panda 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    Check the links there in the nomination. Eleassar did not undergo a username change from Eleassar777 to Eleassar so the contributions are still independant. Around 5k edits for Eleassar777, then another 3.5k from Eleassar. There's the source of number confusion. Keegantalk 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, looks good. Tim{speak} 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - He looks good to me. By the way Rspeer, there is no need to jump on Politics rule. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)
  11. Support, candidate certainly would make a great administrator. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support This user seems like the sort that will make a good admin. Captain panda 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks pretty good. -(lemonflash)talk 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Experienced candidate and would put the mop to good use. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support- Excellent contributor. Eddie 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - good luck. The Rambling Man 06:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support agree with all above. Stwalkerster talk 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support no problems. Definitely qualified. —Anas talk? 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support --MONGO 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support All is well here. Acalamari 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support --Per above.Wikidudeman (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - from what I've seen, user will make a fine admin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Looks like a excellent contributor. — Wenli 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per above Peacent 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools. PGWG 13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Appears qualified. Solid editing experience. Majoreditor 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. support JoshuaZ 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. This Candidate gets my vote as I see no reason to oppose. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. They have had plenty of experience both here and in the Slovenian Wikipedia. Is willing to go with the flow and change with the wiki. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Obviously qualified, very mature and knowledgable. Warrush 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support under either name this editor has the experience to be a good admin.--VS talk 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support An instance where a specialist should be entrusted with the special tools. LessHeard vanU 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support -- obviously excellent candidate. --A. B. (talk)
  38. No-cliche Support - Indeed a great candidate. --tennisman 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Terence 04:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support I will gladly support here. Best of luck! Jmlk17 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support He's hard working, broadly experienced and he is trusted elsewhere without problem. 65.13.115.43 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please register or log-in to comment on this RfA. If you don't wish to register or login, please feel free to move your comment to the Discussion section above and delete this comment. Thanks. Nick 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Great candidate, will do good work, I would like to see a bit wider of an area of work but in general a good user. This is almost a Support pile on. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Ja, prosim We need more administrators from Slovenia! :-) Now seriously, I would've preferred a little bit more activity, but this is obviously an experienced, trustworthy editor.--Húsönd 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.