Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elf-friend

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] Elf-friend

final (53/1/0) ending 8:15 16 Febuary, 2006 (UTC)

Elf-friend (talk · contribs) – Elf-friend has been a wikipedian for nearly two years now. In that time he has managed to create something in the range of 200 articles, most of which are not stubs. He does a fair amount of vandal reversion, and loads of NPOV work. A good, helpful, and experienced user who, I believe, will not abuse his admin tools. Elf-friend has nearly 3000 edits (bearing in mind that he uses the preview often). A large proportion of the wikipedia coverage of Southern Africa can be attributed to this fine editor. Banez 16:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept and am gratified for the nomination, thanks :-). Elf-friend 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. We need all around editors, looking at your history I think you'd do a great job. Tawker 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Can't think of a better bloke! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. As nominator. Banez 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good luck. -- WB 08:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. He's a dedicated, accomplished and polite editor, and I think he'll make a fantastic admin. — Impi 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support veteran wikipedian. Wizzy…☎ 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Excellent contrib's. Marskell 08:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. An excellent user. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, we need more friends of elves as admins. JIP | Talk 10:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. utcursch | talk 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - answered my one concern politely and logically Cynical 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, definitely a trusted uesr. Another CSD patroller is always a good thing, but don't forget the CSD credo of "When in doubt, send to AfD". --Deathphoenix 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, good editor, lots of work ikh (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, but please use edit summaries more. Deskana (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - Hahnchen 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. *drew 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support seems to be a nice hardworking user. A little bit low on the main-space edits but very good on the new articles, so I assume his edits should be very good abakharev 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. BD2412 T 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Good all-around editor, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. --Jusjih 06:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Perhaps participation in WP-space is a little low but I can't oppose for that. No major problems. Raven4x4x 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. He deserved it. - Darwinek 10:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support All in 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support only good contact with editor.Gator (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Ugur Basak 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. pschemp | talk 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support – What took so long? – ClockworkSoul 05:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Mjal 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, though I would appreciate more use of edit summaries. Johntex\talk 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Appears to be solid contributor.--MONGO 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - Sango123 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - a friend of the Elves is a friend of mine. Thumbelina 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support and death to editsummarycountitis. Savidan 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. I have to agree - I think this stat is skewed by Elf-friend's preponderance of new articles. When you start and edit a new article, nobody is looking. Wizzy…☎
  42. Support. ENCEPHALON 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. The edit summary percentage is not absurdly low and I've seen him around for a while making good edits. - BanyanTree
  45. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, seems fine. --AySz88^-^ 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, although I would caution user to use edit summaries more it is not a matter I am prone to oppose on. Hiding talk 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Good editor. FloNight talk 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Yup. youngamerican (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support please increase your use of edit summaries, however this issues does not rate an oppose from me. --rogerd 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 09:14Z
  53. Support VegaDark 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: good candidate otherwise, but I do oppose when edit summaries are this low. Jonathunder 17:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 81% for major edits and 16% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Elf-friend's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • A bit more work on those edit summaries for minor edits would be nice. Yeah, writing a summary for each tiny edit may not make sense, but still say 50% of the time would be better than the current 16%. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 9 February 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. Although creating new articles is my favourite activity on Wikipedia, I believe that any good Wikipedian should spend some of his or her time "walking the beat" to combat obvious vandalism and spam, so I will spend some of my time doing that and the rollback function would be particularly handy for that, of course. I also foresee that I will be deleting pages that have been suggested by others as candidates for speedy deletion (after reviewing each case myself, of course) as well as helping to enforce Arbcom rulings.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although I was only one of many who edited the articles, I am very proud of the fact that we recently managed to NPOV a rash of POV articles about controversial South African subjects, such as the Volkstaat. I am also quite proud of my biographical articles about persons across the political spectrum as well as of my articles about the South African military. Lastly, although it was quite a while ago, I was quite proud of my edits (with references) to the "Legal issues and considerations" section of the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning article, as it seems to have stopped in its tracks a nasty little conflict that was brewing.
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 believe that the correct place to handle conflicts about an article is on the article's talk page and not in the article itself. So thankfully I have never been involved in any revert wars or suchlike. On the other hand I do have certain points of view and a few times opposing points of view (especially those that I felt were based on prejudice or discrimination) were stressful to me. But in the end, after having stated one's case and having reached no concensus, the best thing a person can do in the case of such a situation is to walk away from the conflict.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.