Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EliminatorJR

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] EliminatorJR

Final: (58/3/2); ended 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

EliminatorJR (talk · contribs) - I have been editing Wikipedia consistently since February 2007, though I occasionally contributed anonymously before that. I am active both in article and Wikipedia space, creating and improving articles as well as vandal-fighting, new page and recent changes patrolling, and contributing at XfD. I believe that the extra buttons would enable me to work more efficiently and to improve Wikipedia as a whole. EliminatorJR Talk 10:44, 18 July 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: My work would mainly be concentrated in the areas I am familiar with that are regularly backlogged, particularly CAT:CSD and others at CAT:AB, XfD and WP:RFPP, as well as WP:AIV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created a number of articles and improved and expanded many others, as well as saving some badly written but notable articles from deletion, but my favourite work to date is British Rail Class 47, which was a messy article about a very notable subject and has just gained Good Article status after about three month's work on it.
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: Oddly, I haven't got myself into any edit wars at all during my time at Wikipedia; perhaps I have mainly concentrated on editing non-controversial articles. I have however had some slightly strained conversations with other editors at AfD, notably this one where my ability to remain civil was stretched somewhat. However, the various users involved were able to eventually gain some sort of consensus. My IRL occupation involves a large amount of dispute resolution, so I believe I have the abilities to remain calm and uninvolved in such situations.
Optional questions from Húsönd:
4. When considering a protection request at WP:RFPP, what steps would you take in order to determine whether to protect or decline?
A: It depends on the situation. For full-scale edit wars a period of (usually full) protection is appropriate in order to let the involved parties step back from the dispute. In other situations, protection would be used on articles showing a high and sustained rate of vandalism, or when an article is temporarily flooded with IP vandalism. Most other situations, especially content disputes, would not usually require protection.
5. Could you give examples of block requests you would decline and remove from WP:AIV?
A: (1) A new user who is causing problems through inexperience, but (assuming good faith) is not being malicious - a friendly chat is usually the best way here. (2) When a user has not been given a full set of warnings and then continued to vandalise (except in the case of obvious vandal-only accounts) (3) situations that AIV doesn't cover - especially 3RR & edit wars, etc.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - Experienced Wikipedian, lots of edits to Wikipedia space, interaction with other users, healthy amount of edits (4,000 +). Trustworthy. Also, wide variety of article edits, not only removing vandalism/nonsense, but also adding references and categories as well as general edits. Lots of experience with AfD too. Good luck. Lradrama 11:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, contribs look clean. Slight concern over seemingly a lack of usage of article talk pages, but your user talk edit count puts that doubt to bed. Looks like you could use the admin tools so I'm willing to support. – Chacor 11:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Yet another high quality self-nom. Civility looks great, loads of accurate work at WP:AFD, where you have made a mistake you've quickly realised and reverted it which shows honesty and checking, plenty of other user interaction, good writing and excellent vandal fighting abilities. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Daniel 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yep. Rlest 11:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. fair candidate. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support It is time to give this user the extra tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support No problems whatsoever. GDonato (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support this is an excellent candidate right here. Should be an asset. —Anas talk? 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - Good diversity of experience, solid vandal whacker. Hiberniantears 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Funny, I thought you already were an admin. Anyway, answers are satisfactory, contribs look good, solid grasp on policy and the like. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Strange, I thought that you were an admin too. Satisfactory answers, and a good grasp of policy. Sr13 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Knows policy. the_undertow talk 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Per pedro--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. WjBscribe 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sebi [talk] 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Well-rounded experience, clear understanding of policy, and will mop wisely. - KrakatoaKatie 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Sonic Youth is cool, and so is this editor. - Merzbow 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Good editor, fine contribs. Have fun mopping! J-stan Talk 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks good to me. --Chris g 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support a fine self-nomination here. Acalamari 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. AW 04:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Looks good. (aeropagitica) 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. I wish he had gotten into a conflict to see how his IRL skills would help out, but I can't oppose per that :P The only surprise here is the self nom... Giggy UCP 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. A little inexperienced as yet, perhaps, but shows commitment to encyclopedia building, and record at AfD suggests reasonable understanding of policies. Espresso Addict 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, no problem here. Good luck. Carlosguitar 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Weak Support Looks like a good editor, but I am weak support because I believe he has not been here that long, and may not know all things that you need to learn to be an admin. However, he looks like a good editor, and I doubt that he will abuse the tools. Politics rule 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support good user, no problems. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support- per Lradrama. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I've noticed his comments many times at AfD, ANI, and other places and he's always been helpful, knowledgeable, and civil... seems like a great mop candidate. Pinball22 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Everything looks fine, I see no reason to distrust this user with the tools. SalaSkan 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Civil, has thoughtful discussion and understands policy well. Shell babelfish 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - His answers shows he has a grasp on the jobs of a admin. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Weak Support Good editor, but I think a little more experience would help. -Lemonflashtalk 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Seeing him quite a lot of times, I thought he was a administrator all this time. Hirohisat Talk 01:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Haven't seen this editor before, but I like that he seems conscientious and thorough at first glance and has demonstrated a decent grasp of deletion policies et al. Not seeing any other evidence of it than the link he gave, but at least he's giving lip service to building consensus. The only thing that makes me at all shaky about this is that his first edit wasn't until 00:52, 12 December 2006. That, however, doesn't matter nearly enough to warrant witholding the tools given his grasp of policy and his willingness to reach out to new editors while working the non-admin side of CSD-land. MrZaiustalk 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. Best of luck. - Philippe | Talk 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Solid user, focused plans on how to use admin powers. Recurring dreams 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Looks good.--Húsönd 12:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per above Peacent 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent experience in a wide variety of admin tasks and editing. ck lostsword•T•C 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - a good user who is in need of the tools, I've been impressed with JR whenever I've seen him. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Fantastic user, they will make a great admin. Impressive contributions. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I thought he was... Tyrenius 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Only seen good things from this editor. No concerns regarding access to the buttons. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support- Per above. Good editor. Would make good admin. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Yes -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support May the wiki gods smile on on your works. ~ Infrangible 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Believe it or not, I actually thought he already was an admin. As he isn't he should be. --John 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator. Power to those who desire it! New England (C) (H) 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. Good editor who will make good use of the tools. utcursch | talk 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Of course. Good all-round work on Wikipedia, and my experiences discussing with him on chess related topics have been most positive and beneficial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  55. Weak support - good editor, however would suggest that you carefully review articles before hitting the delete button. Addhoc 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. Seems sensible, no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support A good, reasonable candidate, in my experience. --S up? 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  58. Jaranda wat's sup 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. oppose anti-content tendencies evidenced at WP:AN#NN_character_articles and seen by looking through contrib history. We don't need more admins determined to "save" Wikipedia from verifiable stub articles by deleting articles or turning everything into redirects and hiding the content. --W.marsh 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Self nominating could easily mean that the individual wants the extra functions to improve wikipedia and is aware that having them would help them improve wikipedia. I don't see how that necessarily means "power hunger". You're jumping to conclusions and not WP:AGF. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually I consider asking someone to nom you, to improve your supposed chances at RFA, to be much more "power hungry". But it's still not proof. At any rate I appreciate the honesty of a self-nom. But Kurt makes this oppose for all self-noms and doesn't appear interested in reason. --W.marsh 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not that it will make a difference (so congratulations in advance), but I feel EliminatorJR lacks understanding of process. He placed a speedy tag (G12) on an article that was already on AfD, asserting copyright vialotaion for a mere list of football clubs, which I removed. I had to revert him twice, after which he ran off to WP:ANI to get it speedy deleted. While he found a supporting admin there, it does demontstrate his disregard for process. Not befitting a potential admin. --Edokter (Talk) 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I explained at the time, I believed that Wikipedia was better served by the immediate removal of such a possible copyvio, rather than letting it remain for the duration of the AfD, especially when the article was so obviously in violation of WP:NOT that it would have been deleted anyway. Incidentally, placing a speedy tag on an article already on AfD is totally in process - the only point at which I invoked WP:IAR was to replace it. As the deleting admin said, "Policy, especially copyright policy, trumps process every time". ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I am leaning towards support, and would, but I have some slight reservations about your experience. I like what I see, and, from the looks of it, you will be sysopped, but I would prefer a little more time for you personally to gain experience. Jmlk17 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Going neutral because I have had some minor disputes with you that I feel were never resolved (and in fact, I consider the issues themselves unresolved as well), and while I don't oppose your nomination per se, I do think it'd be highly appropriate for you to exercise a high level caution in using admin tools in areas you consider of interest to you. Particularly Chess related ones. Of course, a level of caution is appropriate for all admin actions, but I think you'd be well served to kick it up a notch. FrozenPurpleCube 07:22, 22 July 2007 (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.