Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emperor

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] Emperor

Final (34/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Emperor (talk · contribs) - I had a "conversation" with him a few times in which he was very helpful. After reviewing his edit summary over a 3 day period (looking at it here and there) plus reviewing a lot of his past conversations. I think he would make a great administrator. businessman332211 05:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom from Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs):Emperor has proven himself to be one of the most active, level-headed, and reasonable editors working with the WikiProject Comics. That is an often contentious area, and he has uniformly proven to be polite, calm, reasonable, and well-informed. I cannot imagine that his becoming an administrator would ever be anything but a benefit to wikipedia. John Carter 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Running for admin has been raised before and I have turned it down on the grounds of time and lack of admin-like work.[1] Although tempted to decline again I feel I should let this run as:

  • I have been a lot more active on that front and, although I have less time, I am not going to be stopping editing Wikipedia and as my work will be focusing on improving and fixing existing entries (as opposed to starting entries from scratch - as I have been working for a few years on "filling the gaps"), admin abilities will clearly be useful for this next phase in my Wikipedia editorship. So now seems the right time for seeing how this goes.
  • A number of projects I'm involved with could do with another admin to help with the housekeeping


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As well as keeping doing what I'm doing at the moment (PRODs, AfDs, reverting vandalism) the main area for specific use of admin tools are in fixing moves that are currently blocked and other minor housekeeping issues. I often drop other editors (like Hiding) a note and with the admin tools I can help other users in a similar manner (and hopefully as patiently as Hiding). Outside of that I am doing more work on getting articles to GA (and beyond) - I have been working in less well-travelled corners and it is only recently that the articles have reached a point they can be driven on to the next level. The main new areas would be working on making sure persistent vandals get blocked once they have carried right on despite various final warnings.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've done a lot of edits so it is tricky to pick a representative sample so this may tend towards the more recent:
  • Helping get the CSI Project up and running, including making the project banner graphic and producing and working on templates to make the job easier. Although I wasn't on point I have contributed (in a relatively minor way) to helping get the project its first two GAs (and hopefully FAs if things work out, the latter is nominated and I'm seeing how that goes before nominating the former): Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle.
  • I am happy with the comic database templates I made {{comicbookdb}} and {{gcdb}} which allow quick and easy addition of comics-related databases which is essential for improving the entries but the GCDB, in particular, has a complicated query string and the template is a big help with a very useful resource.
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: I'm unsure I have been stressed over other users although vandals can be frustrating in their tenacity but usually that just results in the rest of the community getting involved and so you can spread the load and if reverting vandalism gets painful someone else will usually pick up the baton.
Conflicts over editing have, obviously, occurred, but keeping calm, talking through the issue and trying to get extra input from third parties usually helps resolving things. Two examples of different types of conflicts include:
  • User:SanchiTachi, especially over Warhammer 40,000 comics, arising from big WP:OWN issues which lead them into conflict with myself and other users. I tried explaining policy and getting consensus (as well as trying to keep the debate and the user's edit conflicts with other editors manageable) but it did end up with the user being banned (although by that time it was out of hands on turned over to various admins).
  • User:Sesshomaru, especially over WP:NAMB, this has been tricky as it is a disagreement over the exact word/spirit of the guideline and the nature of guidelines, so, as with such esoteric debates, no one is right or wrong. I think discussion, trying to bring other opinions in and achieve some kind of working consensus (or we have largely agreed on the most recent relevant edits - although we probably still disagree on the application of NAMB).
So in the future I will stick to outlining/discussing policy and getting further input from relevant projects or connected users to try and reach a consensus. I know I may not be being bold enough (outside of vandalism/edit conflicts), this isn't from lack of confidence but I tend to be against rapidly deleting entries and would like to give people a chance to fix things - as can be seen from my recent comics-related PRODs (largely arising from the clean-up of Comic book titles) [2] the slow and steady approach still gets the results. (Emperor 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
4. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A: The policy is WP:BLOCK#Unblocking - if I disagreed I'd do what I do in most circumstances that aren't clear cut - take it over with the relevant parties and then seek consensus, which is what the unblocking guidelines say. So I'd approach it in two stages:
  • Talk to the person who administered the block. I've done quite a bit of anti-vandal work as well tracking down sock puppets and disruptive editors and this kind of thing is usually done after a lot of input from a number of editors (issuing warnings, discussing the issue, etc.) but it may not be obvious where this took place, especially if the trail is spread across a number of pages. In most cases disagreeing with something like this is down to a lack of information. Resolve that and most of the issues fade away.
  • If something seems untoward or there are other issues I'd either seek input from other admins or take it straight to the admin noticeboard. Obviously, there are rare times something can go wrong but usually there is no need to unblock a user without consultation - and even if something has gone wrong in the process it is probably almost always best to quickly double check with someone just to be sure (after all there are enough people around that a query on a possible error can be answered pretty swiftly). (Emperor 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
5. Wikipedia Review has a user with the same ID. Is that you? (it's a common word, so I'm curious) ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't me - "Emperor" isn't that common a user name but there do seem to be a few of us out there (and it looks like they aren't passing themselves off as me. Seems to be "just one of those odd things" but certainly one that could be a cause for concern and worth clarifying). In fact I'd never heard of Wikipedia Review and had quite a confusing time searching around Wikipedia looking for it. To clarify I am a member of a number of forums but they are usually related to my interests: paranormal, web design, comics, Steampunk, etc. rather than anything related to Wikipedia. (Emperor 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Emperor before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Glad to be the first to support : ) - jc37 16:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. actually im the first, see page's history ;) btw, support †Bloodpack† 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support without any reservation. John Carter 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. oppose this user has plenty of mainspace and project space edits. User is ready to be a sysop. NHRHS2010 talk 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Rudget 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. I see no reason not to support. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Try to do some more AIV work though. — Jack (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Aye, despite the fact that I have tried to get this user to run many times and am bitter I wasn't even asked to co-nom. Other than that major character flaw, user will use toolbox responsibly. Hiding Talk 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't "asked" to either. I just got here before the page was transcluded. :) John Carter 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. I was very pleased to discover that this individual is being considered for adminship. I have been impressed with Emperor's objectivity, quality contributions, peacemaking efforts, and conscientious work. Give this emperor some royal authority. Doczilla 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support 18,000 reasons to support. Talk page suggests level-headed editor who won't run amok. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. On the ball, fair, and unflappable. --GentlemanGhost 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support despite the major character flaw uncovered by Hiding. — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Ready. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support No concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Phgao 11:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Great editor. Will be a great admin. - Superlex 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. This is a no brainer.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I'm just following the evidence. -Yamanbaiia 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Neil ☎ 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Per SPJ. Twenty Years 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support--MONGO 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Good edits, seems like he will be a candidate for the mop, able to do repetitive tasks and is civil.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support John254 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Give 'em the mop, and let 'em get to the housecleaning work! Jmlk17 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. I've seen this editor mainly in the Comics project, where he is hardworking, patient, civil, and considerate of people's opinions while trying to maintain our policies and guidelines. That's just what I look for in an admin, so... Fram 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - seems like a fine editor to me! Lradrama 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks ok to me --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support -- appears to be a useful editor. No red flags. Bearian 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support — Save_Us_229 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. No problems here. Acalamari 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Top notch editor. - Peregrine Fisher 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - I wholeheartedly support this candidate! Duke o Puke 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support The emperor shall command his armies and navy to conquer the kingdom of Vandals. Marlith T/C 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose ~Jeeny (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reason behind this oppose, so the user can be notified of the issues which are of concern to you? Many thanks, Lradrama 10:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to understand on what grounds you object. Please remember this is a debate, not a simple poll. Hiding Talk 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a debate? It's only a debate when one opposes on this listing, it seems. Out of the 25 supports, there are maybe 3 that helps -- in meaningful way -- sway me. I was going to explain my oppose, but I'm still trying to chip away at it so it is not an essay. I'll just post part of it. I'm only one vote anyway. I have nothing against him personally at all. I think he's a fine editor for his genre. Good editors don't neseccarily make good admins. I have a problem with his name, not as an editor, but as an admin. I have problem with his answers. I have a problem that he has had "many other names". I have a problem with his COI. And his rationale for it. That's all for now. I hold no ill will. I just hope this doesn't come back to bite me. ~Jeeny (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of perhaps persuading others, it would be useful if you could indicate which specific answers you oppose and why. If your arguments were effective, you might even be able to persuade others as well. And, honestly, a simple recitation of "I don't like (fill in the blank)" is really unlikely to given anyone else reason to consider your stated opinions. John Carter 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a debate, yes. Take your point on the aye I trust this user declarations above, but it's perhaps better that we thrash out reasons not to trust than the reasons to trust, unless they become an issue. I personally haven't been aware of a conflict of interest based on my interaction with the user, and I'd note it is declared so can be monitored and arbitrated upon if such a situation ever occurred. As to the "many other names" comment, I'm not sure on what grounds you are using that as a basis to oppose. I don't take the comment on the user page to mean the user has edited Wikipedia under many names, the only reason I can see for using it as a basis to oppose. As to the user name, I can see how it might be problematic, but I don't think we choose our user name considering how it will look as an admin when we first log-in, do we. With the benefit of hindsight I would never have signed up under my real name, but them's the breaks. As to whether good editors become good admins, I think you can't deny on those grounds, otherwise no-one would ever get promoted. The only way to find out is to try. And I'm not sure I understand why you feel this would come back and bite you. Hiding Talk 10:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
.... Confusing. --businessman332211 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.