Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott

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] EurekaLott

final (27/3/7) ending 03:22 22 January 2006 (UTC)

EurekaLott (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure that I nominate EurekaLott for adminship. I first came across Eureka quite a while ago on Babylon 5 and other sci-fi pages. Perusing her edits, one immidiately sees she is very active in those areas, as well as in articles pertaining to her home state of Ohio, where she helped guide Cleveland to featured status this past October. She's a true asset to The Project, a genuine vandal fighter, and it is clear that she watches many articles to ensure a neautral, quality, and copyvio free encyclopedia. Editcountitis sufferers will note that she has more than 4000 edits, with more than 3000 in the article namespace since she registered in August, 2004. While the overall spread may not be as diverse as others, her anti-vandal work is unquestionable and warrants a mop and bucket - and The Project does need more admins. Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
It's an honor to be nominated. I accept. - EurekaLott 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Shazaam! Support as nominator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems like a kind and knowledgable editor. —BorgHunter alt (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 06:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good long term editor. -- DS1953 talk 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Terence Ong 12:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. King of All the Franks 12:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Saw her a few times while editing and all I've seen was a good, matured attitude to editing Wikipedia. - Darwinek 12:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support edits a little low in talk and project areas, but everything else nullifies that.--MONGO 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I also recommend more participation in project areas and engaging in discussion at talk pages, but as Mongo said, great experience in other areas make it in excess for that. - Phædriel ♥ tell me 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support good editor --rogerd 20:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Fine record, solid user. Xoloz 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Good editor, will make a good admin. -Colin Kimbrell 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Izehar 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. A capable user. Sarge Baldy 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, looks safe enough to me. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, like her answers to my questions. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, good editor. Silensor 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:38Z
  22. Support — Moe ε 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support.Edit history looks good.--Dakota ~ ε 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support He's a solid, unbiased editor who would use the admin tools well. Avogadro 19:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. SupportI don't really know you, but there's no way I could ever support your opponent--Piedras grandes 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    This vote is just as patently unnacceptable as opposing someone to spite their nominator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    From user talk page (Editor is blocked) "I'm not causing spite to anyone, it's a support vote, it's spite-free--Piedras grandes 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)" I merely convey the message. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Give the user the benefit of the doubt. So far the opposition lists insubtantial or no claims. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-18 23:36
  27. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, Lack of complex problem solving skills. --Masssiveego 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing bureaucrat, Massiveego is the new Boothy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    To better clarify, it has been requested that Massiveego qualify his statement. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    What is this, a standardized test? Last I checked, "complex problem-solving skills" are irrelevant to being an admin. —BorgHunter alt (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Masssiveego, would you be kind enough to elaborate? Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    As with Boothy, I'd advise that everyone leave Massiveego be. His trends are now well-known to most, and if he wished to oppose every candidate simply on the ground that "Admins are bad," he would have a rationale, albeit one unlikely to sway anyone else. If he is genuinely committed to opposing everyone, let him stand alone, and the b'crats judge his votes as the b'crats think just. His vote is best met with silence. Xoloz 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sitting idly by while someone illogically opposes valid RFA nominations in a serial fashion is not an option. It is both insulting and disruptive to the RFA process and needs to stop. Hall Monitor 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I have continued this discussion at Hall Monitor's talk page. Xoloz 17:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I cannot support a user whose nominator harasses any user who opposes. freestylefrappe 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is an unfortunate vote. Spiting me by not voting for a qualified candidate is certainly your perogative, but, again, a supposed pattern of "harassment" simply does not exist. This is a very dissapointing turn of events, but you are entitled to your vote, and anyone can judge whether or not this has anything to do with the candidate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see how this has anything to do with EurekaLott. Another person's RfA is not an appropriate place to discuss this. — TheKMantalk 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Is it really fair to blame and punish the nominee for that? —BorgHunter alt (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Voting on RfA's based on the nominator is controversial, and frowned upon by many; however, I again suggest that the matter be left to the b'crat to judge, and the matter be met here with silence. Xoloz 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'd like to see EurekaLott be more engaging with users by leaving a message with anyone who vandalizes instead of (for the most part) just reverting. As EWS23 says below, fighting vandalism is a 3 step process that I feel all (potential) admins should follow every time. Minor edit summary usage is also on the low end of what I like to see. This isn't to say that I think you'd be a bad admin at all and good luck with the vote! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I don't know this user. But, he's linked on my user page because I liked his user page. He should be given some credit for that. gren グレン ? 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yeah that is a nice user page and almost everything about this editor is good, except I think he/she needs more than 67 talk page edits. Also the answers to questions can be a little better. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Concerned about the amount of Talk, User_talk and project page edits. --pgk(talk) 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Indeed. I applaud the extensive amount of contributions to main article space, but the talk page count is somewhat low. Communication is an important citeria of adminship. Fabulous editor, however. -Zero|Talk 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I'd love to support, but I feel that fighting vandalism involves three steps: 1. Revert vandalism, 2. Send the user a test message, 3. If necessary: repeat steps 1 and 2 until a block is warranted. This user has shown no evidence of step #2. Whether this RfA is successful or not, I hope the user will show more effort to use UserTalk pages. Best of luck! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where you got the impression that I don't employ warning templates. If you look at my user talk contributions, you'll find quite a few. Most recently, I did not employ them after removing a batch of spam, because the user in question had already agreed to stop adding links after multiple warnings. I felt that adding another would have been beating a dead horse. - EurekaLott 13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Let's lose the emphasis on templates, eh? The important thing is to give a warning, not to bung in a {{test2}} or whatever. The boilerplate provided by the templates is very good for certain circumstances, but we should not be relying on them to the extent that we consider "template" a synonym of "warning". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, the point is the warning, not the template. I just used the template link because those are the easiest/fastest ways to do warnings. The reason I got the impression that you don't do warnings is that multiple people have said you are very active at reverting vandalism, yet Interiot's edit count only shows 41 user-talk edits. I apologize if I misinterpreted this count- is there a reason this is misleading? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    You're both right, of course, and I have no reason to think the edit count is inaccurate. It just took a while for a deeper understanding of their purpose to get through my skull. They serve as a request to stop destructive editing, but they also lay the groundwork for future action, if necessary. - EurekaLott 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your response. While I'll keep my vote at neutral, I'd like to note that upon close inspection of your edits, you've done a lot more warnings recently than you did in the past. I hope this will continue to be the trend, and if you keep it up, along with your already impressive article space edits, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per anon and EWS23. I would strongly prefer to see more talk space edits, and a very large number of the article edits are cat, rem cat, re cat, rem links. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. as above. branch out. Pschemp | Talk 06:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 89% for major edits and 61% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about EurekaLott's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott for discussion unrelated to this RfA. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User Masssiveego is, to the best of my knowledge, a legitimate editor and as such, he is entitled to a vote and should be counted. Nevertheless, I find it extremely bizarre that, out of 15 RfAs he has taken part of in the last couple of days, he sees fit to oppose all of them but two, Interiot's (no argument about that) and the one of an user with merely 117 edits, especially after stating as reasons either that "(EurekaLott) lack(s) of complex problem solving skills", that (NoSeptember shows) no evidence of helping new users, or active conversation skills, or that "(he has) set very high standards" (at his talk page). Perhaps Masssiveego could enlight us all by explaining exactly how has CrnaGora with his 117 edits demonstrated more problem solving or conversation skills that users with several thousand? I'm sincerely just hoping for an explanation and assuming good faith on his part with no other implications, because I merely find such voting inconsistent with his stated criteria. -- Phædriel ♥ tell me 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this an interesting dilemma, and would like to offer a reasoning as to why this would be a legitimate reason to vote nay. If the nominator has the ability to nominate someone to a level of prestige, the reasoning of that person must come into question as well. A bad nominator could then reflect negatively on the nominee. The blind leading the blind I think the phrase goes. ANyway, I think the nominee should comment and defend the issue. Eluchil 10:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Masssiveego's status as a "legitimate editor" means nothing to me. The fact that he has yet to answer anyone's (polite) queries regarding elaboration on his votes causes me to wonder if he voting on good faith or not. From my experiences with people in similar conflicts, I have come to the realization that people who can't (or won't) explain thier rationale, ussually don't have a good enough reason for doing so. However, its a moot point, as the closing buerucrat in this rfa will clearly know which votes are backed by reason and those that aren't. -ZeroTalk 18:05, 16 January 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.
Having access to a few new tools would make regular janitorial work a bit easier. Instead of tagging articles and leaving the heavy lifting for others, I could contribute more meaningfully. At the moment, I mainly see myself combating vandalism and copyright violations.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I've concentrated much of my efforts on Greater Cleveland-related articles, so I'm happy to have been part of the team that brought the Cleveland, Ohio article to featured status in October. I hope to have similar teamwork experiences in the future.
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?
It's nearly impossible to participate regularly and avoid all controversy. I feel the key is to remain calm and rational when confronted by an aggressive contributor. Discussing disagreements can usually lead to compromises, but if that fails, Wikipedia provides numerous avenues for resolving disputes.
4. What is your view of the use of Userboxes on User pages? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say that they're a harmless way for participants to decorate their user pages, but that their usage has ballooned beyond their original intent and is getting a bit out of control. However, the more I read at TfD, the more they seem like a distraction from more productive contributions and an unnecessary source of controversy. While our admins have been doing an admirable job of deleting attack templates, other issues with backlogs have been unfortunately neglected. I hope the current discussions lead to a new policy that requires less oversight.
5. What is your view of the use of Fair Use images on User pages? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the current policy of restricting fair use images to the article namespace. Fair use rationales are very specific, and outside of exceptional circumstances, they do not extend to user pages.
6. What is your view on edit summaries? Jonathunder 02:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I consider them a courtesy to fellow users who may be viewing recent edits on their watchlist or older edits in an article's history. If an edit is likely to be controversial, it's usually advantageous to offer an explanation on the talk page instead of the edit summary. While I wasn't always careful to use edit summaries in the past, I've attempted to be more diligent recently.
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.