Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Evadb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Evadb

Final (17/26/7) ended 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Evadb (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia since early February. Since that time, I have made around 3,000 edits. Of these, more than 2,000 have been to the article space. This is something of which I am particularly proud, since our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. Though I am certainly not perfect, I have tried to remain calm and collected when I disagree with people. Should I be granted adminship, I hope to be able to use the admin tools constructively, mainly in maintenence and vandal control. I believe that I am unlikely to abuse the tools as I have proven with my actions to date. I always try to understand the consensus and not act unilaterally. I look forward to reading the criticisms of my fellow editors and seeing how I can improve, whether or not I am successful in becoming an administrator.--Eva db 09:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my self-nom.--Eva db 09:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. First to Support. Although some users would prefer some more editing time, Eva shows that she knows the policies and would make a fine addition to the community if equipped with the tools. --Tone 09:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - All I've seen are good things from this editor. She always has great input on the heraldry articles that I edit.--Dave Boven 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tentative support. I certainly can't see anything you've done wrong. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, meets my criteria. --Terence Ong 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Meets my criteria. Good editor. DarthVader 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Has enough experience. Molerat 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I loved your answer to Q3. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions, thoughtful edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Per Tone, Boven, and others. No problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Geo.plrd 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Looks alright and appears to have a cautious approach. It looks like this user does as opposed to talk (based on the large number of main space edits). The lower number of Wikipedia name space edits does not concern me; they don't mean the candidate has not read the policies/understands them. Nephron  T|C 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support I don't see much reason to oppose. For those that say that this user shouldn't be admin simply because they have few WP:Space edits, that does not mean that they have not read the policies. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Evadb is a great user, and meets all of my criteria. I have no problems in supporting her. The Halo (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support -- Mostly Rainy 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, meets my standards.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, because a failed RfA can really get you down, and you definetely need some Wikilove now. Don't be discouraged , Eva - you really are an asset and your hard work is much apreciatted. Next time, and with a little more experience under your belt, you'll make it for sure. Best wishes! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 09:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC

Oppose

  1. Not enough project-space edits leads me to question if you might fully understand our policies. Fails a couple of points of my criteria, so unfortunately, no. NSLE (T+C) at 11:22 UTC (2006-06-06)
  2. With regret, does not appear to meet 1FA. I can see that your edits are heading towards this direction though. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not enough project-space edits. ForestH2
  4. Oppose. Doesn't have that much experience, and I'm not convinced he needs the mop. --Rory096 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose per 89 WP:space edits - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose lack of non-main edits. Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, needs more experience. Royboycrashfan 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose You seem to be an fine editor & your contributions are undeniably valuable, but the low amount of Wikipedia space & talk space edits & slightly unsatisfactory answers to questions 1 & 4 show that you do need more experience in the non-encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Low amount of Wikipedia space and talk edits are a concern. Carry on improving the quality of edits in these namespaces and I will support you in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Cleary a dedicated user, but at the moment I do not feel you have the necessary understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to carry out the role and responsibilites. --Wisden17 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Too early sorry --Mahogany 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per above. Sorry. Also, email, which is important for admin communication, is not enabled. G.He 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose; per above and lack of e-mail. Ral315 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above.--Jusjih 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Too little project-space experience suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose User doesn't seem to grasp everything in the administrator's reading list.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose as unfamiliar with admin tools (one should know about them first then get them if required not seek them to learn how to use them) and unanswered questions (even though optional they show a real enthusiasm when answered). Ifnord 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose How silly to nominate oneself for adminship! They should know better than that, but can only contribute with a basic level of Spanish, as possibly nothing at all in any other lanaguge, except of course, American English (their native tounge), Blazon can no more count than the language of music. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Evadb.com.au 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment- this criterion for adminship is absurd. You don't need to speak other languages than English on the English Wikipedia. Last time I checked, American English was the same language as Australian English. Where are your other-language userboxes?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Too little experience in the project namespace. -- from The King of Kings 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak Oppose. Needs more experience, and I wasn't particularly won over by the answer to the question posed by Yanksox. Will more likely support if nominated by another editor a few months of experience down the road. Agent 86 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Opppose per my standards - four months isn't quite long enough for us to be sure. Cynical 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose but only for inexperience in, say, project space. Will definitely consider supporting in the future --Deville (Talk) 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - no response to optional questions, 2 days should have been enough -- Tawker 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose same boat as Tawker, I think this RfA is being ignored. Yanksox 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per Tawker. They are optional questions, sure, but at least acknowledge them... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per NSLE. Naconkantari 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Replaced above vote that got removed by IP vandal.--Andeh 09:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Looks like good future admin material, but not enough experience at this time.--digital_me(t/c) 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Does not have enough WP namespace edits to merit a "Support". Kalani [talk] 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral took my time to evaluate this candidate. She's made a forceful start, and I especially like the fact that she contributes extensively to mainspace. After some more emphasis on project space (perhaps WP:AfD would be a start?) to understand the project better, she would be a superb candidate -- Samir धर्म 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Candidate appears enthusiastic and hardworking. As with other users, I am concerned about experience, especiallyin dealing with more controversial/grey matters. Otherwise, she is fine. -- Evanx(tag?) 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Hard to criticise, but just not enough to go on for me to support at this time. Come back with more of the same in a few months and it will be a thumbs up from me. Rockpocket 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Great user. Doesn't meet my criteria for project space edits. I need to see a greater demonstration of understanding and application of policy before I vote to give her the mop. Eluchil404 13:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I would like to see more WP-space edits. Also, the user has suddenly gone on an indefinite wikibreak and seems to have given up on this for now, which obviously doesn't bode well. The length of experience and answers to questions are satisfactory, though. Grandmasterka 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Evadb
Total edits 3000
Distinct pages edited 1013
Average edits/page 2.962
First edit 14:32, February 9, 2006

(main) 2119
Talk 122
User 218
User talk 209
Image 195
Image talk 2
Template 17
Template talk 1
Category 21
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 89
Wikipedia talk 5

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: I have done some work in reverting vandalism in the past. I hope that with the addition of the administrator tools, I can do more of this in the future. I've also been involved in some basic tidying of different aspects of Wikipedia. Much of my work is in the area of heraldry, and I hope to use my new admin powers to help ease the administrative backlog matters in this realm. I feel that I have a good knowledge of the basic admin tools from reading the appropriate articles. The truth is, though, that I am unsure of how the added functions will impact me, and look forward to learning more about them.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As mentioned above, much of my work is in heraldry. I'm particularly proud of the Heraldry Portal that I've helped to create. I've also been involved in creating biographic articles for many heraldists and officers of arms. I think that these add a great deal to Wikipedia and provide a great resource to those who are curious about things heraldic.
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 can think of two instances where I've had conflicts on editing. One was on the article Richmond Herald. My main course of action was to discuss the matter with the other user. Unfortunately, this did little good, and eventually a compromise was reached with the help of another editor. This compromise still exists, and while I do not think it is perfect or a complete reflection of Wikipedia policy, it is better than an edit war. Another instance of conflict came on the Kandern article. Another user and I discussed the merits of adding a definite article to one of the names in the article. This was a very silly little point of contention, but we kept the discussion going for some time. Eventually, the other user noted that I was getting a bit "hot under the collar." This had not been my intention, but when I heard that I decided to drop the issue for a while and come back to it later. I have not yet returned to it, but look forward to sparking up the discussion again when I've got the time.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What is your understanding of admin duties? Also, why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A:From my understanding of the Administrators' reading list, admins have a lot of responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, monitoring those articles which have been nominated for deletion and working through the process involved in that, blocking and banning, page protection, and helping to revert vandalism. As I mentioned in my previous answers, I am looking forward to learning more about these capabilities. As for your second question, I am quite sure that my answer is the same as most any admin: I want to be an admin so that I can help to make Wikipedia better. It's as simple as that.--Eva db 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How would you respond to criticism that you don't have a solid understanding of Admin powers and duties? Yanksox 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, I'm sure you've seen these before... -- Tawker 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (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.