Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvanProdromou

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] EvanProdromou

final (26/8/2) ending 20:25 13 December 2005 (UTC)

EvanProdromou (talk · contribs) – I have been a Wikipedia contributor since October of 2002. I have started several pages almost complete (Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Jacques Marquette, Barbary Wars, Lollapalooza, Palo Duro Canyon, Arkansas River come to mind immediately) and proposed a few style guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:avoid peacock terms). I'm also a Mediawiki developer with CVS access. My main interest is Wikitravel, which I co-founded in 2003, but I'd like to have admin status here to be more involved in Wikipedia. ESP 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes. ESP 20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support ummmmm yeah!Gator (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. BD2412 T 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support per BDA below. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. File Éireann 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. For friends of gays only, if for nothing else. ;) Matt Yeager 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Consistent activity over a long time. Highly involved in the project despite low edit count (he's a developer people!) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Yes, please - not obviously unhinged. Lupin|talk|popups 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent answer to my question, deserves credit for having been here a long time. After three years as a Wiki-holic, it's ok -- probably healthy -- for one's edit count to drop. Xoloz 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support The use of the edit summarys is very good, I changed my vote based upon the fact that this user has been here for so long and is still here making edits. I've been here for just a few months and I've had small lulls in activity before. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. A trusted user who has been around for a while. It can't hurt to give him admin powers. --NormanEinstein 13:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. He's clearly established his trustworthiness. Chick Bowen 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. The length of time you have been here is a testimony to your dedication to this project. Just remember edit summaries. --Martin Osterman 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. —Guanaco 03:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, very experienced user.  Grue  09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support ∾ Obviously understands Wikipedia policy, to the point of creating pages two years ago which were accepted as guidelines and are still widely cited today. Obviously experienced in Wikipedia administration as a consequence of his creation and subsequent maintenance of Wikitravel. Trustworthiness obviously established. Obviously not a May-December romance with Wikipedia; he's in it for the long haul. Will obviously be an asset to Wikipedia itself if given the mop and bucket. I'm croggled that people are actually debating the frequency of his edits given all of the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support low activity is of some concern, but there is zero evidence of bad activity; hence my vote to support.--MONGO 03:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Strong support as a long-term, reliable contributor. You definitely seem like the type of person who is intelligent enough to familiarize themselves with policy before using it. silsor 18:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. El_C 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong support per Extreme Unction. I am croggled, too, though I had to look it up to be sure. There is absolutely no reason to think he will misuse the tools. The focus on recent edits of a consistent long term user makes no sense to me. -- DS1953 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. I thought he was a developer already, and he is, which tells me he is quite involved in Wikipedia, just in different areas that I don't frequent. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support I think I was a bit hasty in my formation of my initial opinion. I think this user would make a good admin and really help wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support of course. Been around longer than most anyone. Low edit counts are reasons against only when it implies newbie-ness, which is obviously not the case here. BTW, his answer to the IAR question should be enshrined in the rule itself. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Low edit rate is not a reason to deny adminship. —Simetrical (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. If we trust him to work on the software, we should trust him with the content. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Fewer that 200 edits in the last year shows you're barely involved in Wikipedia at all. Additionally, the coverage of your edits over that period misses a lot of the important matters that are the meat of an admin's enhanced role - warning vandals, AfD, copyvio - there's little evidence that you're properly up-to-speed with the rules and mores of Wikipedia as they stand to day (and evidence that you aren't). There's no need for someone to be an admin to be more involved. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    The evidence cited is from March - for me, that's just too far removed for me to consider relevant. Also, this editor may participate lightly, but he has also done so fairly consistently since July of 2003, which speaks to me of someone who is in it for the long haul. BD2412 T 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Low activity. ^ <200 edits in last year... Olorin28 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Although I take no position at this time on EvanProdromou's application for adminship, I must dissent from this reasoning. If a user has been active for a year, and has contributed slowly but steadily with no disruptive activity, I do not see why the low edit count is an argument against adminship. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. We don't need to restrict it to "Wikipedia junkies"; more part-time admins would, in my opinion, actually be a positive good. It's not like we have a limited number of adminships to hand out; it's just a flag in the user profile. Crotalus horridus 14:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose I'd like to see more activity in your recent contributions, but also I'd like to see you using edit summaries everytime. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC) I have changed my vote to Support, see above. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose due to edit summaries and low activity.—thames 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not a lot of recent activity, though if your new activity continues would probally support next time; several vandal reverts, but not followed by User talk messages or warnings needed for dealing with repeat vandals. You want to work on tricky technical parts of wikipedia, but failry low or nonexistent edits regarding categories,templates, and/or their discussions. xaosflux T/C 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per lack of activity. Radiant_>|< 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose lack of activity. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose although user shows experience with old policy and guidelines, alot has changed over time... low recent edit count would definately cause a lack of familiarity with modern policies/guidelines. Perhaps if activity level increased I would support in the future. As for now... I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, lack of activity in last year. HGB 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral You use edit summaries on many of your edits, but not all of them, and although i don't usually base judgements on edit counts, only 200 edits in a year indicates a fairly low level of participation. Also, sort of like Finlay McWalter said, i think the way it works is that you get involved in Wikipedia and then you get admin status, not the other way around.--Alhutch 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Not sure yet. --Merovingian 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral This is a difficult one. I might change my vote after a more careful look at the last 200 edits. Change to support see above. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • In response to problems with my low edit count for the last year: if you're looking for a certain kind of administrator, it's a valid concern. However, I think I can make up in consistency and longevity what I lack in intensity. As has been pointed out, I've been a contributor since October 2002 and a consistent contributor since summer of 2003. It is quite unlikely that I will get burnt out on Wikipedia; I think I've shown that I'll be participating at this time next year, and the year after, and the year after that. --ESP 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • New question posted. Xoloz 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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'm especially interested in understanding and participating in the trickiest social and technical problems in Wikipedia: managing conflicts, workarounds for database issues, dealing with new vandalism and spamming techniques, I think that Wikipedia is leading the wiki world in dealing with a massive, public, open community, and I'd like to learn first-hand about those solutions. In addition, bugs and feature requests often come from en: Wikipedia first, so it's worthwhile for me from a developer's point of view to be involved in those processes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've particularly enjoyed adding articles about American history and geography. I particularly liked Thomas Hart Benton (senator) and Thomas Hart Benton (painter), as well as the First Barbary War and Second Barbary War. I also like subjects that have personal connections, such as Citroën DS (I drive a DS) or Nobel laureate Owen Chamberlain as he was one of my favorite professors at Berkeley. I've also liked the two style guidelines listed above, which I think have helped a lot of people think more about writing style in Wikipedia (either positively or negatively). For better or worse my best-known contribution has been meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles.
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't think of any remarkable conflicts I've been involved in. I'm a strong believer that steering discussion to objective facts rather than subjective judgements can cool tempers and keep Wikipedians working together. I also think that stepping away from an issue in Wikipedia that gets your dander up is probably the best course of action. If you're right in the conflict, the community will help correct the issue; if you're not, you probably shouldn't be fighting so hard, anyways.
4. You are a veteran Wikipedian. Some veterans take an expansive view of the applicability of WP:IAR. What is your view of WP:IAR, used as a justification for administrative action?
A. I think that ignoring rules and experimentation are really crucial for new users. I think they need to feel the excitement of getting started on this project -- the thrill of the frontier -- without getting too bogged down in feeling bad about doing some teensy ritual slightly wrong. I think rules should be something that users discover for themselves ("You know, it'd be good to have a standard way to format Japanese names... oh, look! Someone's already thought of that! Great!") and that they should never be something that the Old Guard uses to show off their power.
For administrative actions... well. I can see emergency cases where an admin needs to step outside the rules for the greater good of the project. A hostile distributed bot using a previously unknown 'sploit... maybe. But I think admins need to set a good example for everyone else -- with a greater set of functionality at their control, they need to show more responsibility. Considering how absolutely easy it is to change rules on Wikipedia if the need arises, I think that admins should take the time to document and discuss exceptions.


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.