Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvocativeIntrigue

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] EvocativeIntrigue

Final (23/26/6) Ended 14:15, 2006-08-09 (UTC)

EvocativeIntrigue (talk · contribs) – EvocativeIntrigue is a very awesome user. He has been extremely helpful, to different users, helping out a lot. I also noticed him being on a lot of "high regard lists" which proves him to be a good user. He has also been extremely well editing articles, and, I would assume he has a lot of trust —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. The RfA even ends on my birthday! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:23, 2 August 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.
A: I recent-change and new-page patrol quite frequently, so the admin tools would be incredibly useful. I also participate in AFD and MFD, where admin privileges would be of particular use, as well as Administrator intervention against vandalism, where I suspect the privileges afforded by adminship would be of great use in removing the backlogs that occasionally occupy the page.
Also of interest would be the requested moves page, and I would continue to monitor the help and reference desks and to participate in the Birthday Committee and Esperanza and edit articles of interest.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have contributed quite heavily to a few articles, including Mountsorrel, Leicester Grammar School and Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight, the last of which is a great favourite of mine: I hadn't even considered editing articles about American history, but researching it engrossed me! I'm mostly a Wikignome, but once I start expanding/copyediting an article I tend to get obsessive until the article is as complete as I can make it.
I'm also proud of my community contributions- proposing a games template for the Esperanza coffee lounge and creating it, and creating a few templates for the Birthday Committee.
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've not had any edit conflicts as far as I can remember- there's too much love in this user for any conflict to last long! The guideline I live by on Wikipedia is assume good faith: most users are here to help the project and edit wars slow progress and help no-one. I've found a little civility goes a long way, and I see encouraging editors of all abilities and interests as a great way to ensure the project continues to develop for the better.
I come to Wikipedia to relax- to read articles of interest, expand others on topics I have knowledge of and meet people from other cultures. If a situation gets me tense, I get up and make a cup of tea- I am British, after all.
There's no user I dislike: vandals are an inconvenience, but a small price to pay for an encyclopædia anyone can edit.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username        EvocativeIntrigue
Total edits     3374
Distinct pages edited   1670
Average edits/page      2.020
First edit      21:17, 5 May 2006
        
(main)  825
Talk    189
User    465
User talk       1289
Image   4
Image talk      3
Template        15
Template talk   7
Wikipedia       529
Wikipedia talk  47
Portal talk     1
Added at 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.
Support
  1. Strong Support as nom —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Highway Return to Oz... 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mild support. Though a civil, helpful contributor, Evocativelntrigue needs some more experience in certain areas. --Gray Porpoise 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Won't abuse the tools. — FireFox (talk) 16:06, 02 August '06
  6. Support I am happy to support you, the number of usertalk edits you have shows that you are capable of communicating. However, more experience is needed. Whilst supporting you in adminship, I am presuming you will work hard to get this experience. However, the way this current RfA is going, I would suggest that you withdraw your application for now, and try again in about 8-12 weeks. Seivad 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - seemed reasonable when I helped with/asked him about his signature. I very much doubt him abusing the tools. —Celestianpower háblame 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Sure, maybe you don't have as many edits or time as might be needed to be considered "experienced", but I think that you've done an absolutely wonderful job for the Birthday Committee, Esperanza, and other articles as well. I wish you good luck, even if this RfA doesn't pass. Keep working; you'll do well. Thistheman 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support I've had excellent experiences around EI. Although he's new here, and, admittedly not perfect, I don't really see any significant issues standing between him and adminship. alphaChimp laudare 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Good user, a fellow penguin, manager of fish catches (last 2 were a joke). GangstaEB help me improve! 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Moral Support An exceptional user so far, it will only be a matter of time until you become an admin. GizzaChat © 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Not every user can make an excellent all round contribution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be an admin for the contributions that they can make. EvocativeIntrigue has clearly helped out a lot on Wikipedia, and I've seen him a lot at WP:BDC where he's certainly made his mark. He has proved that he can be trusted, in whatever limited timeframe he may have been here, and while he may not have done anything major, such as meet 1FA, 530 WP space edits gives a person some experience, if at least how not to make self references in the main article space. His design work has certainly been acknowledged, and his recent implementation of signatures in templates with ~~<noinclude>~~</noinclude><includeonly>~~</includeonly> proves that he has a good understanding of the various wiki syntax used. He has some good experience in templates, and has proved to be familiar with the general facets of Wikipedia. It is due to this that I feel I can safely change my otherwise 'Oppose' to a 'Support'. --Draicone (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per FireFox, Seivad, and Celestian, and consistent with my standards. Joe 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per above.--Chile14 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, too nice to do anything but support. :) -- Natalya 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support FellowWikipedian 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support A friendly user; won't abuse the admin tools. Meets my 2k edit requirements, and good answers to the questions. This RfA doesn't seem likely to succeed, but I'm voicing my opinion anyway.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Dear Firsfron, I couldn't have said it better. EE is a great person, always willing to lend a helping hand and improve his knowledge. Since it is very unlikely you'll make it this time, dear E, I'll gladly make you a few suggestions once it's over for a future attempt, if you're willing to hear my modest input. Meanwhile, keep it up; we all have room for improving, and you're on the right track! Cheers, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - a really friendly and helpful editor, who I feel has suffered a witch-hunt below. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. You are a really good editor, as The Halo said, and even though I slightly agree with him on more experience, I think, what the heck, being an admin is probably among the best things that you can have heppen for more experience, so I decided to support you. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-C|ε|L|T-) 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry to see this has so many opposing votes! :(
  21. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. DarthVader 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Seems like an excellent person from what i've seen of him. Attic Owl 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Your 530 or so Wikipedia space edits are almost entirely to Esperanza's coffee lounge. This, coupled with a relatively short time on Wikipedia (Less than 3 months) suggests inexperience. Also, the vast majority of your mainspace edits are marked as minor, and again, your user talk edits are RFA congratulations or Esperanza related Happy Birthdays, rather than article related discussions. While Esperanza is nice, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encycopedia, and your involvement in that (both article editing and process/policy related things) is, I feel, somewhat limited. -- Steel 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hes still extremely helpful, and extra nice to Wikipedians, and is a good example of a nice, dependable Wikipedian, cheerd —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I did edit as various IPs for 2 months or so before registering (see one of the first messages in my archive), but understand your concerns about 'inexperience'. I have made contributions to the community, but felt no urge to join policy discussion where a concensus I agreed with had already been reached- it is, after all, not a vote but a discussion of ideas in general.
      You mentioned the Wikipedia space edits being mostly 'congratulations', but I have made considerable efforts to many articles, including those mentioned above, but to other articles too- most recently to Myddle.
      As I said, I am a Wikignome, so my edits will be 'mostly minor', but I don't see how this affects an adminship: surely you should be looking for quality rather than quantity? I recent-change patrol more often than I edit articles on a grand scale due to time constraints, so adminship's privileges would be appreciated, and recent edits have had to have been limited due to other commitments such as a holiday and work.
      If you go further back in my edit history, you'll see that a lot of my user-talk edits are warnings for vandalism, or a 'welcome' rather than a warning )in an attempt to sway a new user experimenting with Wikipedia to edit responsibly), as well as discussion of edit and articles (in particular Russian Air Force). You may not have seen these as I tend to spend an hour or two at a time (when I have it) doing a particular task, so my edits appear in blocks of similar tasks.
      I also agree that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encycopedia, but what makes Wikipedia special is the community aspect, so encouraging others to continue editing and engaging with them is almost as important as editing articles in my opinion.
      I feel that I am a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, including great participation in Esperanza, and that adminship will allow me to undertake tasks I may not have otherwise considered, including greater participation in policy discussion, as well as allowing me to undertake current tasks with more ease.
      Thank you for your explanation of your opposal- it's always interesting to see something from another viewpoint!
      EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your long and well thought out reply, but I stand by my points. With more experience (both in terms of time and RC/xfD participation) I'm sure an RFA in a few months would go well. -- Steel 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Steel. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    He still seems like a very nice editor, even if he hasn't made that many main space editor, hes still an excellent helper, anyway, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Indeed, the Wikipedia space edits are quite limited to one area, as Steel said. I find the usage of the minor designation overdone significantly. And also, I noted that you had a fair-use image on your page quite recently. However, you're nothing but friendly; I just think you need to become more familiarized with a few things. Perhaps in October. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of the policy on fair-use images at that point, and I don't see the barrier to adminship created by this: I did not replace the image, but did feel it could have perhaps been handled more civilly. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Who do you think was incivil: me or you? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have clarified that- I think I was less civil than I could have been, but when I reviewed the relevant policy there was an option to request the image be removed- at the time I felt your direct removal was perhaps unnecessary, but it was efficient! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Everyone makes small mistakes, he's still helpful, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not ready yet, sorry. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose too new and per above - and per signature, which you ought to shorten significantly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Sorry, I think you're a great guy, but you've not been around long enough. Please do contact me if you fail with this Rfa and then are nominated again in a few months time, as I'm fairly sure that (at the rate / quality you're currently working) I'll vote in favour. Sorry again. --Dweller 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Its mainly how good a user is you should judge on, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    If I wasn't clear, then what I meant was lack of experience will necessarily hamper adminship. Clear now? It's not a particularly original/unusual argument - I'm surprised you found it worth questioning. I think user:EvocativeIntrigue will make a great admin in a few months' time. --Dweller 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Esperanza's great and everything, we've run into each other quite a bit at the coffee lounge, but I would like to see some more non-Esperanza-related Wikipedia edits. Also, you mentioned vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a bit more of that as well. I'm sure if you follow everyone here's advice, your next RfA will be a landslide. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Fails two of my criteria (200 maintalk edits, 1000 mainspace edits). Please stick to it, and reapply in a couple of months, I'll be happy to support. Themindset 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for three reasons: most WP edits of his concern EA, the article edits are not enough (in spite of the excellent total number of contribs), and, besides, he has only been here for almost three months. Wait until next year to renominate. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose I like the user's responses to the RfA questions (although the nomination itself leaves much to be desired), and I also like his enthusiasm. In fact, there's a great chance that the user would put the admin tools to good use. However, with so few mainspace edits (and so many of them pertaining to Esperanza), I absolutely think EI needs some more experience (not as far as calendar time, but as far as actual editing) before he should be an admin. -- Kicking222 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Once you factor out Esperanza and other social activity, doesn't appear to have that much experience with the encyclopedia. Don't especially trust the nominator. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    If it helps, I also vouch as a co-nominator, I thought EI was an admin. Highway Return to Oz... 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's good to know, but frankly the fact that the nominee even accepted this nomination worries me. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose too new Jaranda wat's sup 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Too new and inexperienced, lack os social communicative skills through actual editing and application of Wikipedia policy. Michael 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Not ready per User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Switch to neutral to counter oppose based on 0FA. :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Needs more experience in terms of both time and editing in the main space and Wikipedia space. Potentially a good admin candidate in the future. Zaxem 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppsose, more experience first please. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, 0FA. Articles listed in Q#2 are of insufficient quality. -- Миборовский 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose --cj | talk 03:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Steel and Miborovsky. Roy A.A. 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak oppose. You meet my 3-month requirment, and you seem like a good contributor, but I really want to see more experience in XfDs and such before I support, especially given that you're a fairly new user. Get a bit more involved there or in some other admin-related area and I'll probably support in a month or two. BryanG(talk) 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose due to nominator. MonsterOfTheLake 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Aren't we supposed to base our votes on how we feel the Candidate will perform as an admin? FWIW, I feel basing your opposition of this candidate's adminship on your opinion of the nominator seems a little harsh.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Mib. Needs more experience too. - Mailer Diablo 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. If we could somehow combine this editor with User:Ryulong, we'd have a damn-near perfect admin candidate. However, the laws on human experimentation being what they are, I am forced to oppose... for now. DS 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    to elaborate, EvocativeIntrigue's weak spots are the inverse of Ryulong's - high on interaction with other users, low on article-space work. DS 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Steel. I would like to point out to those that are judging this nomination by the person who nominated it, that we are supposed to make a judgement of the editor who has been nominated, not the person who nominated them. ViridaeTalk 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Viridae, thanks for your last comment, which I was about to bring up. Thanks also to everyone else who has added their opinions here. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose too new. I'd pick another nominator next time also -- Samir धर्म 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Per the reasons expressed above, particularly concerning the breadth of contributions to the Wikipedia project space. --Wisden17 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Not just now. Sorry, you are a great editor, but a bit new and you want to help at AfD as an admin when your last AfD edit was a month ago (me thinks). I don't feel you require admin at this time but beg you stay and keep Esp going. :) Try again in a few months and you should pass.--Andeh 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I only participate in AFD when my suggestions would be against current concensus, but have probably been more active in WP:MFD recently. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you vote on things you agree with, it can speed up the process. There are alot of AfDs at the moment which need dealing with.--Andeh 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Does not meet my 5-month requirement and I think this RFA is a bit premature but I have seen this user around Esperanza and seems like a good contributor. --Tuspm (C | @) 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate there may be some concerns about the time I've spent editing here, but I have addressed these above- in summary, I did edit as an unregistered user for some time (2 months) before registering. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not sure per both votes so far. I won't state my reasons now because they have already been added by these two and last time it was an edit conflict. :) $ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-T|ε|C|L-) 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support per The Halo's comment.
  3. Neutral Gain more experience but your presence here is deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I can't support yet, but no need for an oppose, either. Just a little too early and too little experience, but should not take long for this nominee to be qualified. Agent 86 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I think you need a bit more experience before you're ready for the tool, unfortunatly, because you are a really good user. I'll have no problems supporting in the future. Thε Halo Θ 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    #A positive neutral, as I have always had very good interactions with EvocativeIntrigue, and have been impressed with his kindness. I think a little more time editing on Wikipedia may be beneficial, but will be delighted to support in the near future. -- Natalya 04:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.
  6. Switch to neutral to counter oppose based on 0FA. I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas. :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 9 August 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.