Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eyrian

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] Eyrian

Final (39/8/11); ended 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian (talk · contribs) - Eyrian is a very active member of Wikipedia who has an extensive history of good edits and anti-vandal work. I think that Eyrian has been a valuable contributer all-around, and will make an exceptional administrator. I fully support Eyrian's nomination. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Eyrian 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: It is my intent to work through the various administrative backlogs/requests. As someone who is a little detached from the more social aspects of Wikipedia, I have very little personal stake in most conflicts, and I feel I'd be able to perform that core function very well. Beyond that, I will do what people need of me.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: (Forgive me, I've mostly copied my responses from editor review) I think my rewrite of arrow is probably my favorite contribution. I also think I've done some good work organizing and filling in the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of medieval armour topics. I like these best because I really feel that I've helped to create articles that have useful information, with an understandable structure.
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've clashed with a few people before, usually when discussing deletion. I try and keep things from escalating by not taking things personally, or making personal remarks. When I see edit wars brewing, I try and take it to talk as quickly as possible, and establish a consensus of what's supposed to happen, based on policy. This is my strategy for doing things in the future.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 21:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that most core Wikipedia policies are well written, and tend to include reasons why they should usually be ignored in the name of producing a better encyclopedia, without specifically invoking WP:IAR. I tend to think of the policy as a reminder that Wikipedia is about producing a useful encyclopedia, not following rules. To that end, I don't think one ever really needs to invoke WP:IAR explicitly, just keep the spirit of improvement over rule-following in mind while editing.
The major exception to this is material that would put Wikipedia at risk for a legal threat, which needs to be removed immediately, regardless of any policy. --Eyrian 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from bibliomaniac15

5. As Jimbo had said before, adminship is no big deal. How do you interpret this statement (i.e. what part of adminship is no big deal? Is it the tools themselves, is it a specific tool, some perception of status, etc.)? bibliomaniac15 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I interpret this as saying that admins aren't vastly superior users who should be yielded to in all situations. Admins are people, too, and their opinions shouldn't necessarily count more than another editor's. Clearly, the tools themselves are very important, both in terms of the power they grant (as illustrated by the recent rogue admin) and in terms of the essential functions they perform for the encyclopedia. --Eyrian 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from DESiegel

6. What is your opnion of Process is Important? How strictly would you adhere to process in cases where it might seem that the "right result" could be more easily or quickly optained by ignoring it? and in particular, who do you feel about speedy deleting pages that seem to you unhelpful, but that don't fit any of the speedy delete criteria closely? DES (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Process is important because I couldn't write this encyclopedia by myself, and process is designed to let everyone get a chance to have their say. I am strongly inclined to not let something be speedy deleted unless it fits one of the categories neatly. In those cases, proposed and debated deletions serve to give other editors a chance to put their expertise into play to determine if the subject is important. I've certainly written articles that didn't (initially) assert notability, though they could meet the criteria with verifiable information. Further, by giving people a chance except in the most obvious cases of bad pages, we are more likely to attract and keep newcomers, rather than frustrate them. --Eyrian 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Luna Santin

7. I notice you don't seem to have email enabled. Is there any particular reason for that? Often, this will be the only way blocked or inexperienced users will be able to contact you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to get a pretty large amount of email already, and I haven't seen the need to enable it. Given what you've said, I'll probably enable it if I become an admin. --Eyrian 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's unlikely to add heavily to your email load. I'm an admin, and I only ever had two emails through Wikipedia ever. --ais523 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ais523, Join MedCom or ArbCom, your e-mails will increase :-P ^demon[omg plz] 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Optional question from ais523

8. You say that you plan to work through the various administrative backlogs. Do you feel that you have the technical ability to work through all the backlogs, or do you intend to avoid the more technical backlogs (like some CAT:PER requests and {{db-histmerge}})? --ais523 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a programmer by hobby and trade, so I expect that I'll have the ability, assuming there's at least some form of documentation. I'm interested in experimenting with the various admin powers (in the appropriate ways!), so yes, I would assist in the more technical backlogs. --Eyrian 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Doc

9. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
To the letter. Potentially libelous information could pose an enormous risk to the entire project. If people refuse to acknowledge this after they've been warned, they need to be blocked to protect Wikipedia. --Eyrian 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
10. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject has requested deletion, what weight would you give this information?--Docg 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
None. Wikipedia is a collection of free, verifiable information, whether or not people want that information to be available. That said, if the discussion results in a keep, I would take a careful look at the article to make sure it's compliant with WP:BLP, as ignoring someone like that could upset them enough to start them looking for something to sue over. --Eyrian 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list?

A: All of the above, plus mixed case. --Eyrian 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eyrian before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Consensus not numbers: I agree with Doc glasgow that this chap has an imperfect understanding that Wikipedia policy mandates the elimination of all unsourced biographical information from articles, and that the sense of the policy is that borderline articles about living people should be deleted if they cause problems. Frankly he isn't the only one, and quite a lot of our administrators aren't fully aware of this. I think it's probably time to include questions about Biographies of living persons in our standard set, and I'm going to recommend against promotion of this editor because of his answers. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Review of contributions shows a sane and experienced Wikipedia editor. Nothing to make me oppose. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Looks like a good enough candidate to me. Again, editcounting is just sad really. Majorly (hot!) 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support per my comment in the neutral section. YechielMan 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator :) - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Naconkantari 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Experience in the Wikipedia namespace is a little low, but what's there seems to be quite good. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Although I have not come across him, looking through his work he seems sensible and well balanced. Wiki-talk is limited but, in my view, adequate, given that what is there s good.--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support — no red flags upon brief examination of contributions; good luck ~ Anthony 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: While Wikipedia namespace edits are low it seems this user can be trusted with the tools.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak Support Due to Q1 answer. mcr616 Speak! 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I feel that Eyrian will make a great editor, and these tools can be trusted to be used correctly by him. His contributions, as well as his work in vandalism makes him a prime candidate for adminship, and I am looking forward to seeing more of Eyrain. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. While he has few WP namespace edits, what edits he does have there are solid and show a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines. An all-around good candidate for the mop and bucket. Krimpet (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support ~ G1ggy! SPEAK! 05:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Concise, well thought out answers. Wikipedia edits? This user wants to contribute to an encyclopedia. hombre de haha 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. Changing to oppose Frise 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support fine user. I see no reason to oppose. —Anas talk? 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - No real reason to oppose..--Cometstyles 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support due to reasonable answers to questions, no history of blocks, and because Adminship is no big deal. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - I particularly like this candidate's answer to the question on process. Process is important, and this candidate is quite right that articles shouldn't be speedied if they don't fit any of the CSD criteria. No serious problems with experience for this user, and the oppose concerns are mostly trivial (Xoloz is right that more projectspace experience would be better, though). Walton Need some help? 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support looks experienced and qualified.-- danntm T C 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support'. Good responses to the optional questions. -- Pastor David † (Review) 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - my dream candidate would have more experience in Wikipedia namespace, but when it comes right down to it, there's nothing here to make me believe this candidate would abuse the tools. I would strongly encourage them to get a second set of eyes on XfD discussions and such before jumping right into closing them, though, just for mentoring sake. Philippe 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, substantial experience, no significant concerns presented so far, review of past contributions turns up no problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support as I see no evidence that the tools would be abused, and Eyrian's contributions seem solid. I recommend heeding the suggestions below to always leave notices on pages after reverting, however. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. The advantage of a candidate having few projectspace contribs is that its very easy to review all of them... Eyrian seems knowledgable about relevant policies and I see no reason to think he wouldn't use the mop well. WjBscribe 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. The candidate fits the bill. Eyrian can improve by reviewing the rules a bit more, but I have no reason to believe there is a significant lack of understanding or an unwillingness to learn more. Vassyana 07:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Weak support. The candidate seems reasonably trustworthy; I have looked through some of the candidate's project-namespace edits and they seem fine. Although the nominee isn't creating significant extra work for admins without the tools, it seems reasonable that they would be able to help with them, and nothing that other editors have brought up seems particularly concerning for me. (However, it is probably worth acting on what's come up in this RfA; warning users after reverting vandalism can be a good way to stop it in my experience.) --ais523 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, not endorsed by a WikiProject is probable evidence of less cabalistic attitude. Abeg92contribs 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, very good answers to questions, as well as good knowledge of Wikia funtions. Programming experience is an up too, as any bot assistance in clearing backlogs is great. My only concern is your edit summary usage: only 99% for major and minor edits?? (I'm being sarcastic, of course ;) ) Keep it up! *Cremepuff222* 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support After sifting through your contribs I've concluded that you have enough experience for the job, however, I'd suggest that you ammend and rewrite the responses to the first three questions and provide diffs. The experience is there, but it isn't provided here, which is a bit misleading. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support no stinky --Infrangible 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Adequate experience and answers to questions, good recent edits, oppose issues don't seem huge. I strongly recommend you go to one of the free email address providers and create a special email address just for your Wikipedia userid. you don't need to reveal your regular email address and you'll have to live with some unfortunate spam, but Wikipedia administrators do need to be accessible privately. Also agree that you've addressed YechielMan's concerns about your Project space experience. --Shirahadasha 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support See no reason will not be a good admin. Davewild 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Although I am not without concerns, I think I can conclude with some confidence that Eyrian is possessed of the deliberative demeanor (evidenced, for one, by his proper appreciation for PII), sound judgment, and even, cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin are quite propitious, such that the net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive. Separately, I would observe as I did at the BigrTex RfA that the general understanding of BLP that Doc advances is one for which, at best, a consensus did not appear until four or five days ago and for which, at worst, a consensus does not yet exist (witness the present full protection of BLP in view of edit-warring over, inter al., the subject requests deletion section); I am confident that Eyrian will apply BLP consensus with the wishes of the community as codified in policy and demonstrated in practice. Joe 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support → Lack of wikipedia-ns edits doesn't make, in my opinion, somebody a bad or inexperienced admin. There are many important admin tasks that aren't related to that namespace! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Few Xdf's and namespace, but enough mainspace to pass. TTalk to me 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support, per the very first comment in "support", I agree, looks like a very "sane", and balanced editor... Will be a use to the project if given the tools. Smee 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Oppose

  1. Oppose Insufficient experience in project-space for me to judge adequately candidate's fitness, or feel comfortable entrusting candidate with mop. Xoloz 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose- Only 125 Wikipedia space edits, which is one of the most important namespaces needed for becoming an admin. Also, Q1 had a very generic answer of "helping with backlogs". Specifics are good, especially something you're already involved with. I do like that you've been here a pretty long time though. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    What's wrong with 125? It's plenty enough, or were you looking for a specific number? What's up with his answer? He says he wants to help, and you're opposing him. Majorly (hot!) 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    No, I have no preset number in my mind, but 125 I think is too little in the namespace that's most important for admin tasks. AIV, RFPP, xFD, and other admin related pages are in the WP namespace. I see the candidate does participate in some xFDs, which is good, but I see no edits at all to AIV or RFPP (correct me if I'm wrong). --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've made a few edits to AIV: [1], [2], [3] --Eyrian 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - lack of understanding in relation to verifiability policy, per discussion below Addhoc 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Apparent lack of experience, sorry. >Radiant< 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Apparent? Do you know this? Majorly (hot!) 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oh very well. Oppose per lack of experience, and per Xoloz. Better now? >Radiant< 08:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Shanes 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware this was that much of a problem. I've changed it. --Eyrian 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm neutral on your adminship, then. But admin candidates should know that being reachable by mail is important. Shanes 07:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. BLP - seems to imply as long as we can't be sued - stuff the subject.--Docg 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Are you reading this implication from his answers to your questions? If so I am mystified as to how you are drawing that conclusion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per Doc. Frise 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose at this time: not wide enough experience yet. Jonathunder 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Xoloz -- Y not? 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, leaning strongly toward support. Everything seems okay, but I'm concerned about the low edit count in Wikipedia space: basically a few deletion discussions and WikiProjects. If I could be convinced that you know deletion policy, e.g. by answering optional questions or citing a discussion where you played a pivotal role, that would convince me of your qualifications. YechielMan 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there are any where I've played a necessarily pivotal role. However, I think my deletion nominations for Belegarth and IVAN demonstrate an understanding of some of the notability policies pertinent to deletion. I think I've demonstrated effective knowledge with some of the other issues surrounding deletion (dozens of speedy nominations), and copyvio issues (Pastrami and 6.5 Grendel). I feel confident in my understanding of these policies in general; I just don't always have an opportunity to show it. I'd welcome further questions in that regard. --Eyrian 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No further questions from me. Changing to support. YechielMan 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I agree with YechielMan. You need more Wikipedia edits for adminship. Since there are no other problems, I am not opposing and am neutral as a result. Captain panda 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What's the magic number of Wikipedia space edits? --Durin 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, Durin, it's obviously 442.42. You knew that, surely? Majorly (hot!) 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well Durin, I have to say that is a really loaded question. If I say there is no magic number, you will ask then why I am not supporting. If I give you a number, you will say I am a slave to process and have editcountitis. As for your question, I prefer to see around 300 to 400 before I support. Therefore, I have editcountitis. :) Captain panda 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Durin, I kind of hate to say this. But is not your negative comment in an RfA which is in a format that you strongly disapprove of a little bit unfair?--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
            • So when I see something I am concerned about I am to say nothing then? This is supposed to be a consensus building mechanism. --Durin 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm leaning towards support as well, but some more experience would greatly improve user as an editor. JṃŁЌ17 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral but definite moral support. I don't think the user has enough experience in the project space (note: not enough experience). While we can't expect new admins to know everything about everything, it's preferable for them to have demonstrated some acquaintance with the underlying mechanics of Wikipedia. I also don't think the candidate has sufficient experience with interaction with other users. Of course what I do see all looks pretty good but I can't support at this time. Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral - good answers to questions, however concerned about his understanding of policy, for example this keep rationale: "interesting information present" is completely wrong. Addhoc 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Second-guessing him here, but I think what he was saying there is, because the character turned up in more interesting situations than your usual Star Trek extra, he was interesting enough to have multiple independent etc — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    My understanding there is that, since Star Trek is clearly a notable series, the character was notable, and what was fundamentally under debate was whether he was a minor character or major character. The examples in WP:FICT that illustrated the difference seemed to imply to me that the key was quantity of interesting information; I wasn't invoking WP:INTERESTING. --Eyrian 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral seeing as I'm here; looks good to me, I'm sitting on the fence purely because I've never come across this editor (our fields don't overlap at all) so I don't have an opinion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Candidate appears suitable, but I don't have enough evidence of participation in collaborative editing to support. An endorsement from a suitable WikiProject would likely alter my vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral leaning to oppose, as he indeed reverts lots of vandalism, but does not leave a message on the user's talk page afterwards (see his contributions). An admin is expected to communicate more, and first try to persuade vandals to give it up and become constructive. In WP:AIV, it is expected that vandals receive at least a level 3 or level 4 warning (preceded by level 1 and 2 warnings) before there is consensus that they can be blocked. Eyrian definitely needs to improve in this aspect. Errabee 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral: per Kelly Martin. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per Xoloz. – Rianaऋ 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, per reason by Errabee. Maybe a little more participation in the Wikipedia space will do you fine. Sr13 (T|C) 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I still don't see any answer as to why the user needs admin. Vague reason as to what they are going to help contribute on. Low wiki space edits where admin powers more typically required.--Dacium 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Good answers to the questions, though I'm concerned about his understanding of image use policy. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 6 May 2007 (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.