Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flyguy649

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

Flyguy649

Final (89/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 03:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC). --Deskana (talky) 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649 (talk · contribs) - I have tried to convince Flyguy649 for a while now to run for adminship and I'm happy to see he's finally yielded to the pressure. He definitely has plenty of experience around here. He's been around for almost two years and, if anyone's interested, has over 11K edits, 4K of these to article space. I know him mostly for his gnomish work, little details like categorization, spelling, MOS things, smart wikifying, adding a ref here and there, etc. He contributes across a wide range of topics and is thorough and smart. He's also done some vandalfighting, including numerous reports to WP:AIV and his comments on AfD bring substance to debates. Perhaps even more importantly for admin duties, he's easy to interact with: he's worked at the Science reference desk and is generally quick to respond to questions on his talk page (despite his continued insistence that he's busy writing his thesis). This recent exchange with TheIslander [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] is what we'd like to see more of around the wiki. Though I haven't checked his recent edits, I did go through them in detail when I first offered to nominate him a few months ago and I'm sure he'll be an excellent admin. Pascal.Tesson 06:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination I've been observing Flyguy's great work around here ever since he became active this February, and I've been consistently impressed by his dedication, his courteous approach to fellow users, and the quality of his contributions. As Pascal says he tends to make small, accurate, helpful edits across a range of articles, including Toronto, 2007 Cricket World Cup and Drosophila melanogaster (which I understand to be the subject of his research in real life). He's already heavily involved in a lot of administrative areas, including AIV (at the time of writing he has over 450 edits to this page), AN/I, RFPP, UAA, CSN, and RFCN. He also takes part in discussions at the reference desk and at the various village pump subpages, where his input is helpful and polite. He is an accurate recent changes patroller, and a decent sock-hunter too, helping out with some silliness over at Torrisholme and keeping an eye out for new socks of some other users, too. His deleted edits (admin-only access, sorry) show that he is a prolific new page patroller, with many taggings under his belt. He also takes part in various WP:AFD debates. However, his input into the project space is well-balanced by his other contributions - never detected a love of bureaucracy here.

Most importantly, perhaps - and a lot harder to fake this than take part in a few deletion debates every so often ;) - is that Flyguy's interactions with his fellow users, be they in the user talk space or elsewhere, are always polite, measured and helpful, never condescending to new users or aggressive towards those who might oppose his viewpoint. This is an extremely important quality in any user, let alone a potential administrator.

All the paperwork - professional userpage and signature, clean block log, e-mail enabled - has been rubber-stamped and signed in triplicate, so now, it's a pleasure to put forward this great user for your consideration :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman: Yes, I'm latching on my name to another RfA. I've been watching his progress for the past couple weeks or so and thought he would be a great admin, so I checked his talk page... and Pascal beat me to it. He has very balanced edits across the different namespaces, and everytime I see him on a talk very he is very courteous and a good person to talk to from the looks of things. For example, from the looks of it, Talk:Budapest was a huge problem between two editors for some time. Flyguy popped in and was the voice of reason, getting things straightened out, and things seem all better now there from the looks of it. Also, I'll support what the other two noms said, no sense repeating everything. Wizardman 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


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: I intend to start in the areas I'm most familiar with: blocking vandals at WP:AIV, potentially problematic usernames at WP:UAA and requests for page protection at WP:RFPP. For deletions, I'd like to help with expired Proposed deletions, speedy deletions (where the nomination for speedy deletion is correct), and WP:AFD. I have closed several AfDs already (procedural closes where the article was deleted, but the AfD nomination not closed), and I intend to start closing those that require determination of consensus. I'd also like to help out with images for deletion and other XfD and with page moves and history merges, but I like to move slowly in areas outside my expertise.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of many of my contributions. Although my work on Recent Changes patrol is important for maintaining the integrity of the project, I have been increasing my contributions to mainspace articles. I have created numerous articles from Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. Although most have required only a redirect, it still helped to remove these backlogged requests. I am also proud of my contributions to articles on two recent aviation accidents, China Airlines Flight 120 and TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 . I am collaborating to help improve Adam Air Flight 574, with a goal of trying to get it to featured status. Although we only recently have started working on this article, it has been very rewarding improving an article as a part of a small group. I also like Mannose 6-phosphate receptor and Insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor, two related articles that I expanded out of one short article and a redirect. I also like answering questions (and reading the responses of others) at science, miscellaneous and language Reference desks. It allows me to help people while learning.
I also acted as an informal mediator in a dispute at Budapest (referred to by Wizardman above) over whether to include an alternate spelling of the city (see the talk page - I became involved around July 12, 2007). I originally discovered the dispute due to a posting at WP:ANI (archive) and also WP:AN (archive). I thought the dispute would be easy to resolve, but it took about a week to do. Ultimately, both parties were able to live with the solution I proposed and the content of the article with respect to the conflict has remained stable since.
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 try to remain civil at all times; I don't recall "losing it" on anyone. I find using the "Show preview" button when responding to someone who may be upset is a good idea. It has allowed me to be more sure that what I was writing was clear and lowered the chance of misunderstandings. I intend to keep doing this in the future.
I have had one editing dispute that I recall over a small issue at Hospital for Sick Children some months back (April 14, 2007). I made some changes, another editor reverted, we discussed on the talk page (the discussion is still there) and I ultimately decided it wasn't critical to the article, so I left it alone.
The Budapest incident (section 2) was also somewhat frustrating and stressful, but in the end it all worked out.


Additional questions from User:Ssbohio

4. As an administrator, would you be open to recall? Also, what's your take on the recent changes at WP:BLP with regard to the degree of deference to show to the article's subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssbohio (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A: Thanks for your questions. I've answered each separately.
(4.1 Recall): Yes, I would be open to recall. Should this RfA be successful, I intend to provide reasons for my administrative actions and be receptive to and respond to criticism of them. If, after trying to discuss my actions to me, several established editors feel that my actions are not in the interest of the community, I will submit myself to the community for recall—a reverse-RFA, if you will. (Note that this is not an endorsement of any proposed or failed recall mechanisms.) -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(4.2 BLP): I admit to not closely following all the recent changes to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons while they were (and are) being discussed. But in comparing the policy of the end of June to early September, it seems that the policy has been made more clear with respect to what is expected and appropriate, and the "do no harm" principal has been made explicit. This seems reasonable to me. After all, Wikipedia is not a tabloid; our articles should be fact-based. Equally, Wikipedia is not the news; it is more important to get the details correct than be the first to report them. Articles on Wikipedia are subject to the policies on verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. This is especially important for biographies of living people. Since an article on a living person could have consequences for the subject (or to people mentioned in the article), we have to ensure that the above policies are applied to BLP articles. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Flyguy649 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - absolutely. I've seen you doing good work in lots of places. Good luck.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Beat-some-noms-Support - Good God, why are you not already an admin!?! Excellent editor. Good luck! --Boricuæddie 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as co-nom. (Damn you all! How did you get here so fast?) Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    Um, that's what watchlists are for :-) --Boricuæddie 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Edit conflict Support per my statement. Wow, seems like a lotta people had this watchlisted! :) All the best! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. the_undertow talk 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Definatly. No reason to not trust this user. --Hirohisat Kiwi 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support very good contributions, I do not see problems here. Good luck. Carlosguitar 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support You solved the Budapest problem very nicely. You could take interest in the disputed article Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
  10. ~ Wikihermit 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Very much so. Good luck! Jmlk17 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely This is long overdue and this candidate will be a credit to the admin corps. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support This user would be one of the most prized assets of the admin ranks should he be promoted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support While I've never dealt with this user personally, I've seen him around, and always assumed he was an admin. All signs point to yes. faithless (speak) 06:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm impressed with Flyguy's participation at RFCN. Sebi [talk] 06:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support I see Flyguy everywhere, and every time I do, I wonder why he isn't an administrator. Glad this is finally being rectified. Flyguy is an excellent contributer, I have been extremly impressed. i said 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Riana nom, I support :) --DarkFalls talk 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Fall off the chair Support - it's been a while since the old "thought you were...." cliche came up and snapped Pedro on the nose, but it just happened! Extensive and dedicated contributions, trustworthy and knowledgable, an excellent asset. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. support Good contributor, nothing that suggests he wouldn't make a good admin. --Hdt83 Chat 08:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support It is now time to give him the mop. A great user as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, no doubt he will use the tools responsibly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support until someone comes up with a good reason why not. No personal experience with this editor but a quick flick through the contribs assures me Flyguy649 will make an excellent sysop. --Bentalk 08:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Great record, edit count. Time for the mop! PatPolitics rule! 12:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support But I thought... (insert cliché here) --Kyoko 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'd better give a better reason for supporting. I've seen Flyguy649 around in different areas, and he seems to know policy well, and remains civil. --Kyoko 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Lots of experience both in mainspace and behind the scenes. Top quality candidate. -- Satori Son 13:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, I was thinking of nominating Flyguy649, but I was busy with other's RfA's, so I just didn't have the time. Flyguy649 is a regular at AIV, and he always files correct reports, and he is in my mental group of users that I trust to place a correct report, and as such, I don't investigate the user reported much, if at all. Maxim(talk) 13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Stong support. Plenty of experience - I've only seen good things from Flyguy... WjBscribe 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Wow, with such nominations and the pleasant dealings I have seen from you, how could I not support? J-stan TalkContribs 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Will do. Moreschi Talk 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Edit count, editing activity in sensitive areas, answers to questions, and co-noms are all good signs this user will not abuse the privileges. Bearian 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support The evidence to suggest the candidate will use the tools wisely is overwhelmingly. VanTucky (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Very good editor, certainly trustwothy and wise enough. GDonato (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support trust with tools++ Pete.Hurd 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support everything looks fine, good answers to questions, a lot of experience. Melsaran (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Strong support excellent user; Flyguy649 is always civil and helpful. Both he and Wikipedia will benefit greatly from him being an administrator. Acalamari 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Despite never hearing of the co-noms before I have seen this editors reports to AIV; all of which are really good. Good spread of edits, too. Likely to use the mop well. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    ... and who are you again? :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, who is this guy? :S ~ Riana ⁂ 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    Hm, I dunno him either. :P Wizardman 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    Only person I've heard of was Riana...but then again, that doesn't really count. --DarkFalls talk 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support good editor, will use mop well. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. Give that guy a mop now! A though you WERE an admin! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Looks great! I'm going to root for ya! --Yamakiri on Firefox 22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Everything is fine with the candidate. -Lemonflash(do something) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I can't believe your your not an admin yet! Has done some great work, and is defiantly ready for the mop Yamaka122 ...:) 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - good answers and a strong contribution history. Also, good reasons for wanting to be an admin. Euryalus 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - well, duh! - Alison ☺ 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Good editor, good supporters. Xiner (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Never had the chance to interact, but by reviewing his contribs and responses, I can tell he's a one of a kind editor. Can't wait to see him sysoped. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - superb contributions. Congrats. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  48. Indeed. Daniel 07:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  49. Shupport! Dfrg.msc 07:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  50. Strong support - I've been watching Flyguy with awe now for some months, he stays cool in difficult situations and always sticks to policy (which he knows like the back of his hand). I actually think this RfA is a little late - he has been fully qualified for some months now, that said, a round of applause for him for waiting until he believed he was truly ready. I was actually going to co-nom but got here a little late - doesn't look like he needs it anyway :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Impressive recommendations especially comments from Riana, Kyoko and so many others above. Modernist 11:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't know that "But I thought... (insert cliché here)" had such persuasive power! I should say that more often! Tee hee... seriously, thanks for the compliment. I hope you don't mind that I have corrected the links in your comment to go to our respective pages instead of the article space. --Kyoko 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    lol... I don't mind - Modernist 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Great track with 11000 edits with over 4000 mainspace ones and has been very active this year. Harlowraman 12:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support No single objection. Good contributor and surely they would be a good admin. I trust them as a "pilot." - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    I just hope that you would never need me to pilot. I'd like to learn to fly one day. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    No problem. You'd always have someone at the ATCT helping you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Excellent contributor. Has earned his administrator wings. Archtrain 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support As committed to maintaining the project as he is to creating content. With everything he does, I had forgotten that he wasn't an admin already. If there were such a thing, instead of support, mine would read speedy admin --Ssbohio 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support per the comments above. --A. B. (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  57. What? He's not an admin? I have had at least one positive interaction with him, and no negative interactions. Shalom Hello 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - Flyguy is a trustworthy editor and ready for the mop. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support I liked his answers to the questions, and his handling of the Budapest/Budapesth issues. EdJohnston 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Why should anyone oppose him? RS1900 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  61. VoL†ro/\/Force 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Great user. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  63. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support, obviously. I like it when it's obvious :o) Guy (Help!) 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Well-qualified candidate with a lot of solid experience. I think he'll make an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong Support I was one of the guys at the Budapest war. He handled the situation very well, at some point admitting he's not an admin... Squash Racket 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  67. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  68. Strong support Aside from being nominated by three administrators whom I highly respect, I have had the pleasure of many conversations with Flyguy649, and have found him to always be suportive, helpful, and kind. When I saw the RfA, I decided to do some deeper digging, as I like to research prior to offering my opinion. What I found was a prolific editor, an excellent RC patroller, and someone who is not only dedicated to the project, but is careful, respectful, and supportive. A perfect example of this can be found from March of this year, where he ran into a blank page, but rather than slap a CSD tag on it and use a template on the editor, he took the time to request additional information from the editor in question, here. He discussed the problems, found issues, and corrected them properly, all the while explaining his actions, reasons, and providing informative links to the editor in a respecful manner. Additionally, Flyguy's participation in WP:RFCN has been consistently helpful, and even with fairly controversial names, he is willing to admit when he makes mistakes, as seen here with a controversial name from March. With all the names that were being created at the time, and the issues they brought up, Flyguy made a small error, but immediately corrected it, apologized, and explained his suspicions. This illustrates a perfect point: We will all make mistakes, but it is those editors who recognize, correct, and apologize for mistakes, who will likely be careful administrators. Flyguy shows a great amount of respect towards all editors he encounters, be they strangers, or long time friends. I strongly support allowing Flyguy to further assist Wikipedia in the role of administrator. Ariel♥Gold 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support, fully! And Ariel a comment above me deserves the "longest and most complete RFA rationale" barnstar! :D *Cremepuff222* 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I just have to laugh and say thanks, but no barnstar exists for that, I don't think, lol. My reasons are that when opposing, a full explanation to the reason why is helpful, so why not do so for supporting? Ariel♥Gold 03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    ... and besides, this RfA is such a crashing bore... Pascal.Tesson 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support pile-on, really good sensible editor, have fun with the mop. ELIMINATORJR 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support, as long as we're not chopping down a small forest printing this RfA out. =) Flyguy's an excellent, responsible editor and I'm happy to see him going for (and from what I'm seeing, succeeding at) adminship. Man the mop, aviator!--Dali-Llama 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support – He's not one already? o0; — madman bum and angel 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  74. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support not at all hard, have been aware of this editor for some time and trust him completely; I am one of the editors that he is collaborating with on Adam Air Flight 574, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support, per Alison and Ariel, the short and sweet of it. I've seen nothing but good things from this editor. Dreadstar † 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support Great user.--Oxymoron83 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  78. Strong support I've seen Flyguy around all the admin "hangouts", and always find his work and comments constructive. Excellent article work, excellent answers to the questions—just the kind of editor who should get the mop and bucket. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    Also, everything ArielGold said. If only everyone who commented at XfD was so persuasive and reasonable... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support. Absolutely. Reasonable, calm, sensible, and very solid contributions for everything he does (which is a lot - how can people be in so many places at once?) ck lostsword•T•C 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support. Zaxem 01:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  81. Your email made my day...enjoy the tools! Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support. <cliche>I thought he already was an admin.</cliche> Good contributor, constructive worker, will be a great addition to the corps. Raymond Arritt 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    So did I...which indicates he'll do well. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support User has done good work at AIV. Will not abuse admin powers. --Banana 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support pretty fly for a flyguy! Solid contribs, and extraordinarily helpful. ~Eliz81(C) 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support • Lawrence Cohen 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support. Long-term editor with broad experience. Espresso Addict 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support, make that 87 well-deserved supports ;) Flyguy's a fantastic candidate, the kind that makes you say, "I wish I was his nominator!" Phaedriel - 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  88. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    Support Great track and excellent candidate.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, but you already supported at #52 above [6] -- Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support thought he was already. ViridaeTalk 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.