Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Necrothesp

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] Necrothesp

Final (30/0/0) ended 15:13 November 4, 2005 (UTC)

Necrothesp (talk · contribs) – Necrothesp has been editing Wikipedia since May of 2004, and has gathered together all of the ingredients of a quality admin - his work on articles relating to police and military ranks, units, and officers has been stellar and valuable. Although Kate's Tool is showing me no love at the moment, a manual count of Necrothesp's contributions reveals something over 8,100 edits, including several hundred in Wikipedia project space. He has seen enough AfD's to understand the deletion process, and is known to whack-a-vandal from time to time, as needed. In closing, I ask, who better than an expert in police to help police the boundaries of our fine project?  BD2412 talk 15:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination with thanks. -- Necrothesp 18:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, of course, if only because the nominator spoke so eloquently. ;-)  BD2412 talk 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support because work is over for the day. CambridgeBayWeather 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support fine and helpful gentleman I am happy to support. (Please set your email, though; I agree that is important.) Xoloz 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Total and complete loser, I'd never support this person, this user needs atleast 100,000 edits to get my vote! Oh....I mean Support Private Butcher 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - agree about email. Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. We need a few first class, hard core editors with admin rights. His "Unadulterated rubbish" in nominating Chepstow School for deletion a few days ago also caught my eye and made me laugh--the article was indeed complete bilge at the time of nomination. Articulate, intelligent. Give him the mop. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Very nice. Would make a good admin.--Sean Black | Talk 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Although I'm not personally familiar with this editor, a quick look through some diffs in his edit history show quite a capable editor, and his answers to the questions are more than adequate. -Satori (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support An obvious candidate for admin. Great editor. SoLando (Talk) 22:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. El_C 23:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Another good candidate. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Suppoer. TDS (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support good editor --Rogerd 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support yep -Greg Asche (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Don't really know this user, but a good search of this editors articles shows that he makes edits that are conductive to Wikipedia. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Go for it--Xiphon 06:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. FireFox 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support . Just get these edit summaries going, officer. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Definitely admin material. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  24. Support Johann Wolfgang 04:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support --Kefalonia 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support another fine candidate. Alf melmac 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Looks like a good contributor, no reason to think Admin tools will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support -- Longhair | Talk 20:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Some reason all the articles i edit i always see his name and the changes and he does a good job and i think he is very dedicated, he even offered me advice about Military uniform. --Raddicks 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Dedication to detail and NPOV and his good edits lead me to say he deserves Adminship. Ben W Bell 10:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose – user must set/enable his email id. Let me know once this is done. User:Nichalp/sg 18:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Done. -- Necrothesp 19:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for enabling it. User:Nichalp/sg 09:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Regardless of the outcome of this RFA, please improve your use of edit summaries. Overall use is just 39% over the last 5,000 edits and 54% over the last 500. --Durin 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I echo that; as a condition of my support, in fact. El_C 04:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, could we have 100% fewer pointless statistics, please? They're tooth-grindingly irritating and don't give any information that wouldn't already be seen by anyone performing an adequately diligent task of assessing the candidate's edits. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Meta discussions are inappropriate for an RfA. I only happened to accidentally stumble across this comment. --Durin 14:25, 3 November 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As I make many edits to many articles, I have a large watchlist and I'm thus in a good position to revert vandalism, which I already frequently do. I have also been known to follow up vandals through their contrib list and do a few more reversions. Although I haven't had problems with many Wikipedians, I do tend to spot POV creeping into articles on, in particular, special forces ("my special forces are better than your special forces") and police ("the police in x country are fascist pigs who persecute people like me"), and it would be useful to be able to put a block on persistent offenders (since they are often people who make the same edit over and over again). I keep an eye on AfD, although rarely vote, and would happily help to implement decisions there. I've reported a fair few copyvios when text has blatantly been cut and pasted from elsewhere, and will help out in keeping us clear of copyvios. Finally, I'm often frustrated by my inability to move articles to a more correct title over a redirect, and this would be useful. Of course, I'd also consider doing anything else that I felt was useful to WP and provide assistance to those who asked for it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, a list of my major articles is here. I rather like my article on stable belts, simply because it's visually attractive. It still needs work, since there are probably hundreds of additions that can be made. I'm also still working on my series of articles about senior officers of the Metropolitan Police, which I'm rather proud of since info is quite hard to come by (with thanks to The Times Digital Archive, to which I luckily have access), and will later move onto other police forces.
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. Not often, but I have had a couple of run-ins with people pushing their POV on special forces and police, as above. The Special Air Service article, for instance, has in the past come in for some pretty persistent editing by a self-proclaimed expert who wouldn't accept that his 'facts' were wrong, even when proof was provided, and thought worrying about copyvio images was for sissies. I've also had a couple of clashes with an individual who wanted to push his negative opinion of the Hong Kong Police Force and refused to accept that an Englishman had a right to edit the article - anything except his opinion was a 'whitewash'. After discussion and some blocking and page protection, both seem to have been resolved and the individuals in question to have departed from Wikipedia in disgust at our insistence on facts over opinions. On the whole, I think reasonable people are open to discussion and unreasonable people will leave after discovering we're not a soapbox. I will use blocking and page protection if necessary, but only as a last resort.
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.