Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Random832

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] Random832

Final (35/1/0); Ended 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Random832 (talk · contribs) - Random832 joined Wikipedia in January 2004, but started making significant contributions at the start of this year. He has made major contributions to the Dave Winer article, with his discussions on the talk page page being a particularly good example of a mature approach to content disputes - building consensus and explaining our policies to other editors. Although he has a reasonable amount of experience in writing articles, Random832's main interest is in helping behind the scenes in Wikipedia, and he is a frequent contributor to policy debates and discussions at the administrator noticeboards, so he already has a good understanding of both the theory and practice of being an administrator. In addition, Random832 has experience of vandal reporting, AfD debates, and making submissions to the arbitration committee. He seems a level-headed and reliable editor, who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Tim Vickers 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept this nomination. —Random832 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, in terms of XfD participation, etc, I generally go back and forth between different areas, and it would probably be the same for admin work. In particular, if anon page creation is turned on I'd be willing to help out with CSD and NP patrolling. —Random832 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Q With respect to CSD patrolling, does your comment [1] imply that an article should be speedy-deleted without confirming that the subject has no notability? DGG (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A That's what A7 says and what it means, and I was just saying that admins shouldn't be attacked for following it. I, personally, would probably try to go the 'extra mile' in such cases and see if the subject shows up in a google search, but that is just that, extra, not a requirement. —Random832 22:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other things to consider here are: there not being an article is not an impediment to someone creating one (and can encourage it, since someone inclined to contribute about the subject may be more likely to click a red link) - also, it's possible that the CSD procedures are, at present, overbalanced in favor of getting rid of articles as quickly as possible, but that is a problem with the rules, not with the individual people following them. I wouldn't even oppose adding requirements to check incoming links or maybe even do a google search before deleting an article, but since they're not there it's unfair to fault people for not doing what's not even suggested at present. —Random832 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, in terms of the encyclopedia itself, probably my work on first Noon, later 12-hour clock, about notation of a.m. and p.m. at noon - and various other cleanup in e.g. the sections of that and the 24-hour clock article about the differences between those clocks and splitting that into its own article. Outside of that - well, my work on resolving the dispute at Dave Winer as mentioned above would be one - I've also done a decent amount of template cleanup/etc (for example, merging numerous slightly different templates into {{onlinesource}}). —Random832 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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 can't really think of any that I've been personally involved in - probably the closest is, again, the dispute at Dave Winer - I came in, from my point of view, as an uninvolved user trying to limit the effect of someone who clearly had a problem with the subject. —Random832 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional Question from SJP
4 Will you please give a summary of the criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks for your time. Good luck!--SJP 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A From memory and in no particular order: patent nonsense; about a person/band/company/website and does not assert notability; no context; no content; recreation of XFD'd (not for previously speedied, though the prior reason may still apply, and not for cases where the content is not substantially the same as what was previously deleted) content; attack pages; housekeeping (botched page moves etc); user requested in userspace; copyvio; redirect to redlink; talk page of nonexistent page (with exceptions); orphaned fair-use images; invalid fair-use rationale image; no license given for image (these image criteria have 7-day tagging requirements); vandalism; spam/advertisement.
On checking the list - there were a few obscure ones I left out (e.g. redundant images, transwiki), and a few obvious ones that I didn't think to name (banned user, test pages) but that about covers it. I'd always make sure to check if I have any doubt. I guess listing everything means this isn't much of a summary —Random832 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from Jossi (talk · contribs)
5. Have you ever used alternative accounts to edit Wikipedia?
No. —Random832 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Malinaccier (talk · contribs)
6. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks!
I don't think I can really predict that, for the same reason that, though I mentioned CSD and people have focused on that in their questions so far, I'm probably not going to focus on just one admin area - I tend to shift what I'm focused on from time to time. Probably at first, I'd spend more time on admin stuff, but in general really i tend to just do whatever - i.e. go where I think I can be the most helpful. —Random832 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
7. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A: That area of policy is currently under discussion, but my understanding of the policy as it stands right now is that except in extremely obvious cases (e.g. a compromised account blocks Jimbo), such things should be discussed with the blocking admin, and not overturned without their agreement unless there is a clear consensus in the rest of the community to do otherwise. And, yes, I do intend to adhere to the policy, whatever it ends up being. —Random832 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Random832 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. No doubt this user will do good. Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Edits are well-distributed amongst various spaces; looks like an excellent user who will be an excellent admin. Besides, they have (at the time of the edit count) 1337 unique pages. How can I not support after that? --tennisman 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. K. Scott Bailey 17:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - user demonstrates good faith when asked questions about their behaviour. Their clarification of events has helped me decide to support this request. Apart from that, the quality of their edits is of a high standard and a welcome sight for me, here at RFA. (To see their reply to me question see here or alternatively, the current version to see the full conversation). Rudget zŋ 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. No reason to oppose NHRHS2010 talk 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Will clear backlogs of articles waiting to be deleted. Marlith T/C 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Thanks for answering my question. Will make a fine admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Great all-around user. O2 (息 • 吹) 04:25, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
  11. Support knows policy and can be trusted with the tools. Carlossuarez46 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Calm and cool-headed editor, well-versed in Wikipedia policies. -- Sander Säde 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Biophys 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, with reservations. Although Random definitely satisfies the requirements for "trust" and all that, he doesn't really appear to be highly active in the Deletion side of Wikipedia. I'm not really seeing much XfD activity at all, although the helpful and well-thought contributions to WP:AN/I. No reason at all to oppose or even go neutral, but I do think Random could do a lot more in the sysop. areas that he currently does. Anthøny 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Per Anthony above, that you don't have a huge amount of experience in some areas. However to state "I do think Random could do a lot more in the sysop. areas that he currently does" is funny - he can't do anything in sysop areas until he gets the tools! :) However I think I see Anthony's point, which is that the candidate is a little lacking in "non-admin admin areas" as it were. I'd advise you to take it easy on, say C:CSD and seek experienced help if needed. With that in mind, I see a civil editor with well thought out questions and the requisite experience and policy knowledge demonstrated through other contributions, and am happy to offer my support. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support--MONGO 11:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good, consistent. GDonato (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support — Save_Us_229 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support seen him around, would feel bad if I didn't support--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  21.  Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Will be useful. -- John Reaves 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, goodness knows how this has only got 22 (now 23) supports. A fine editor. Neil ☎ 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - trustworthy candidate. Addhoc 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - He's been here awhile, he has a good edit summary. --businessman332211 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - another fine candidate of recent times... :-) Lradrama 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Slade (TheJoker) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. support A good nominee. Acalamari 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support looks good. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Is acceptable to me. JodyB talk 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support See no reason to oppose has been around long enough.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. I've run into this editor several times, and remember what he did to help out at the Dave Winer article. I have no concerns about him being an administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Weak Support. I don't see much in his countributions to do with XfD to say it's the first thing he mentions in what he intends to take part in, but he makes up for it on WP:ANI, which obviously requires good discussion skill and shows he knows how incidents are resolved; weak support. Jack?! 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support I've been impressed with Random, I think he'll be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. strong oppose of last 7000 4000 edits overwhelming majority is all talks and monobooks and close to none actual content creation. I don't think that a person who does not actively contributes content may be a good judge of people who do. `'Míkka>t 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.