Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richardcavell

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Richardcavell

Final (66/0/1) ended 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Richardcavell (talk · contribs) – This user has a long history of constructive edits to wikipedia. He's made a big difference to lots of articles, he has a history of editing civilly, he's taken part in AFDs and RfAs - in short, he fulfils WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks to Hughcharlesparker for the nomination; I'm very flattered by it. I accept. - Richardcavell 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Good user, sensible, polite, good judgement on AfD writes good articles.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:01 UTC (2006-05-30)
3. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support excellent editor, level headed. Will be a fine administrator. -- Samir धर्म 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I have had positive interaction/discussion with this user and see no good reason not to support. Grandmasterka 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Yes. Yanksox 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
7. He's not?! RadioKirk talk to me 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Insofar as I can see, there are no issues. joturner 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Everything is in order here. --TantalumTelluride 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support :) Dlohcierekim 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. DarthVader 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - enter clich(e with e thing on it) here -- Tawker 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support rounded experience, good manner. Tyrenius 06:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom and Tawkér (or Tawkèr?). Conscious 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support- no objections. This user deserves the Admin powers. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - a trusted user with already a barnstar; another potential vadalfighter JoJan 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - always a hard worker at AfD. Always has a useful opinion. Kevin 08:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support no problems here. Computerjoe's talk 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely TigerShark 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Nominator support at number 21. This is what you get for nominating someone in a different timezone. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Appears to have a good balance of community- and encyclopdia-based work and has been around long enough to know how things work. Recent edits to AfD show a well-balanced and knowledgeable (and non-ideological) participation there. The 'This' mention in Q3 really doesn't read all that badly, I have to say, but the restraint shown by avoiding such an article must surely bode well when it comes to deciding whether or not to press that admin button. -Splash^talk 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Support--Jusjih 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Support Has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies. We need more people like him at the AFD. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. I have been frequently impressed by Richard's good work at AfD, he will use the tools well. Rje 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Appears to be a strong Wikipedia, who has got a good level of activity on the project. --Wisden17 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Good editor. Enabling him to fight vandalism more easily is clearly beneficial. CWC(talk) 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.Trustworthy editor. -- No Guru 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Lapinmies 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support--digital_me^(t/c) 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
33. support Edit count on the low side, but high enough to conclude that he won't misuse the admin tools. --Bachrach44 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - when I've run across him in various places, he always seems civil and knowledgeable, and looks to be a solid choice for admin. Tony Fox 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, per nom and marvelous answers to questions. That's all I need to know you're a great user (actually, I already knew you were ;) ). Royboycrashfan 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support ForestH2
38. Support great candidate — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support with pleasure. Deizio talk 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Mopper like. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support I would prefer if he sometimes gave sources in AfDs rather than just assert that they exist (this might have changed the outcome of some AfDs, such as this one) but other than that, everything looks great. JoshuaZ 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- valuable editor. - Longhair 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. DVD+ R/W 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - making a valuable contribution. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - A very learned person who brings a wealth of knowledge to Wikipedia. Worthy of the admin role. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. A reliable, solid contributor. Zaxem 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Support Good positive track record on Wikipedia --Wisden17 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote - Tangotango 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

49. sUPPORT! Great guy, knows what he's doing --Mahogany 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per RadioKirk :-) Gwernol 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Seen him around the traps, no issues at all.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
52. The I hate to bust the "You mean he's not" cliché support. Seriously, no question at all. --Deville (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support absolutely. One of the best editors we've got. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Strong contributor in all areas. Everything points to a good administrator. Rockpocket 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. In general, a thoughtful, moderate voice in AfD and elsewhere. No skirmishes with other editors. Only reservation is that I'd like to see more long-term involvement with some articles (though i think he may have a few of these too). -MrFizyx 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Edits look good.--MONGO 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support, per above; positive contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support--A Y Arktos\^talk 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Captainj 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Weak support. Could use a bit more experience, but it's not worth opposing over. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Kirill Lokshin 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. I've seen this username around a bit, but I can't remember and can't figure out where. I wish I could, it would help me with the vote. Anyway this vote based on answers to questions. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. I seemed to overlook this RfA earlier in the candidacy. Werdna (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support - I missed this one early as well! BD2412 T 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Does not pass 1FA, but has shown to have active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   He doesn't pass under positive exception exception number one? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   • Yes, he did, which is why I did not oppose. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Richardcavell's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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 frequently participate in AfD, and if I get administrator status I'll be able to close the discussions. Rove McManus is a frequent target of vandalism and it needs semi-protection from time to time. I'd like to have the ability to temporarily block anon IPs such as 82.198.250.4 and its mates.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: There's a long list at my user page. I've written biographies such as Bernard King (television), John-Michael Howson and Max Green. I've written several medical topics such as conjoint tendon, esophagectomy and peptic. I enjoy creating redirects and disambiguation pages such as Klown and Robert Lowe, since the search engine is not the best and this structure helps people get to what they're looking for. I still maintain that the best contributions that I can make is to upgrade the spelling/grammar of existing articles.

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 created Channel 31 Melbourne, and then banned myself from it after an Australian anonymous IP removed most of my work. This was my response at the time. Although I still think that someone from C31 management was sanitising the unflattering content, I realised that I was too emotionally involved in the station (I've been helping there for 11 years) to be truly impartial. So I remain on a self-imposed ban from that page.

I have a couple of questions. They're optional, so feel free to spurn them with a harsh remark and send me fleeing in tears if that's what floats your boat. Ahem.

F0. You mention you'd like to close AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfDs? What would you do if an AfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What would you do in general if a poor argument for deletion had numerical support? Would would you do if an AfD debate was not closed within the 5 days (as often happens), and in the time between the 5 days expiring and you getting around to closing it, somebody had produced evidence that the article should be kept? What is your opinion of this AfD close?

A. My general philosophy on XfD is in fact inclusionist, even though if you look at my contributions you'll see tons of deletes in my edit summaries. I'm bothered by the 'evidence presented by an expert' scenario - I have considered trying to save several articles, including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overseas doctor and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Urinal_etiquette (both of which I wanted to keep), by fortressing my AfD vote with references or (even better) fortressing the article, but there's no point going to the trouble if the article will inevitably be deleted. A 'keep' vote will only keep it alive until someone nominates it again - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James (2nd nomination) or even mad nigger, both of which I fought to keep and both survived their first nominations.

The policy is 'rough consensus', and I have to go with that no matter how eloquent the arguments that are presented. As to your example of Zvi Mowshowitz - well, I would have voted 'keep' as a voter, but as a closing admin I would have deleted. (And I would never close an AfD that I have voted on).

I actually believe that if an article survives AfD, then there ought to be a lock-out period during which it cannot be renominated. I also think that there should be a policy that if an article undergoes significant changes while on AfD, which address the reason for which it was placed on AfD, then the administrator should have the discretion to set aside the current votes and restart the AfD.

F1. You also mentioned blocking vandals. What is your general philosophy on blocking vandals? At what point is blocking appropriate, and for how long?

Most 'vandalism' is in fact innocent testing and trial rather than true vandalism, born of an intention to be disruptive. I am therefore especially unsympathetic towards those vandals (such as Willy on Wheels) who appear to have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia that they could use their knowledge for constructive purposes.

I would only block a vandal after they've been warned appropriately - I've noticed that {{test4}} does seem to work a considerable percentage of the time. I think that blocking should be used to incapacitate the editor (to protect the encyclopedia) and not for punishment, deterrence, denunciation, etc. So the appropriate period of time is the minimum period of time that will frustrate the vandal.

F2. What about blocking people who aren't bog-standard vandals? How do you feel about that?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I'd be more reluctant to block a person for edit-warring/3 revert rule, because that sort of person is probably acting in good faith. Discussion is going to provide for more chance of rehabilitation than simply blocking. Have a look at User_talk:Legendary_Steve, who added the category 'Black Criminals' to Martin Luther King. I asked a few people to lay off the vandalism accusations and we got him to see the light.

Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:03, 4 June 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.