Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ricky81682

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] Ricky81682

final (21/1/0) ending 00:20 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. According to Kate's tool, I have over 8k edits in English, on just over 5k distinct pages. I've been on Wikipedia since October 28, 2004 and feel that I would of greater assistance with admin powers. While I don't really have any articles that I tend to have lots of work, I have worked on a large variety of articles, but mostly doing clean-up and minor work. I'd also like to point out that I have almost 6,800 edits on Simple English and have been an admin there since June 29, 2005 which I hope will serve as an example of how I'd act with admin powers here.


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept my self-nomination.

Support

  1. Support everything looks in order here! xaosflux Talk/CVU 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Though it took him three attempts to get his RfA right, I believe that the user has enough edits in all the namespaces. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Go on then The Land 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Looks good enough to me. Support. Nightstallion ✉ 12:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. King of All the Franks 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Any admin on another Wikipedia is good enough for me. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, already being an admin elsewhere show his trustworthiness. Dan100 (Talk) 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support - very good editor. I seen you on Simple English as well. Recommended. --Thorpe 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, doesn't seem even remotely likely to abuse the tools. In regard to Radiant's comments below, I assume he'd review the relevant policies if he intended to take admin actions outside of his experience. -- SCZenz 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support --HappyCamper 01:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support --I believe that he has enough time to learn the relevant wikiprocesses. Calwatch 07:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Trustworthy as shown by being admin on Simple English. DarthVader 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Of course. Quentin Pierce 05:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. support a) seems good at working with others on talk pages b) admin should not be such a big deal. Mozzerati 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Seems like a good editor and works well with people. -- Jbamb 19:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. --Terence Ong Talk 15:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support good editor --rogerd 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support I see no strong reason to oppose--MONGO 02:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Phaedriel 09:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Weak oppose. User seems to lack experience with WikiProcesses, other than voting on AFD. Radiant_>|< 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (per the explanation below; I'd still prefer some more activity that wasn't a year ago, though). Radiant_>|< 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • In regard to Radiant's point, last December into this January, I did some work on helping tags images, which I guess you can see if you look at my contributions for user talk pages. Unfortunately, most of those images I worked with tended to get deleted. I have also asked for a pdf stored here to get deleted so I am somewhat aware of those policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One of the articles you cite as being most proud of, Vincenzo Viviani, has several paragraphs near the top that are almost word-for-word from one of the sources, here. Care to comment? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In any case, I've tried to rewrite some of it; the copyvio version was [1] this one before my edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'll admit I did not realize that. I'll try to plead that to ignorance in part, since I had only been here a month or so but I can't really explain it otherwise. If I recall correctly, I tried to create that article in chronological order based on those first two sources since I really knew nothing about him and it seems that I copied too much language from one. I have no other defense than that and I apologize for that. Also, thanks for rewriting that and catching that error of mine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 30 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I could just go with the standard "fight vandalism", but realistically, I'll probably work more on broken redirects. I'd also like to work a bit more with the deletion process (I know I don't have a ton of votes there but I believe I can follow the policies clearly).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I know it's been a while, but I guess that an article created would be Vincenzo Viviani. On my user page, I have a section, including the number of disambiguation pages I've helped to fix. A while back, I helped out quite a bit on the RuneScape series, but I've since felt that that series of articles has gotten way too big (and out of control) for a single MMORPG. I also worked on linking together all the Governors of Mississippi (sort of a random task) and even created a bunch of articles for missing ones.
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. The closest thing I can think of is the discussion I had at Talk:RuneScape quests over the format of each of the quests and over the amount of detail. However, given the numbers of users who simply ignored any decisions made, I just walked away from it. At Simple, as an admin, I did more work dealing with vandalism and deletion policy (right now, there's a pile of deletion requests that I don't want to actual do anything with until at least one more person make some sort of opinion. I guess my stress there would be from other users and I typically just leave Wikipedia alone for a few days if it gets too heated. The best examples are probably the discussions I had with Private Butcher there over blocking some vandals a little quick and the disagreements I've had with Netoholic since I tend to follow the official policy more strictly than he does.
Comment: Looking this over, I don't want it to seem like I am saying that Netoholic wasn't following policy on Simple. The issue there is that the policies there are typically simply copied over from English, which may not be the most appropriate policy on that wiki. For example, by policy, an admin must give a warning prior to blocking a vandal. I tend to follow that policy mostly while Netoholic argues that since there's really only two other active admins (Angela's the third) and a good amount of vandalism, it's sometimes necessary to bend the rules and block immediately (and for much longer periods than I would like or we would here at regular English). It's simply a disagreement on whether to enforce the policy as strictly written or to use more realistic rules. I don't know if this helps or makes it less clear but I think it helps to show my reasoning in regard to rules and regulations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
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.