Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Viridae 2

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] Viridae

Final (48/2/1) Ended 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs) – I nominated Viridae a couple months ago (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Viridae). Obviously I believed then that we should have promoted him, but some users felt 3 months was not enough experience. Viridae has been editing for over half a year now and has over 5,000 edits. He just finished the school year and will have plenty of time for helping Wikipedia.

To summarize my previous nomination: Viridae, an undergraduate student, is a dedicated RC patroller, communicates intelligently and civilly, is helpful, reacts well in the face of conflict, and has participated in many administrative areas. Viridae is unlikely to abuse admin tools and would use them to benefit Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-21 07:10Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The answers to the base questions in this this RfA will be very similar to/if not the same as those from my previous RfA. They will still echo my current feelings, or will be modified to suit. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As an admin I would help close discussions in WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RFD but at the same time, not limiting myself to closing disscussions - also continuing to be involved. I will not close any discussion in which I had been involved unless the concensus is clear. I would also reguarly check on CAT:CSD to make sure speedy deletions are exactly that. I would have WP:AIV and n my watchlist, nothing is to be gained from a backlog building up there, something I have seen with increasing regularity recently. I would also have the various Administrator noticeboards (such as WP:AN and WP:ANI for instance) on my watchlist in a similar way to how I currently have WP:HD and WP:VPA on my watchlist now. I find the administrator noticeboards very useful for dealing with complex situations needing administrator, and I wish to help others as others there have helped me. I can see myself involved in WP:RM too because that is frequently backlogged. Last but not least I would continue RC patrol and new pages patrol. This is all just a starting point , I hope to utilise my new mop, if I get it, wherever it may be needed within the project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My largest and most time consuming edit was definately the addition of the Non-viral methods section to Gene Therapy. This was also the article that prompted me to sign up to Wikipedia and start editing. I am (as mentioned by Quarl) a third year molecular and cell biology student, so noticing that non-viral methods was severely lacking from that article prompted me to leave a note on the talk page asking someone to expand that section. When noone did, I did it myself. It took several hours of research, looking through review papers on pubmed and my own lecture notes to write but I think it has been a worthwhile contribution and I hope those who read it find it useful and interesting. My involvement in writing the encyclopedia will probobly continue to revolve around my studies - as I learn fascinating things, I come and look at the relevant wikipedia articles (if they exist) and if I notice that they lacking in some department, I will research and add to them as needed.As mentioned in the nomination I have recently concluded my 3rd year of studies and I will hopefully be heading into honours next year. As my expertise grows in my field (I will be working in the same subject area as I hope to do my honours in over the summer break) I will feel more confident in adding to the relevent wikipedia articles. Just as I have used wikipedia as an entry point for my research for papers etc, I hope to expand and improve the quality so other may do the same. That said, the research and translation of material from scientific jargon into quality articles takes a lot of time and brain power and the latter is not something I have a whole heap spare of these days so for the most part my involvement in the encyclopedia is with minor edits and vandalfighting. But I will continue to slowly add as I see fit.
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 have been in some minor editing disputes at times, some of which have temporarily raised my blood pressure but nothing serious. I find the best way to deal with disputes is to approach them calmly and thoughfully. Calling names, and getting very angry is useless. The first violates Wikipedia policy and achieves nothing and the second shortens your life span and also achieves nothing. I suppose the best example of how I handle a dispute would be this dispute with the now blocked editor Ste4k. As you can see, I tried to remain calm and literate and present my argument as I saw it. The dispute was not resolved, but as you can see it was concluded when we agreed to disagree on the matter. I was also frustrated with the amount of ridiculous information in the Mini Mammoth article and ended up removing large chunks of hoax material, in the process leaving an edit summary of "removing crap" (which I immediately regretted). My deletions led to a minor dispute with another editor with him implying I was a vandal and my pointing out to him that the inclusion of hoax material in an article was vandalism, not its removal. This dispute finished when I decided that I did not want to be involved in a dispute over something so trivial, especially when the AfD was progressing rapidly to a deletion consensus.
A more ongoing dispute is my involvement in the notability of schools, and thus their relevance to Wikipedia. I am a strong supporter in analyzing each article/school on its merits and not the blanket "all schools are notable" viewpoint taken by some editors. This has lead to frequent discussions in AfD nominations and at times some frustration on my part. I always try and remain calm however and argue the point in a rational manner. If I do have the fortune to be granted with a few extra buttons, I will never close an AfD discussion in which I have been involved that does not have a clear consensus. A point that paticuarly applies to the articles about schools - in which I obviously have a vested interest. I believe conflict of interest when making decisions such as that can only be harmfull.
4. The aim of this question is to gauge something about your attitude towards Wikipedia. It may seem a bit specific and it is just for myself so if you don't feel like going through the whole effor of answering it, then don't; I won't hold it against you. Furthermore note that I have been invovled in some of the debates on relative policy pages for such issues - do not feel that you have to support my POV! Hope its not too confusing! ;) --Robdurbar 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
aLook at the page Karen Dotrice, Protection logs from September 9 and its history from September 9. Without looking at policy or the debates around the page (i.e., using your current level of knoweldge), what do you feel about the period of semi-protection and latter period of move protection on the page? What (if any) actions would you have taken on the page that day?
The page protection was not justified. It wass a front page article, which means it has high exposure and articles featured on the front page generally improve greatly because of their exposure. The move protection however, especially because of the WOW moves, was justified. The article is a bio which means that unless the subject changes their name, a move will not be required. It is therefore allowable to move protect it while it is on the front page. Anyone who wished to legitimately move it could take up the issue on the talk page. (something which would not in the slightest practical with regards to small changes that anonymous ips/users could contribute if the article had been edit protected.) I also believe that the move protection was removed appropriately after the article was no longer on the front page. ViridaeTalk 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
bNow consider the relative policies and recent discussion about such issues (See WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. To what extent were you aware of these (does not matter if you wern't) and how would these policies have affected your actions if you had been aware of them i) in the state that they were on 9 September and ii) in the state that they are now?
I am aware of WP:NOPRO but I was not aware of the discussions surrounding it. The front page is the face of wikipedia (sorry Jimbo) and since Wikipedia proclaims itself to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit, I believe protecting or semi protecting the front page article in reponse to vandalism for more than a few minutes will always do more harm than good. The front page article always has a lot of people with it on their watchlist so vandalism should never take too long to be reverted - ussually within seconds. I feel that most people understand that an "anyone can edit" policy also means that "anyone can screw about with it" and are therefore for the most part mindfull of this and may even be encouraged to participate by removing the vanalism themselves, rather than waiting for someone else to do so. ViridaeTalk 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
5. I was looking at your edits and I see a sharp drop off in the past 3 months. Obviously things come up in one's life outside of Wikipedia, but I was wondering what your perspective is on the timing between that and your RFA. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It was actually in reponse to university work taking over - being a third year student, I found that I could no longer accomodate the levels I had been participating in wikipedia and had to limit myself. Althought I was not necessarily editng as much, I still found time to do what I what I did when I first came here - read the articles for hours on end. That is why I am doing a science course - my insatiable curiosity. ViridaeTalk 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-21 07:10Z
  2. Support per strong participation in admin-like duties already, XfD, anti-vandal and RC patrols, and strong skills in handling conflict. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Aguerriero (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - Good user -- Lost(talk) 14:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. User's answers are good. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. I like this user. The adding of copyrighted image to a userbox is eye-brow raising, but the user has accepted his fault there, and I believe this reason is not enough to blemish the wonderful contributions this user has made. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. A one-off mistake hardly erases the value of his contributions and aptitude for adminship. Rama's arrow 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I believe user is a good candidate. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Nominee is well suited for the tools. Agent 86 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I said I was winnable and you've just about won me over, though answer to question 5 unsettles me somewhat; however my question was answered well and that and talk page respone have allayed my main concerns that Viridae would show a lack of an overview of Wikipedia. Will make, I suspect, a good admin. --Robdurbar 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Can I clarify something to set your mind at rest? ViridaeTalk 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well you allayed my initial concerns, as I said. To me answer 5 raises a couple of questions about commitment and whether you'd actually enjoy being an admin; but that is just one possible interpretation, and not one I am accusing you of. --Robdurbar 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support One image problem is not fatal to the RfA, just be careful about the Fair Use policies.-- danntm T C 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - someone's opinions on an issue shouldn't count against them at RfA ST47Talk 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - as per ST47 and others - it's crazy that someones opinion should count against them come RfA time. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, strong work in AFD (notably the Mini Mammoth spectacular). Solid contributor. Kuru talk 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support John254 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - The few interactions I've had with Viridae were positive, and there is an excellent contribution history to show that we have a serious editor here. No qualms about giving this one some extra tools :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Hell Yes!  Jorcogα  06:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. People are overreacting. He said that his view on talk page warnings would not interfere with his acts as an admin. NauticaShades 08:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support seems like he would make a good admin. James086 Talk | Contribs 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per above. MER-C 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support per last RfA and answers above. Eluchil404 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, no issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - seems like he would be a good admin --rogerd 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Changed to Support on further review. ~ trialsanderrors 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - live and learn, per Rama's arrow, Nearly Headless Nick. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. DarthVader 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Learning from his/her mistakes. That's what I like to see in admin candidates. Nishkid64 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support A good Wikipedian who will help the community well. –- kungming·2 (Talk) | Review 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support as Viridae has shown great qualities and a will to learn and adapt following feedback --Lostkiwi 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. Sniper support Right on target. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. Per Rama's Arrow and Nick. riana_dzasta 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - seems to have all the qualities of a good admin. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support – User has some very minor blemishes, but fewer than I did when I was promoted. I think he'll make a fine admin. – ClockworkSoul 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Although Radiant brought up some good issues, I still believe that Viridae will make a good admin.Sharkface217 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. G.He 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Changed from neutral after further review of the issue Radiant raised, plus the nominees execellent responses here and demonstration of the demeanor needed in an admin. —Doug Bell talk 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent answers given above and the way the nominee addressed concerns brought up earlier, looks good. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  43. --Dario vet 13:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Good answers to the questions asked, great user to give the tools to. Hello32020 15:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  45. --Rudjek 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  46. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Ding Dong. Special Delivery From FedEx: A New Mop! hehe, good work. Wikipediarules2221 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Bucketsofg 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Sorry to say, but you just added a userbox with a copyrighted image to your user page ten days ago. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy #9. ~ trialsanderrors 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I didnt even think to check where the image came from - and I am fully aware of fair use and what it entails - indeed I have asked other users to remove fair use images from their userpages before. Rest assured I did not create that userbox, and will now remove the image from it. I hope you can overlook this as a simple mistake. I may be able to hunt down a demonstration of where I asked someone to remove fair use images from their userpage if it would satisfy you. ViridaeTalk 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
's ok, I'm not encouraging others to oppose you because of it. To all others: I hope the lapse in judgment is covered with my oppose and everybody else evaluates you on your other contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I found the userbox on this userpage: User:Adamm. I have removed the userbox from my userpage and contacted those others that are using the image in that userbox, asking them to remove it. ViridaeTalk 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, coona. Auroranorth 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please explain. MER-C 12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
!Vote stricken; !vote made in bad faith with the intent to vandalize. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I object, per Viridae's strong opinion on removing talk page warnings ("Deleting valid vandalism warnings is wrong, they should be restored and an additional warning given, and if repeated this should lead to blocking or talk page protection, even in the absence of other disputes"). (Radiant) 12:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I respect that, but may I point out that as in the case of schools (see the questions) I will never let my view on a matter such as that cross over into my actions as an admin. If I felt that something I was doing may not be in line with consensus or my judgement could be questioned due to involvement such as that I would always try and guage the feelings of the greater majority at WP:AN or get someone else to act for me (ie another admin). This policy of mine will cover all my admin actions. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Radiant, I haven't formed an opinion on this user yet, but is it really appropriate to vote against someone because of how they voted in a poll on how to make policy? The user didn't say, "I'm going to make it this way", he (or she?) said the policy ought to reflect this particular thing. I count 25 other people to agree with this user, including 5 admins. If we're not going to let someone become an admin because of how they feel on a personal matter, I'm afraid our standards are so stringent that almost no one will become an admin. I'm afraid it's also compromising the integrity of the poll - "if you vote this and this way on the poll, and I disagree with you, then later I will vote against you if you come up for RfA). I hope I'm not too strongly worded here; it's possible I missed something. But that's how I see this one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    How this user voted in whatever poll is irrelevant. What is important, is that this user believes it is appropriate to revert war to keep warnings on a talk page, and to block people for removing warnings from their talk page. I am concerned that this person will, if promoted, make inappropriate blocks. And therefore I believe he is not a suitable candidate. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    At the risk of being seen to be argumentative by arguing with the oppose votes on my RfA, I have to say this because I feel you have misinterpereted my position. Those were not my words that you quoted, but the words most appropriate in the poll at the time. I do feel that as a dedicated RC patroller, pre-existing warnings do have a bearing on how I give further warnings - Indeed, I believe Vandalproof, the program that I use during RC patrol relies on pre-existing warnings to give you a summary of the warnings already given to allow you to choose an appropriate one. I have never said that I would take it to the point of edit waring with someone over warnings on their talk page, but had that been a choice that would have been stated. My point with that poll was that a vandalism warning is of benefit to the community, thus I would prefer if they stayed on the talk page/were moved to an archive but NOT simply deleted. I never condone edit waring with someone and I always feel that if a revert war is pointless. That is why I always restrict myself to a 2RR rule at a maximum unless it is a case of clear vandalism. I have already stated that my personal views about how policy should be conducted (as in this case) will never be allowed to affect my actions as an admin, and if I feel they are or coould be I will always ask for further advice. ViridaeTalk 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think that's a reasonable answer, and withdraw my opposition. (Radiant) 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Per Radiant! semper fi — Moe 02:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hey Moe. Could you please go into a bit more detail? I'm not sure what about voting in an honest poll is not grounds for becoming an administrator, especially like, as I said, 5 administrators voted this way themselves. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    As above. It's not about the poll, it's about when this user would use the block button. (Radiant) 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Pat. As Radiant! has stated, its not about his position in the poll, but about what his immediate opinion on the situation about it was and when he would use the block button. I feel that blocking for the reason of removing warnings from your talk page is wrong. There is currently no policy or guideline to follow on removing warnings from talk pages as it is common practice to archive conversation from your talk. I feel giving him adminship under his mindset is currently unneeded to what were trying to present to people. Telling people they could be blocked for that or revert warring over it is more disruption than it is helpful. Willingness to block someone for removing warnings is against policy is anything, as they are meant to be preventive, not treated as a punishment, and theres nothing preventive about blocking for archiving/removing talk page comments. I'm not saying that he would, but taken into consideration what he said on the poll, it sure seems like he could possibly block someone for the all the wrong reasons. In fact, I've been encouraging editors who report this as "vandalism" and want admin intervention to go about other ways with users who persistantly remove warning from thier talk page, other than blocking. I would like him to take that in consideration when dealing with editors (not saying that he doesn't though). semper fi — Moe 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Radiant!. 1ne 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Suspended support awaiting further discussion and answer to questions, but I'd like to see evidence that the user has a full range of Wikipedia experiences - his contributions show a large concentration in RC patrolling and votes for deletion. --Robdurbar 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Following answers to questions etc, have gone with full support --Robdurbar 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Rather than clutter this page further, I have answered your second part on the talk page. ViridaeTalk 13:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral per Robdurbar (minus the Suspended Support part). 1ne 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. 1ne 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. The unmotivated promotion of several problem admins last week makes me pause. Better be cautious, especially as Radiant's concerns are valid (as usual with this wikipedian). --Ghirla -трёп- 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral per Radiant's concerns above, but leaning support anyway because of demeanor and answers to questions. —Doug Bell talk 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Change to support. —Doug Bell talk 19:10, 25 November 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.