Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/east718

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] east718

Final (56/1/1); Ended 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

east718 (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination. I've been here since late 2004, quietly gnoming away, but decided to register an account in mid-2006. Since then, I've racked up some 6,100 edits according to query.php.

I've had lots of free time on hand since suffering serious sports-related injuries this June, and have been active "for real" since. I often find myself out of things to do on Wikipedia when I have some time to spend here that wouldn't be sufficient for encyclopedia building, and figured I could help out with the tools. I don't claim to know everything thoroughly, but I'm familiar enough in all the areas of adminship to help out wherever needed.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice. east.718 at 00:52, 10/27/2007

[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: This is a pretty long comment, so get ready.
What I've wanted to do but can't: I've run into several occasions where I wished I had more buttons.
  • Blocking vandals and blatant sockpuppets myself, especially when vandalism or socking is happening rapidly. I would like to issue a block immediately, rather than wait for AIV.
  • Quick deletion of attack pages under CSD G10, and deletion of edits containing personal information, without having waiting for CSD or AN/I.
  • Review deleted edit histories while looking for similarities with other possible vandalizing sockpuppets, especially vandals whose entire contributions have been deleted and summarily blocked without any formal warnings.
How I plan to use the tools in the long run:
  • Vandalism fighting: although I've cut back recently, I used to spend a majority of my time fighting vandalism old-school style. No .js tools, no IRC feed, and certainly nothing like VandalProof or VandalFighter. I would refresh the recent changes feed, check every diff manually, and upon seeing vandalism, revert it manually. I've got around 70 edits to AIV, and as far as I know, every single one has resulted in a block, which I hope says something about my judgment. With tools, I could combat vandalism much faster, especially since school is in session and AIV gets backlogged often.
  • I wander around AN and AN/I, looking for places where I can help if an admin is not necessary. I'm usually on during late hours where urgent requests for assistance may go unseen for hours, and I would be able to help out there.
  • PROD and CSD. I'd stay away from articles tagged A7, as I'm admittedly a poor judge of notability. However, I would be able to delete patent nonsense, vandalism, and attack pages without adding to the CSD workload. I would also be able to clean up the image backlog, tackling non-controversial deletions while deferring more difficult decisions to users more experienced with our ever-changing non-free content policy.
  • Maintenance. I'm relatively familiar with and would be able to help out at requests for page protection, the 3RR noticeboard, requests for protected edits, usernames for administrator attention, complex sockpuppet cases, and relatively straightforward articles for deletion. You're not going to see me closing any Daniel Brandts, as I have little actual participation in AfD outside of areas where I regularly edit. Anywhere else where I lack experience, I can pick up knowledge of it on the job.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm not big on article writing. However, I've made major contributions (over 30% entirely mine) to The Wire, Illmatic (as an anon), List of current world boxing champions, and List of UFC champions, all featured articles. My current projects are Fedor Emelianenko, List of The Wire episodes, and Dedication 2, which recently survived an AfD. I also help maintain articles on mixed martial arts, which generally attract the worst violations of neutral point of view and crystal balling. Although I don't write much, I do understand core policies such as neutral point of view and verifiability. I have obtained permissions for many freely-licensed images to use on Wikipedia (list available here). Mediation-wise, I've helped bring peace to the nebulous American terrorism article, which as you'd imagine, brings out the strongest feelings in people. I believe I can help mediate and diffuse POV-pushing because I'm generally antipathic, and don't have a strong POV on any topic. In my opinion, long term POV-pushing and the disputes they breed are more dangerous than vandalism.
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: Nothing that hasn't been resolved amicably and with civility. Back in June, when I was still unfamiliar with dispute resolution, I engaged in an edit war over Fedor Emelianenko's nationality. Thinking it was simple vandalism, I broke 3RR and was blocked. I contacted the blocking admin, and he pointed me toward dispute resolution, and I've never been involved in a bitter dispute since. My main tactics if I do get in a dispute would be to discuss, disengage, and ask for wider review. I'm not a big fan of posting complaints on AN/I, as I honestly don't give a fuck if I'm insulted on Wikipedia—I prefer to think I wear a bulletproof vest and can laugh at myself. However, if the dispute seems irresolvable or a party is being unreasonable, I will request for wider review, either through AN/I or RFC.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/east718 before commenting.

  • The aggressive archiving of their talk page would be a problem if they were an admin.Geni 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I generally archive my talk page only when a matter's been resolved and there's no point keeping it around. east.718 at 16:26, 10/28/2007
      • Doesn't work for admins since people don't what to have to go digging for a recently resolved issue.Geni 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Sure. Seems competent. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Looking through your edits you seem to have a vast majority of areas where you edit, and they all look good in my eyes. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support This user spent about three years in Wikipedia, but hasn't had any RfA. I've seen this user around in many places like RfAs. I'll get mad if this RfA is unsuccessful. NHRHS2010 talk 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Looks like east718 has the right attitude, and has gotten the necessary experience. CitiCat ♫ 02:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support Wait... he's not already an admin? I could have sworn he was... Gscshoyru 02:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Another pile on!! PatPolitics rule! 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support His contributions to this project is a great asset. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Yeah, why not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support A competent enough editor. -Icewedge 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Without question...excellent vandal fighter and a lot more as well.--MONGO 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Stronly doubt will abuse tools, and willing to learn more about the areas that he is not sure about before admining? Tiddly-Tom 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Excellent candidate. Has a broad and comprehensive understanding of WP policies. Well done. Rudget Contributions 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I see you doing a lot of good edits related to MMA. You have my totally trust. Carlosguitar 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support - East718's contributions to MMA-related articles are second to none. If anyone deserves adminship, this is the one. Tuckdogg 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support. Glad I came across this as I was hoping this user would seek adminship some day. Does excellent work, is extremely fair minded, and stays cool when the editing gets hot.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Contributions have shown that he is trustworthy and can use the tools. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Give 'em the mop - East718 deserves nothing short of adminship. Very competent and friendly user who knows policy well. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. PxMa 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support John254 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Evident from the other comments above that he can use the tools, and is a good vandal fighter. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  23. Support - No reason not to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. I always look at self-noms even more closely, but this is an EASY strong support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Good and helpful contributor. Good answer to question n° 3. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support No problems with this editor! Phgao 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  27.  Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Good editor. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support --DHeyward 07:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Jmlk17 08:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support At least a year experience and over 5000 edits...Don't even need to check rest of reqs. Tristan Uchiha 08:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Strong track record, but please read through WP:3RR and WP:SIGNATURE. Also please do not let editing wikipedia stop you from staying healthy.--Professional Deletionist 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Why isn't this guy an admin?? He has the makings of a good admin... --Solumeiras talk 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Track is good no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support He's been here for a long time and has nothing but constructive edits. He's a great contributor to the MMA world and is a Fedor Emelianenko fan. :) The Anti-Vandalism King 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support A great set of answers to the questions. — BillC talk 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support Seems like a great editor, already should have been an admin. :) tosh²(talk) 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support you had the answer to Q1 that I should have put in my RfA ;-) --Pumpmeup 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong Support What else is there to say that others haven't said above? ^ Thesaddestday 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Good user. Acalamari 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. This editor has a good record, with honest answers to indicate lessons learned. We need more admins who can roll back vandal-prone articles such as Randy Couture, as this editor has done already. Bearian 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support good user and lots of recent work at CSD. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Has done excellent work in writing articles and obtaining free images. Definitely experienced enough. Spellcast 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Weak Support. The candidate is qualified and has been a good member of the community. I would have preferred a more measured response to Q3. Majoreditor 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Looks good! GlassCobra 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support I thought he was already an admin.RuneWiki777 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  48. Strong Support I've seen his editing on politically controversial articles where there was great polarization (that is the true test)-- and to his credit easst718, without question, displayed fine qualities necessary for being an outstanding administrator: even handedness, open minded, consideration, fairness, putting WP policies ahead of politics, and generally staying cool. Did I say very fair minded? That too. His effect has been to help WP by moderating collaboration and reducing partisan conflicts. Prime admin material!Giovanni33 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Solid candidate and per User:Neil's argument regarding the issues that will affect all admins after the first week of November Pedro :  Chat  11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Per the above recommendations. • Lawrence Cohen 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  51. Miranda 20:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  52. Jbeach sup 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. We need people doing the jobs that east is interested in. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  54. Strong Support. I know this user for quite a time now and am convinced that he would do very good work as an admin, judging his skills, neutrality, friendly behaviour and judgment skills as I've seen them myself. Claudevsq 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  55. My interaction, though limited, have been good. Good luck!--SJP 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - good level of experience and a nice chap, great admin material. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Kurt, although I welcome your opinion (which, to an extent, I coincidentally share concerning real-world politics), I have to disagree. Wikipedia can only get better with more experienced and balanced administrators. Sometimes, good editors who are uncomfortable asking others to nominate them can fall through the cracks and never get the opportunity to help the encyclopedia; we've also had our share of terrible admins who were primarily here to socialize. I urge you to reconsider your stance on self-nominations: at the worst, hold them to a much higher standard than you would another nom. east.718 at 19:41, 10/31/2007
    The mere fact that you care whether you become an administrator or not--which you must or you obviously wouldn't bother responding to my oppose--raises a big red flag that you're an instance of the problem that has caused me to oppose ALL self-noms with extreme prejudice. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    =(
    I responded to your comment because I believed your vote to be in good faith and wanted to pick your brain why... if I were you, a bigger red flag would be me casting you aside because my RfA was at 50/0/0 and I didn't have to care about your opposition. east.718 at 20:20, 10/31/2007
    Well said East718. Well said indeed. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but asserts that they will not deal with articles requiring deletion under criterion A7; this is unfortunate, as this criterion is the one which most often applies, and the extent of the candidate's assistance will therefore be significantly limited – Gurch 06:51, 2 November 2007 (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.