Acetic Acid (
talk·contribs) – Ryan has been around for 3 months and he's already amassed over 2600 edits. He's a funny guy and a nice guy who interacts with most users well. I have seen him attacked by trolls, and he's never lost his cool. He's part of
WP:WC, always helping out newbies. In my opinion, the most important quality an admin should have is interacting well, so they'll be able to know about consensus. Ryan fulfills this.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
This time, I accept. :) Thank you both so much!
Acetic'Acid 0:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support! Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --
WikiFanaticTalkContribs 19:12, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
Strong Support, and let
Func beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Wikipedia!
Titoxd(
?!?)01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I've been waiting for this one and finally I can vote support of such a wonerful candidate and person. You'll surely get the record. (preceding
unsigned comment byCelestianpower (
talk·contribs) 08:47, October 24, 2005)
Support. We're going to see (100/1/1) before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy will oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly).
Owen×☎11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Seen him around Wikipedia doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--
Dakota23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) –
Bratschetalk |
Esperanza03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Wikipedia, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --
Sn0wflake06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk.
05:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Dilute Oppose only because I think
Acetic Acid needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year.
Klonimus04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time.
Justinc10:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content.
Charles Matthews14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months. I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times. I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Wikipedia works. Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed. I don't see any writing of a paragraph or more. Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes. Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc.15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Currently, most — if not almost all — nominations are made when the user has around three months of experience, which is, I agree, a very low amount of time, since it's still within the "hype range", in which an editor starts off with a lot of steam but soon disappears from the project, losing interest completely. Voters also get less and less serious with time, and these little support jokes are getting quite tiring. They always were. But what are we to do, right. I support Acetic because I think he's got what it takes. --
Sn0wflake19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
When RfAs are dull and one-sided as this one is, people are forced to look for other forms of entertainment. If all RfAs were as interesting as the AE one was, there would be no need for these lame jokes.
Tintin19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose, just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry.
PrivateButcher20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting.
Carbonite |
Talk23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I understand. I originally joined Wikipedia for that sole purpose, but I soon realized that it wasn't for me. There are hundreds of editors that are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. But I can still contribute by utilizing the other skills I have. Plus, there aren't many articles I can think of that don't already exist. That's the only reason I wrote the vitaminwater article. I was surprised there wasn't one already. :P
Acetic'Acid03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
The vitaminwater article doesnt even have any links in it; I am tempted to AfD it myself. If you cant write a good article how can I trust you to recognise one?
Justinc10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Simple. As an AFD closer, I don't go by my personal opinion of the article. I go by the consensus that was reached. Administrators don't run around, saying, "I think this is a bad article. DELETE." If they did, they'd face the wrath of the stewards. And for what it's worth, I'd add some interwiki links to vitaminwater right away.
Acetic'Acid15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
OK, slightly better. How about moving it to
Glacéau which it is mostly about anyway, and seems more interesting? What else would you do to improve this article?
Justinc15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
A picture would be nice, but there are huge holes. We have a 'what' what is this thing, but we are missing a 'where': where is the company based, where are the products available and a 'when': when was the company founded and the products launched. Then there is the only little interesting nugget that sits there in the article, what is now the second sentence, about advertising. Which asks a big 'why'. Whats going on here. The soft drink market is usually full of advertising. Something different here needs writing about.
Justinc18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I'll do some research to include more about the company. As for the lack of advertisement, I don't know. I read that right off one of the bottles, which is why I quoted it. It lost some validity with the whole Formula 50/
50 Cent endorsement. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.
Acetic'Acid19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
So now you are coming up with the interesting stuff. You dont mention 50 Cent in the article. Was it a real endorsement or a fake one (as it doesnt mention the name)? There is some history at
[1] I see.
Justinc19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience.
Zzyzx11(Talk)19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. Erwin11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Does anyone think it's interesting that Acetic Acid was 76/0/0, and after Klominus made the first oppose vote, three more quickly followed? Piling-on at a lesser scale, perhaps? (I know it doesn't matter unless another 15 people or so oppose, but it's interesting to note...)
Ral315(talk)18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I noticed that as well, though I think it started with AngryParsley's fake oppose vote (see talk page). The same thing happened with NickBush24's nomination.
Acetic'Acid19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I plan on tackling vandalism via rollback and blocking. I haven't gone on RC Patrol or Newpage Patrol in a while, but I have caught a lot of vandalism on my watchlist (both user pages and articles). Also, since I welcome new users frequently, I'm familar with the
New users log. I'll check for inappropriate usernames, imposters, etc. AfD closing won't be my biggest prioriety, but I will sort out the backlog if it becomes too congested. (By the way, I consider consensus to be 67% or higher on AfDs. Just over the 2/3 majority.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Unfortunately, article writing is not my fortè. But I have tried my hand at it. I've written a stub or two (see
Twisted Desire) and what I like to call, glorified stubs (see
vitaminwater). Most of my article edits have been vandalism reverts or minor edits.
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. My biggest cause of stress was the RfC I filed against Erwin Walsh. When I was more active on AfD, I noticed Erwin making rude comments during his AfD nominations. After noticing other users were having problems with him, I decided to take my chances and file a Request for Comment. It stayed open for two months or so. I asked to have it closed and archived after noticing a decline in Erwin's activity. I also saw his behavior improving, so I didn't think it was necessary anymore. (See the
RfC and its corresponding
talk page for more information). I noticed Erwin about closing the RfC. I think it's safe to say that we're both happy this is over. (See our
comments on his talk page).
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.
Acetic Acid (
talk·contribs) – Ryan has been around for 3 months and he's already amassed over 2600 edits. He's a funny guy and a nice guy who interacts with most users well. I have seen him attacked by trolls, and he's never lost his cool. He's part of
WP:WC, always helping out newbies. In my opinion, the most important quality an admin should have is interacting well, so they'll be able to know about consensus. Ryan fulfills this.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
This time, I accept. :) Thank you both so much!
Acetic'Acid 0:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support! Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --
WikiFanaticTalkContribs 19:12, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
Strong Support, and let
Func beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Wikipedia!
Titoxd(
?!?)01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I've been waiting for this one and finally I can vote support of such a wonerful candidate and person. You'll surely get the record. (preceding
unsigned comment byCelestianpower (
talk·contribs) 08:47, October 24, 2005)
Support. We're going to see (100/1/1) before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy will oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly).
Owen×☎11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Seen him around Wikipedia doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--
Dakota23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) –
Bratschetalk |
Esperanza03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Wikipedia, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --
Sn0wflake06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk.
05:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Dilute Oppose only because I think
Acetic Acid needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year.
Klonimus04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time.
Justinc10:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content.
Charles Matthews14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months. I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times. I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Wikipedia works. Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed. I don't see any writing of a paragraph or more. Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes. Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc.15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Currently, most — if not almost all — nominations are made when the user has around three months of experience, which is, I agree, a very low amount of time, since it's still within the "hype range", in which an editor starts off with a lot of steam but soon disappears from the project, losing interest completely. Voters also get less and less serious with time, and these little support jokes are getting quite tiring. They always were. But what are we to do, right. I support Acetic because I think he's got what it takes. --
Sn0wflake19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
When RfAs are dull and one-sided as this one is, people are forced to look for other forms of entertainment. If all RfAs were as interesting as the AE one was, there would be no need for these lame jokes.
Tintin19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose, just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry.
PrivateButcher20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting.
Carbonite |
Talk23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I understand. I originally joined Wikipedia for that sole purpose, but I soon realized that it wasn't for me. There are hundreds of editors that are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. But I can still contribute by utilizing the other skills I have. Plus, there aren't many articles I can think of that don't already exist. That's the only reason I wrote the vitaminwater article. I was surprised there wasn't one already. :P
Acetic'Acid03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
The vitaminwater article doesnt even have any links in it; I am tempted to AfD it myself. If you cant write a good article how can I trust you to recognise one?
Justinc10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Simple. As an AFD closer, I don't go by my personal opinion of the article. I go by the consensus that was reached. Administrators don't run around, saying, "I think this is a bad article. DELETE." If they did, they'd face the wrath of the stewards. And for what it's worth, I'd add some interwiki links to vitaminwater right away.
Acetic'Acid15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
OK, slightly better. How about moving it to
Glacéau which it is mostly about anyway, and seems more interesting? What else would you do to improve this article?
Justinc15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
A picture would be nice, but there are huge holes. We have a 'what' what is this thing, but we are missing a 'where': where is the company based, where are the products available and a 'when': when was the company founded and the products launched. Then there is the only little interesting nugget that sits there in the article, what is now the second sentence, about advertising. Which asks a big 'why'. Whats going on here. The soft drink market is usually full of advertising. Something different here needs writing about.
Justinc18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I'll do some research to include more about the company. As for the lack of advertisement, I don't know. I read that right off one of the bottles, which is why I quoted it. It lost some validity with the whole Formula 50/
50 Cent endorsement. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.
Acetic'Acid19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
So now you are coming up with the interesting stuff. You dont mention 50 Cent in the article. Was it a real endorsement or a fake one (as it doesnt mention the name)? There is some history at
[1] I see.
Justinc19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience.
Zzyzx11(Talk)19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. Erwin11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Does anyone think it's interesting that Acetic Acid was 76/0/0, and after Klominus made the first oppose vote, three more quickly followed? Piling-on at a lesser scale, perhaps? (I know it doesn't matter unless another 15 people or so oppose, but it's interesting to note...)
Ral315(talk)18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I noticed that as well, though I think it started with AngryParsley's fake oppose vote (see talk page). The same thing happened with NickBush24's nomination.
Acetic'Acid19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I plan on tackling vandalism via rollback and blocking. I haven't gone on RC Patrol or Newpage Patrol in a while, but I have caught a lot of vandalism on my watchlist (both user pages and articles). Also, since I welcome new users frequently, I'm familar with the
New users log. I'll check for inappropriate usernames, imposters, etc. AfD closing won't be my biggest prioriety, but I will sort out the backlog if it becomes too congested. (By the way, I consider consensus to be 67% or higher on AfDs. Just over the 2/3 majority.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Unfortunately, article writing is not my fortè. But I have tried my hand at it. I've written a stub or two (see
Twisted Desire) and what I like to call, glorified stubs (see
vitaminwater). Most of my article edits have been vandalism reverts or minor edits.
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. My biggest cause of stress was the RfC I filed against Erwin Walsh. When I was more active on AfD, I noticed Erwin making rude comments during his AfD nominations. After noticing other users were having problems with him, I decided to take my chances and file a Request for Comment. It stayed open for two months or so. I asked to have it closed and archived after noticing a decline in Erwin's activity. I also saw his behavior improving, so I didn't think it was necessary anymore. (See the
RfC and its corresponding
talk page for more information). I noticed Erwin about closing the RfC. I think it's safe to say that we're both happy this is over. (See our
comments on his talk page).
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.