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

Final (64/2/0) ended 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Freakofnurture ( talk · contribs) – I have been involved in a number of discussions with Freakofnurture, and I have come to trust his contributions. I saw a comment on his user page that he would like to be an admin and found myself thinking "I thought he already was one." So, I thought I might check out his record and consider nominating him myself. A quick yet moderately thorough check of his contributions reveals no violations of guidelines or questionable edits. He is active in AfD and reverts a lot of vandalism. He also has a pretty good sense of humor, but he doesn't get carried away. For those who are interested in number of edits, Interiot's tool counts 2956 with acceptable use of edit summaries. And for those who must consider the age of the account, he has been contributing consistently since February 2005. -- Tantalum T e lluride 01:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support Johann Wolfgang 01:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Second the nominator. NSLE _{( T+ C+ CVU)} 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. First-Nomination-Ever and Double-Edit-Conflict Support! -- Tantalum T e lluride 02:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Support Yes, of course. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. yup seen plenty of good stuff from this 'un. Grutness... wha? 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support. Great work in reverting vandals. -- Hurricane111 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support Seems like a good editor and good candidate for admin -- rogerd 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support Nothing but good interactions with this editor. He showed very good composure when I threw him to the school lions without warning. Will make a perfect admin/mediator. David D. (Talk) 05:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Good janitor, would be even better with more tools. Don't forget to keep up with UserTalk when blocking ips or users. xaosflux ^T/ _C 05:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support contributions look solid.-- MONGO 05:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support I love the answer's to the questions. Last 500 edits look good. Can not find a reason not to support. :-D KnowledgeOf Self | talk 06:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12. w00t!-- Sean| Bla ck 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Strong support I've seen nothing but good edits from this user while on RC patrol, and my recent discovery of his clever customizations of the ever-popular godmode-light script is enough to push my Support to Strong. -- PeruvianLlama^{( spit)} 07:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support will make good use of the buttons. Alf ^melmac 09:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support Looks good to me! -- негіднийлють ^{( Reply| Spam Me! *| RfS)} 11:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Merovingian 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support -- pgk^{( talk)} 14:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support. In addition to article editing and vandalism reversion, FREAK OF NUR_xTURE also does terrific work in areas that often are overlooked (such as our template setup). And what a clever username! :) — Lifeisunfair 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support, looks like a trustworthy contributor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support, excellent vandal fighter and provides helpful scripting. -- CBD ☎ ^✉ 17:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Wahey! — JIP | Talk 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support. We need more vandal fighters. Carioca 21:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Good vandal-fighters. Xoloz 21:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Wholehearted support. ^{Blank Verse} 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support Martin 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support Always support a good editor, who is a vandal wacker as well. Ban e s 08:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support edits always seem to be good; a friendly person who would make a great admin.   ALKIVAR ™ 10:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support. JFW |  T@lk 11:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Lectonar 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Another who I have run into often, shaking my fist at him virtually for noticing vandalism before I did. -- Syrthiss 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support See him around sometimes, good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support Need more admins. This one will do fine. A very clever username too. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support - Excellent contributor. Sango 123 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
34. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support, good stuff with common sense. - Splash ^talk 00:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support. -- DS1953 03:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
37. Support. El_C 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support. {{ rfa cliche1}}--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support. BD2412 T 06:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
41. Straightforward support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
42. Support Reyk
43. Guettarda 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
44. Support -- Mihai - ^talk 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
45. Yet another "what, he isn't already one?" support. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
46. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
47. Support, HGB 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC). reply
48. Support. PJM 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
49. Support. You're not an admin yet? let's fix that. -- Bachrach44 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
50. Support Thought he was one. -- Wikiacc (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
51. Support: -- Bhadani 07:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
52. Support - all my dealings with Freakofnurture have been good. I can see no problems. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
53. Support - now, you have to be joking. I always thought he was one (goes to double-check WP:LA)... -- Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
54. Support. -- Dvyost 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
55. Support Izehar ( talk) 19:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
56. Cliché support. -- D e ath phoenix 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
57. Support Eusebeus 15:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
58. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools, although I would encourage abandonment of the transcluded sig. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
59. Support. I seem to dimly recall (but can find no supporting evidence of it) that this candidate and I didn't agree over something minor in passing once, possibly. VfD? IRC? Something? Anyway, it probably happened. And he was right. So he must be punished for this with admin duties. Simple as that ;) ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
60. Support - Completely. Prsgoddess187 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
61. Support. A trustworthy user. David | Talk 11:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
62. Support, excellent answers to standard questions. This user inspires confidence. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
63. Support, thought he already was one. the wub "?!" 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
64. Support He helped me with an issue just now, I'll be glad when he's be on the job, since he's already on watch. karmafist 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose - Seems to have shown some rather poor judgment related to his signature. Against the advice of Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Transclusion/template, he's using a sig page. When asked recently about it, his reply and later actions have been quite disruptive. I found this recent exchange, where Freakofnurture edit warred with a vandal, rather than find an admin right away. Then there is this odd statement. Seems to act a bit too counter-culture and immature to be an admin. -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   When asked recently about my signature, I stated my reasoning and posted a link to it on your talk page, but it was never addressed. When I offered a compromise, it was ignored. You said if I shortened my signature template, you would run a bot to handle the substing. I have complied with this request. Seeing no reply, I began doing some substing, and you say I'm being disruptive. Yet there's been no further word at my talk page, only here. When I explained the purpose of a certain redirect, you effectively call me a hippie? You've searched for other means to assassinate my character, as well. Let it be realized that "edit war with a vandal" is an oxymoron, as the rules regarding "edit warring" do not apply to simple vandalism. What you are refer to is "preserving the integrity of a page". Of course, the downside of having dozens of javascript-enabled non-admins patrolling RC is suddenly discovering none of one's RC teammates are real admins. I've already addressed this in questions below, which I doubt you've taken the trouble to read. Now I've responded to your comments. Please respond to mine. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 09:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose Do not trust user to close AFD, reacts hostily when asked/told to fix his transcluded sig (which is wasting server resources for vanity purposes.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• I have passed the 3,000 edit milestone by reverting the addition of a red link to 1987 (most likely vanity) [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 07:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Closing AFD discussions, first of all, though I'm sure many voters reading this expected that response, as I have extensive experience with the AFD process already. Despite what some might say, I don't think this is a bad thing to focus on, as I think the worst problem with Wikipedia can be found by clicking on Random page. There are too many bad articles that go unchecked, but I do not think the AFD system is "broken". Furthermore, I feel I have a good sense of what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia, as most of the articles I nominate for deletion do, in fact, get deleted.

B. Looking at the backlog link, I anticipate helping to clear out quite a few requested page moves, unwanted redirects, and overpopulated categories, as these tasks don't involve a great deal of difficulty, but seem to be too boring for many to bother with.

C. Blocking vandals is another aspiration of mine. Whilst engaged in a recent one-on-one vandalism/reversion war with a vandal, I was told that it would have been better to stop for a second and post the incident for admin attention. I disagree somewhat. The RC patrolling tools available (and in wide use by admins) should make Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism more or less obselete. The primary focus should be keeping pages in an unvandalized state for the greatest possible percentage of the time. If non-admins have to revert the same vandalism ten times in a row with an edit summary that screams "block this guy!", it's a good indication that we need more admins.

D. Deleting patent nonsense on sight, protecting it from re-creation, rather than having the author of the nonsense remove the speedy deletion tag, and then copy his nonsense onto my userpage.

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

A. I think my most significant contribution to Wikipedia has been helping to remove things that make it worse. Arithmetically, though, 5 - (-5) = 10, does it not?

B. I'll admit openly that I haven't created very many articles, you don't have to check. I guess it's a paradox, in that the things I know enough to write a decent article about don't meet my standards for encyclopedic inclusion. Let me know if that makes no sense. I created John Gorka when I was a very new user. At the time, I thought for sure he would be deleted the next day, not knowing about the trip-cord bar set by WP:MUSIC. I don't think he's even on my watchlist anymore. He's on my MP3 player, though.

C. I have done a lot of copy-editing and link-fixing on topics I found interesting.

D. As Peruvianllama points out, my customization of the faux-rollback script (for non-admins) is also a valuable contribution. It allows the user to specify what type of edits he or she is reverting.

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. Most of my conflicts have been with vandals, which shouldn't be surprising. As for legitimate users, there was this one guy (I don't feel the need to give his name, but we'll hear from him soon in the oppose column I predict) who I've been in two heated arguments with. Both times I took the step of continuing the discussion to a more appropriate location than an AFD page, and both times I ended up leaving and finding something better to do with my time. To be honest, the second argument should not have happened, as I should have learned from the first one. As as for creative differences in editing an article, no. I've never come anywhere close to the breaching the three-revert rule, except in cases of vandalism, where it does not apply, and I do believe in the so-called "one-revert rule" for all other cases.

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.