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

Goodoldpolonius2

Final: 44/0/0 ended 03:53 November 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please ensure that you set the ending time correctly. This RFA ends on 03:53 November 14, 2005. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Goodoldpolonius2 ( talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have been on Wikipedia for a year (minus two days one day), and have upwards of 2,600 edits (Kate's tool seems to be having issues, so I will fill in the exact number later). I have contibuted to a wide range of articles, but feel I have made large contributions in areas dealing with business and innovation, Jewish history, and, unpleasantly but necessarily, the Holocaust. I have authored quite a few articles on these topics as well. For different reasons, all three areas seem to have lots of vandalism issues, and the Admin position would be a real help. Despite occasionally dealing with controversal topics, I think I have generally done a good job in staying cool and presenting well-sourced evidence, rather than opinion, and in changing my views when I learn that I was not correct. Hopefully, you will all agree, and support my RfA. Goodoldpolonius2 03:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

After careful consideration, I accept my self-nomination. -- Goodoldpolonius2 14:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Seems to meet criteria. NSLE _{( 讨论)} \^{< extra>} 04:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Support my experience with GOP2 on the redesign of Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar was favorable.   ALKIVAR ™ 05:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support, Very even-keeled, cooperative editor; I really did think he already was an admin : ) -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support, Excelent editor Zeq 09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support. Entirely appropriate. -- Ian Pitchford ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support, Good researcher of materials, honest mediator, and other attributes make this editor an excellent candidate. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support I have had the pleasure of working with Goodoldpolonius2 on a number of articles, including the History of Jews in Poland, and no matter how controversial the topic, he has always kept his cool and could be counted to help with moderation. More power to him! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support-- Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Strong support. A great editor who cares about policy and has a lot of common sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support. -- NormanEinstein 18:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support; confident this user will not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support-- Sean| Bla ck 20:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Good editor and vandal-fighter. -- Briangotts (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Excellent editor, good consensus seeker, will use tools well. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support per above comments. Good editor. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose for 9 more years until you have 10 years experience Support of course -- Rogerd 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support If he/she is not deserving, who amongst us is? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support, good excellent use of edit summaries, especially to discuss changes in "controversial" articles. Normally I don't vote where I haven't had any interaction with a user, but in this case the contributions speak for themselves. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 10:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Indubitably -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Great user and even has a sense of humor! My type of admin.. I'll be watching you, Goodoldpolonius2 :-) Linuxbeak | Talk 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Support. I have seen him interact with a nationalist POV-pusher. He has patience.-- Wiglaf 22:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC) reply
25. SupportGood editor shows good judgement and will make a good admin.- Dakota ^{t e} 05:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support. A year is clearly enough time on Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support Per Piotrus and SilmVirgin. 172 | Talk 08:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support Everything that I want to say has been said already. I think he'll be a good admin. -- Martin Osterman 13:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Trzeba wspierać takich Wikipedystów. Shalom! - Darwinek 15:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support. -- Alan Au 18:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
31. -- JAranda | watz sup 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support with pleasure. Tom e r ^TALK 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. KHM03 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
34. Support The Marine has checked out your page and contributions and is very impressed. Good Luck Tony the Marine 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support. Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Thunderbrand 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
37. Support. Defrosted 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Redundantly strong support Voice of reason on a number of contentious topics. Alai 07:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support: -- Bhadani 14:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support never 'met' this editor, but from the comments from people who have, I believe I would have no problem with Goodoldpolonius2 being an admin. Alf ^melmac 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
41. Support Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
42. Support Fad (ix) 21:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
43. Support Privat e Butcher 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
44. Support - JCarriker 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. A year minus two days is clearly too little time on Wikipedia. Wait another two days and then I'll support you. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
   • LOL. R adiant _>|< 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
     • Time to switch allegiance, JIP. For today is my Wikiversary! Otherwise, if I get my administrative powers I will need to smite you with the white-hot rage of a thousand suns post a concilatory note on your user page. -- Goodoldpolonius2 02:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• You may want to consider activating your e-mail link. This has been an issue in past RfAs. Jkelly 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I took care of it. -- Goodoldpolonius2 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Seems redundant, but "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:" is empty and I've seen past self-noms still say they accept their self-nom... NSLE _{( 讨论)} \^{< extra>} 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • IMHO the correct procedure is to change it to "for the above reasons I have nominated myself for adminship". Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 10:05, 8 November 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I expect that I will mostly use my Adminopower(tm) to revert vandals, and to remove spam, which tends to really accumulate in the business and innovation topics. I have a good eye for copyvios, and would be happy to help users, and I am happy to deal with backlog issues as needed.

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

A. I would say History of the Jews in Poland (now up for FA, please vote!). This was, in my mind, an excellent example of Wikipedia community article building at its best. A number of other interested editors, including myself, started from very different points of view and knowledge levels on the subject, and through lengthy, and only occasionally slightly heated, discussion, we managed to advance the article significantly to its current state. Researching the article involved my digging through the New York Times archives from the 1910s and reading scholarly articles, while other editors spoke to various experts in Poland and translated Polish texts. I learned a lot and I think everyone ended up respecting each others work.

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 am a bit of a softie on this, as when other editors (who are not obviously vandals or trolls) disagree with me, I usually try my best to build a bridge -- posting on their user page, explaining my points, trying to develop agreement. I think most of the editors I have disagreed with most vehemently would say that I operate in good faith, and try my best to compromise, even if those efforts sometimes fail. Or at least that is hope they would say, I am not necessarily perfect at this, but I try my best.

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.