Talrias

Final (30/4/0) ending 13:45 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Talrias has shown great dedication since joining wikipedia. He has been very active in keeping the UK COTW alive, without him it may have died. He is one of the most helpful and friendly editors I know, and I'm sure he will prove to be a great asset to wikipedia with adminship. -- Joolz 2 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

This is a real surprise - thankyou for nominating me and I accept. If you have comments or thoughts, please don't hesitate to make them! Talrias ( t | e | c) 2 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator -- Joolz 2 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)
2. Great work on WP:TS. violet/riga (t) 2 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
3. Very strong support pending Talrias' aceptance of this nomination -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
4. Support -- One should not look upon his dispute on the phpBB page as a sign of a bad admin. Talrias was right in his indication that the number of links needed to be cut down. His edits (after I reviewed them in a calmer state) made sense. He has shown to me that he has a clear head when it comes to improving articles, and that he is more than ready to discuss things. Thus I think he should be considered for adminship :) NeoThermic 2 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

   Thankyou for these kind words. Talrias ( t | e | c) 2 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

5. Support. Has quite strong views on various Wiki issues, but is a good user. Hedley 2 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
6. Support very trustworthy and a good writer of pages. So what if he's proposed changed to the adminship system? Doesn't mean he's ignorant of existing procedures. David | Talk 3 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
7. Support this user who seems to take an interest in improving wikipedia, and can propose new ideas without trying to push them on everyone without consensus. Interactions with other editors look to be productive and helpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 3 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
8. Support - good hard working chap. A curate's egg 3 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
9. Support for lot of useful work. Reform of Wikipedia mechanisms is different and orthogonal to RfA. Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
10. Neutral. Everyking has a point. If Talrias believes that a user should have a mentor before being adminified, then he should find himself one. But given Talrias's sensible response below, I'll move to support anyway. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 11:32 (UTC)
11. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 4, 2005 16:31 (UTC)
12. STRONG Support! - Great user, I see no reason why he could not be trusted with sysophood. -- Phroziac ( talk) 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
13. While I disagree with this editor on some issues, none of those disagreements have been anything other than cordial. No reason to believe that he would miswield the mop. Support. Kelly Martin July 4, 2005 19:58 (UTC)
14. I agree with Mindspillage and also note that I'm impressed at his regret expressed below for so small a fault as briefly engaging in a tit-for-tat edit war. -- Michael Snow 4 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
15. Support. I see no reason that he could not be trusted with Admin rights. -- JamesTeterenko 5 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
16. Support. Seems responsible, dedicated (UK COTW), comments his edits well and makes solid contributions to articles. Certainly no reason for him not to get admin privileges. -- Rmrfstar 5 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
17. Support. Has a solid plan for what he'd do with admin status, and looks to be the sort of user who would benefit greatly from the ability to grab a mop and bucket on vandalism watch. Harro5 July 5, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
18. Support. Everyking's statement does less than dissuade me (in fact my vote probably exemplifies Talrias' rationale). This only suggests that Talrias is someone who looks to improve the functioning of a system, the wiki in particular, which I see as only beneficial. Anser 5 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
19. Support. While I strongly disagree with his adminship proposal, his edits and comments themselves are exemplary, and indicate to me that he will use admin abilities well. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
20. Definitely reasonable and thoughtful. Ingoolemo  ^talk 2005 July 5 21:51 (UTC)
21. Support, absolutely. Dedicated, insightful, contributes well to policy, etc.. James F. (talk) 5 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
22. Andre ( talk) July 6, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
23. Support Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)
24. Support. Per Mindspillage. siafu 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
25. Support A little low on the edits but I agree 100% with Jdforrester. Falphin 7 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
26. Support Despite my disagreement with his proposal I think he has a generally good attitude and shouldn't be judged just on his one proposal. Jtkiefer July 7, 2005 05:08 (UTC)
27. Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
28. Support. I disagree with his proposal, but he was very civil throughout the entire discussion, something I find as a mark of maturity. Making the proposal is certainly evidence he is willing to take the heat in order to improve Wikipedia, which is also important. Objecting on the basis of his proposal is ludicrous. Disagree of course if you like, but proposing something in obviously good faith is far from making him a bad admin candidate. - Taxman ^Talk July 7, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
29. Support. JuntungWu 9 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
30. Support. You may not have too many edits but its quality over quantity :) Redwolf24 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He has a proposal developed whereby adminship would be granted according to what's apparently a simple good ol' boy system, apparently without any voting at all. This sort of belief scares me, as it suggests a lack of respect or faith in electing admins by community majorities in which everyone, including non-admins, gets a vote. If he doesn't have any use for votes, what does he need mine for? Everyking 3 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
2. Oppose. One month shy of the nine-month threshold, and according to Kate's tool, only has just over 1500 edits. Denelson83 3 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

   Not that I want to question your right to set your own requisites for adminship, but, just out of curiosity, why nine months? Time elapsed since the first edit is already a somewhat questionable measure of one's ability to be an admin, but nine months just strikes me as a completely arbitrary threshold. You do realize many great, respected, and productive administrators were promoted when they had been here for much less time. Why this requirement then? Phil s 5 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

   I urge you to reconsider the criteria on which you've opposed this nomination. When it forces you to oppose a great candidate such as Talrias, it deserves a rethink. If you cannot bring yourself to support someone who is one month short of what you believe to be adequate, please at least consider voting neutral instead. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

   I would have voted neutral if his edit count was not so low. Denelson83 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

3. Oppose. With the exception of the one on votes, which are evil, I couldn't support anyone who does not generally embody Everyking's principles and points. Grace Note 4 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
4. Oppose, i know its quality not quantity, but at 653 article edits (1574 total) i dont think anyone could be experienced enough for admin duties. (sorry) Bluemoose 7 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• In reply to Everyking:

  I'm glad someone brought this up as it seems, at first sight, like a contradiction. Why would I accept this nomination if I thought the system was wrong? Let me reiterate what I wrote on my adminship reform proposal - it is that people vote, both for and against, without providing reasoning. RfA is one of the few pages where it is pretty much a direct vote which establishes whether the person becomes an admin or not. I think (and a number of others do as well) that RfA should involve more discussion (in the exact manner as you have done in your oppose vote).

  Now to clear up a misconception - you state that there is no voting, this is not quite correct. In the mentor proposal I stated that there would be a comment page where people could discuss the potential admin's actions. At the end of the mentoring period, the bureaucrat would take into account the discussion before promoting, or not promoting, to a full admin.

  The intention of my proposal was not primarily to introduce a mentoring system - it was to start a discussion on whether the way becoming an admin through RfA is the way it should be done. I'm not yet convinced it is. You are not convinced it isn't. I'm glad that it has done so, even if my mentoring proposal has been generally shot down.

  By the way, are you voting against my proposal, or against me becoming an admin? Talrias ( t | e | c) 3 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

• In reply to Radiant!:

  I think that following my proposal in this RfA rather than the current existing procedures would be a spectacularly disastrous display of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. :) Talrias ( t | e | c) 3 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

• I would like to say that him making a proposal for a new policy for admining is quite irrelevant to this vote, and not supporting because of it is frankly very rude. He can't be adminned because he made a stab at trying to change a policy that has lately recieved much critisism. If you think he would make a bad admin, vote oppose. If you don't have any oppinions about him being admined, don't vote at all. Do not vote oppose because he has made a policy proposal. gkhan July 3, 2005 15:04 (UTC)
  • I like to take a person's views regarding the project into account when deciding on adminship, rather than personality alone. It's important to me that an admin hold views that I consider broadly compatible with what the project is and should be. You, likewise, can vote for whatever reason you want. Everyking 3 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
    • Some people think anons should be blocked from editing articles. Perhaps one or two admins do. That doesn't stop them from doing a good, unbiased job. He would not have the power to make other people admins, so, in some ways, it's a little mute. However, I understand you taking his views into account, but I think that the vast majority of his contributions to the project far outweigh this one thing you disagree with. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
    • I don't think my views are diametrically opposed to yours (I'm assuming you are referring to the democracy one). I prize the ideal of consensus-building, which I think is fundamentally democratic, as it allows everyone to contribute and debate. I don't think that straightforward voting, without reasoning, is as useful, or democratic, as consensus building. That's what I think. Your fifth point, on your six points, about democracy and consensus, is not at all contradictory to my stance - in fact I am surprised you think otherwise. Talrias ( t | e | c) 3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
    • Actually, the only thing you have to consider when voting for an RfA is will he be suitable for adminship. Do you think his views in the propsal will make him a bad admin? Do you think he will go on a renegade, "screw everyone who disagrees with me"-trip arbitraily deleting pages? Do you thikn he will block users without substansial reason? Do you think he will join the elusive admin-cabal (TINAC!) and secretly decide the future of wikipedia? That he, alone, will with means of his adminship, will push through his agenda, and suddenly, without anyone in the community noticing have made his proposal policy.
    • He disagrees with you. So what? This is a community of people with different personalities, different POVs, and different ideas of where the project is going. We have to learn to accept that people is acting in Good Faith, even though you think his ideas are ridiculus. As you can clearly see in this RfA Talrias accepts when people doesn't like his ideas. He doesn't push them forward, he doesn't argue beyond reason. This is a quality far too rare in this community, and it is a quality we should embrace. In my mind, it makes him emminantly qualified for adminship. gkhan July 4, 2005 20:03 (UTC)
• In reply to Everyking: He proposed it. By all means it can be discussed (and perhaps rejected) but surely his willingness to suggest a good faith improvement is a positive thing? Personally I don't really support his idea, but that's all it is - an idea. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
• Talrias has 1523 edits right now: 640/94 to the main namespace, 155/231 to User, 208/68 to Wikipedia:, 9/0 to Image, 97/11 to Template, and 10/0 to Category. David | Talk 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
• By the way, while I support the adminship proposal, I think it's a little rediculous to vote based on a proposal he made. It's not like adminship will allow him to pass it without vote.. -- Phroziac ( talk) 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

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 have already been involved in watching for vandalism on Special:Recentchanges, and having the ability to delete any clearly nonsense pages and rollback any vandalism would be useful for me. I've also needed to use Wikipedia:Requested moves in the past which I've noticed occasionally suffers from a lack of admins carrying out moves normal users can't do for technical reasons, so I would help out there. Since my knowledge of copyright law isn't too fantastic (see the latest comment on my talk page, for example!), I would only get involved in clear-cut cases of copyright violation.

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

A. I feel I am better at making minor contributions, such as creation of stubs and additions of individual paragraphs than writing entire articles, but I was glad to take part in the creation of A. E. J. Collins with Brookie, which was my first real collaboration, and also working on internet forum and privacy which I must crack on with to get them both up to and above featured article standard! Joolz overstates my role at the UK Collaboration of the fortnight, but I am glad that now it seems to be back up and running, if not at its previous level of activity. I also helped with the new Collaborations of the Week project, which is in its second week of existence and I hope will continue. I'm also glad to have stimulated some discussion on the meaning of consensus through my two proposals relating to this very page ( adminship reform and wikipedia:requests for rollback). Most importantly, perhaps, I created the magnificent award for ClockworkSoul and violet/riga for their role in the template standardisation project, the Real Coffee Roll&#153;!

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 two, one with Cantus on {{ current}}, where I made a few changes to the style and was reverted. A minor dispute occurred as I reverted his reverts, as he had provided no edit summaries or responded to my comments on his talk page. I recently reverted his edits again when he changed the template back to one of his previous versions, against discussion and consensus between around 5-6 people on the template talk page. Cantus is currently undergoing a request for arbitration, so I feel I have acted in a correct manner. The second dispute was with NeoThermic on phpBB, where I slimmed the number of external links due to the large amount of them. He reverted my edits, and posted a message on the talk page, for discussion. I replied and reverted back to mine, which I now regret doing (reverting that is). I later apologised for my bad-faith reversion, which I am definitely not going to repeat.

Other than those two instances, I have been not been involved in disputes o Wikipedia as the articles I have been working on are not as opinionated, as say Wikipedia's abortion-related or religion-related articles are. I have been involved in dispute mediation outside of Wikipedia, on the web and off it, and have a fair amount of experience in this.