Who

final (19/9/2) ending 03:07 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Who has been a wiki user for a while and has over 7,000 edits. I can't think of anyone else who would be an admin better than this user. Who has reverted a LOT of vandalism, cast a LOT of valid VfD votes, helped out many users, and made over 5000 edits in the article space. This user DEFINITELY deserves a spot on the AdminShip. Redwolf24 03:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am gracious for the opportunity to work on Wiki as an admin. I accept this nomination from Redwolf24, as he was courteous enough to nominate me, even after I voted neutral on his current RFA. no prob! I thought you were an admin already, much like everyone else whos voted as of 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC). Haha, Redwolf24 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. I'll be the first :) Redwolf24 03:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Strong support - Second! :) Sango 123 03:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I was sure he was an admin. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support I thought he was one already. (And no, I am not part of some kind of RfA nominating scheme!) -- Essjay · Talk 03:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Good user all-around. !!!!

   Whoops, those !'s should be my own ~'s .Signing my vote: Bratsche ^{talk 5 pillars} 04:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

6. Support. Does a lot of good work, especially in CfD and TfD, and having the ability to finish it off makes natural sense. With an apparently natural like of grunt-work, the final link in the chain makes all good sense. - Splash 05:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Who's an admin? What's a bureaucrat? And I don't know about developers... R adiant _>|< 13:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Who will make a great admin and always greets new users warmly. He has also done a great job here on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 21:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support There is not enough reason to belive that this user would not make a good admin. While I am mildly concerned about behavior regarding Template:Reqimage, this is not sufficent to lose my support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
10. Strong support. Helps out tremendously on Cfd. Not concerned enough about the Template:Reqimage situation brought up below to not support: You can't not engage in conflict when dealing with certain people. -- Kbdank71 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Weak support. I still have concerns over the Template:Reqimage fiasco, but other than that, Who does a bunch of scut-work that I doubt anyone else wants to do (mass recats, for instance) and contributes usefully in the article namespace. Microtonal ^{(Put your head on my shoulder)} 06:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support. Exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs most to keep at least some quality. Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support. He would make an excellent admin. Hall Monitor 20:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. I have seen him do some excellent work around the Wiki and think he would benefit from admin priveleges. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
16. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Most certainly. Have seen much good work. smoddy 22:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support-- Jondel 06:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support. Who is a great editor and will make an even better admin. - Thatdog 03:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Too easily engages in conflict, particularly on Template:Reqimage, where he created an awful "box" format version of it and has been holding up people from improving it. Ownership is not a good admin quality, neither are 3RR violations. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Evidently, Who feels empowered to invent exceptions to the three-revert rule and apply them to himself. He reverted the template cited above four times in less than seven hours, but claims that he "was not in violation," for a variety of nonsensical reasons. I don't mean to discount Who's contributions (which hopefully will continue, irrespective of this discussion's outcome), but someone who attempts to unilaterally override official policy isn't cut out to be an admin. Also, I'm rather troubled by his belief that revert warring is an appropriate way to "avoid a RV war" and his sense of entitlement to three reverts per page, per day. ("The actual war was the last 3 edits . . . ") — Lifeisunfair 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. -- Mrfixter 12:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose - Admins shouldn't do things that would get them blocked in any other circumstance. Páll 17:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose Dmn / Դմն 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose Behavior on Template:Reqimage does not augur well for this user having the keys to the janitorial closet. Bkonrad 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) -- addendum, I haven't had a lot of interaction with Who, and, apart from some possible indiscretion dealing with reqimage, Who seems to be a solid contributor. I well know that interacting with certain other users can be extremely aggravating and may sometimes result in less than optimal actions. If this is vote is not successful, and if Who continues to show improved judgement, I could easily support for adminship the next time around. older≠ wiser 22:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. I wanted to support him, as he has for the most part been a good editor, but just the facts that, for one thing, the Template:Reqimage situation landed him a 3RR violation, and for another, he's taken his conflict with User:Lifeisunfair and shifted it over to his RfA, where they appear to be continuing to fight, make me somewhat suspicious to support his adminship candidacy. -- Idont Havaname 21:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose Although I find the user to be polite and approachable, I'm rather concerned at how he was bold with a particular contentious subject (the directors TFD) without asking for a consensus first. Although being bold is usually encouraged, it was, in this instance, poor judgement that could bias the decision of the closing admin on the TFD. More experience and I'm sure he would be OK. Too soon. The JPS 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
   • Might I comment to that? It was me who closed that TFD discussion, simply because it had been listed for the required period of seven days - just like I do with all discussions there. So if an error has been made, it was by me and not by Who. Specifically, I forgot to remove the discussion from the TFD page even if I had already copied it to the Log folder. R adiant _>|< 07:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
9. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. Only three months contributing. In my opinion, this user is not experienced enough to be an admin. If he waits another six months, I could support him. Denelson83 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

   I know you stand by this criterion steadfastly, but he has over 7,000 edits, thus averaging more than 2,000 edits per month of contributions. I voted oppose, but the longevity argument is not nearly as relevant here as it is in cases of more sporadic editors. 7,000 edits definitely clears the experience hurdle. -- Idont Havaname 21:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Neutral at present. Although though personal experience with Who I find him to be extremely polite and helpful, the issues surrounding 3RR and certain actions prevent me from voting support at this stage. Also, I wouldn't usually support Adminship for an editor who has been a member for so short a period (although, as pointed out above, his edit count does somewhat mitigate this position). I may well vote support after further consideration.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Mildly concerned at the fact that Redwolf24 and Essjay are currently responsible for 60% of the prevailing nominations, and Redwolf24 has two concurrently. - Splash 05:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm only responsible for one RfA; it isn't my fault that there aren't that many RfA's up at the moment. (I count 9, and he & I together are responsible for 3, which is more like 33% than 60%.) My RfA was first, and resulted from a discussion between Redwolf24 & I that I thought he should be an admin and he thought I should be one; the agreement, based on our existing desire to nominate one another was to wait for 2000 edits then nominate. Each of us had existing offers from other users (including a bureacrat who was willing to nominate Red) when the nomination was made; we wanted it to be the other because we are friends, not because we're running a scam. User:Who was Redwolf24 by himself, I wasn't aware that he wasn't already an admin. I'm mildy offended at the implication that any of the three weren't perfectly valid, good faith nominations.
    • My 60% was from the non self-noms since that's the only sensible way to count what I was counting. And there was no implication of any sort of invalidity; I've voted on two of the three! I just think it would have been cleaner for you to have waited until the end of your RfA to nominate Redwolf24, and failing that, for Redwolf24 to wait until the end of his/hers before nominating Who - it only takes a week. If you want to reply (and feel free), please do use my talk page since I don't want to disrupt Who's RfA with this. - Splash 05:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Whoa there. Im the one nominating extra, not essjay. Don't bring him into this. And I told you about this whole thing anyways Splash what are you doing >.< Redwolf24 05:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • I know, I said you (Redwolf24) had two noms, and was slightly confused by Essjay's comment. - Splash 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I spoke with Redwolf24 about wanting to nominate me, as I fealt it would not look good, mainly for himself. He had already made the nomination before I asked him not to. I would have preferred to be nominated by someone than a self-nom. I considered how it would look with the nomination and declining the nomination, and decided to accept anyhow. I feel that I would be judged finally by my merit, rather than the nomination, the same for Redwolf24's RFA. However, if there are any other concerns pertaining to this, I will gladly recind my acceptance, and wait till another time. ∞ Who ?¿? 05:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You were right to accept. If I thought it wrong in any way, I'd have voted to oppose, rather than to decisively support! - Splash 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think this whole discussion has been the result of a series of mistakes, and in my opinion, we should all say "I'm sorry if I misjudged you" and go back to writing an encyclopedia. To that end, "I'm sorry if I misjudged any of you." -- Essjay · Talk 06:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Reply to User:Netoholic . I took the time to leave comments on the change of {{ Reqimage}} at User_talk:Netoholic#Template:Reqimage, he would not reply, and I was being very polite. I do not have "ownership" issues, as I clearly stated on Wikipedia:Template locations and Wikipedia_talk:Template_locations#Design_and_layout_issues. I was waiting for other Wikipedians discussion and consensus before drastically changing or moving the template. This was the whole purpose of the Template Locations discussion. Netoholic took it upon himself to change the template without so much of a discussion. I made a kind note here and on edits after. I even stated on the notes and his talk page, the reasoning. But he would not respond. Agian I have no ownership issues, but feel that the community should have a say in the design, as I proposed originally AND during the reverts. ∞ Who ?¿? 08:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  This edit summary is laughable. If you don't want to get in revert wars, don't revert. And I am well aware of those discussions. As an outside observer, I see you taking this discussion to any number of pages you can find, and engaging in delaying tactics. Noone likes your weird box version, yet we've been stuck with it for a month. When one discussion starts turning badly for you, you post somewhere else. It's a distraction and a delaying tactic. I don't care about my version, but the messagebox format has consensus based on my review of discussions. -- Netoholic @ 08:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• I will no longer reply to this on this page. I have not tried to delay anything, I made it very clear that the template should be changed, but left it up to the community to do so. With each of my RV's I gave specific reasoning, and invited Ntoholic to discussion, he refused by not participating. I did not post in several places, I posted in the relevant discussion areas pertaining to this template. The messagebox format that you used does not confomr to Wikipedia:Template standardisation, and my last revert was to ALoans version which is standardized. ∞ Who ?¿? 08:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Please read the 3RR page carefully, as you can plainly see that the first RV was not an RV but a fix to make the link work properly on other pages. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, in regards to adminship, it is even worse to not know what a revert is, than to engage in revert wars. You undid good faith changes made to that page four times in just a few hours, restoring previous versions. -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments made by Netoholic why accept big and ugly when there is consensus that it's trash. tweak it later & zero people like this version, except Who, who created the monstrosity. I explained my edits, and was not rude, I invited you to discuss this, and you ignored. I was polite, and did not violate 3RR, and wasn't even concerned about it, only becaue the first edit you listed, was only to fix a link, that was non-functioning, and was in good faith. I would not call the comments you made, and ignoring the discussions good faith edits. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter why you reverted, to which versions you reverted, or how politely and thoroughly you explained your reverts. You made four reverts to a single page in less than seven hours (none of which were self-reverts or dealt with simple vandalism), and that's a violation. — Lifeisunfair 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

To be fair, the intent of 3RR is clearly stated. It is meant to stop revert wars. The first edit was not part of any revert war, it was simply fixing the mistake of another user. This is not to say anything about the legitimacy of the reverts, but rather to say that the accusation of violation of 3RR was not due. Jimbobsween 11:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reply to Lifeisunfair. I do not feel that anyone is immune to 3RR or any other Wiki policies. I mentioned I was trying to avoid an edit war in my comments, but they left out that I also included links in those same edit comments, to discuss the topic further, as well as the user talk page, and relevant template discussion pages. The only reason I am defending my 3RR, is that the first edit today, was to fix a bad link, rather than cut/paste to a new edit, I chose a previous version. This way before the "edit war", and was a minor fix, than a revert. I was not trying to even violate the 3RR spirit with 3 rv's, but since I could not discuss the topic futher, the last rv was to a comprised solution that had already been discussed on the ignored proposal pages. I would have not edited the template further, and realize I should have asked for a third opinion after the 2nd revert. ∞ Who ?¿? 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

No offense, but you don't seem to understand the fact that it doesn't matter what you "mentioned" or "included" in your edit summaries. You could have complimented Netoholic on his charming personality and minty fresh breath, and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. You were reverting.

In this context, the term "revert" simply refers to the restoration of an earlier version (even if it is via copy-and-paste means). The 3RR applies to any such revert, no matter what the reason (excluding self-reverts and correction of simple vandalism); the fact that your first revert was to repair a broken link is irrelevant. But even setting that instance aside, you deliberately engaged in an edit war, purportedly for the purpose of "trying to avoid an edit war" (which you've reiterated above). Does that seem remotely logical to you? — Lifeisunfair 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reply to Idont Havaname: I originally approached Lifeisunfair during the edit war, to invite him to view the discussions and communication attempts with Netoholic. As far as continuing to fight with Lifeisunfair, I have only responded, politely, to his continued comments on my tak page. Which I asked for him not to continue stated to him that I fealt he was "hounding" me on the issue. as I fealt he only kept re-itterating his feelings about the 3RR situation, which he had already made very clear, and solved nothing by continuing to reply replying to other users another user on my discussion page. If you notice, it was he that was monitoring originally responded to my discussion page, and responded when he saw "RFA" as an edit summary. I did not discuss/argue any further on any other discussion pages such as 3RR, nor have I commented on our discussions with any other user. Although other users have commented on my talk page on this matter, I have not responded to them, for I feal the matter should not be added to with continued argumentive discussion, in favor or against my point of view. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) clarify comments sig ∞ Who ?¿? 02:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"I originally approached Lifeisunfair during the edit war, to invite him to view the discussions and communication attempts with Netoholic."

As I explained to you at the time, I learned of the edit war via Netoholic's talk page, so I was fully aware of the discussions. As I also explained, I reverted to his version purely because you violated the three-revert rule (which your "communication attempts" don't excuse, despite your repeated claims to the contrary). I've had several prior conflicts with Netoholic (and none with you), but I don't allow my personal biases to override the facts of a situation. Netoholic was wrong too, but he didn't violate a policy.

"As far as continuing to fight with Lifeisunfair, I have only responded, politely, to his continued comments on my tak page."

You incorporated various pleasantries, but I don't agree that your hasty accusations were polite.

"Which I asked for him not to continue to 'hound' me on the issue, as he only kept re-itterating his feelings about the 3RR situation, which he had already made very clear, and solved nothing by continuing to reply to other users on my discussion page."

In addition to direct replies to comments that you've addressed to me, I've posted precisely one other message on your discussion page — addressed to Splash, in reply to a message addressed to you. (I also posted a pointer on Splash's talk page.)

You then accused me of "constantly hound[ing] [you] on an issue that is past" (referring to the less than one-day-old 3RR violation, which remains highly relevant to your RfA) and requested that I not reply to other users on your talk page. I explained my reasoning (which included a belief that it would have been rude for me to have replied to Splash behind your back), and agreed not to do so again. I've kept my word, so your claim that I have been "continuing to reply to other users on [your] discussion page" is flagrantly false and defamatory.

A short time later, Kbdank71 posted a reply to me in the same section of your talk page, but you never complained to him about this egregious infraction. Instead, you thanked him for voting for you. This illustrates the true source of your combativeness toward me: I oppose your RfA.

"If you notice, it was he that was monitoring my discussion page, and responded when he saw 'RFA' as an edit summary."

You make it seem as though I've been stalking you. As I explained, I always check the "Watch this page" box when posting to a talk page, in case I receive a reply there. I didn't single you out in any way. — Lifeisunfair 02:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reply to The JPS: I am not sure what the confusion is about. I skipped directly to TFD Holding Cell to see if there was any maintenance to be done. There were templates listed for categorization, and I started maintenance. I skipped the Kubrick, as someone had mentioned a prior category, and I wanted to furhter read up on that. I started maintenance on the other templates listed. After this comment, I noticed that the Tfd had not yet been closed (with code), as the actuall discussion must have ended yesterday the 17th, as the updated proposal was made on the 10th. I have no bias towards the subject, was only performing maintenance on the templates listed under "Holding Cell : to delete, categorify, etc.." Any other wikipedian could have started moving these templates, I just happened to check what needed maintenance. I am confused by the negative comments. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:54, 19 July 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 currently do extensive work on WP:CFD, and recently joined WikiProject Categories, so that I could be of more assistance in this area. I frequent WP:TFD, and occasionally work on WP:VFD. I routinely help with Wikipedia:RC patrol with vandalism rv's, and fixing up newly created needy articles. I routinely monitor WP:ANI, and try to contribute and respond to areas I feel I can be helpful. All of this can be done by anyone, not necessarily an admin, but having the admin tools, would just greatly enchance my ability to do these tasks.

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

A. To be quite honest, I am a better at copy editing, research and back-end tasks (categories, templates, etc.). I have created a few articles, mostly all listed on my page, I try to update all the "forgotten" actor articles, by adding the relevant information, I have a very long todo list on these. One article I created to significantly would be Jennifer Hale previous version.

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.

Stress I usually do not get Wiki-stress, I remember one time I moved my Wikistress meter up, but that I believe was over a long day of recategorizing the cross-wired Category:Superheroes and Category:Supervillains and children. I took a break, got a pen & paper, wrote down what needed to be done, and went back at it.

Conflicts Other than reverting vandalism, in what may have seemed like a revert war, I can only think of one instance of an edit conflict. Reqimage revert. Yes the highly recently disputed {{ reqimage}}, however this was resolved with a friendly discussion. Wasn't really a conflict, I just pointed out that I took the time to propose the change. Even now as it is being disputed, I have no conflict with its change or location. I had a very long discussion, 1 & 2, about GNAA's VFD, but I do not see this as a conflict, but a very useful discussion on the matter. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further with Ta bu shi da yu, since the last VFD.

Conflicts 2:Unfortunately I was recently involved in an edit war with Netoholic, on {{ reqimage}}. I was reported to 3RR for this, but was not blocked. Although I violated the spirit of 3RR, I did not violate the rule with an edit war. I appologize to the community for this, as I was attempting to communicate with him to explain that the template was part of a larger discussion, and probably should not be drastically changed until the discussion had finalized. I should have referred to another administrator before making any more edits, but instead, in a compromise, Rv'd to a version that was prior accepted by the community before my proposal to change the template. I can honestly say, this is not my typical behaviour, and can almost guarantee with certainty, that this type of scenario will never happen again. I will be happy to answer any more specific questions on this matter, to anyone that was not already involved, you may do so here or on my talk page. (Note: I provided history links to the discussions, and they may have been updated or removed by the time you read them) ∞ Who ?¿? 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Future acts I am a fairly calm individual, I have learned when to take breaks, and try to be as polite as possible concerning any matter. Even if I am personally involved in an article, its actual presence has no bearing on my state of mind. I feel anything can be quickly resolved with communiction.