Final (68/0/0) Ended 23:50, 2006-07-30 (UTC)
ERcheck ( talk · contribs) – For me it is a privilege to nominiate ERcheck for adminship. ERcheck has been with us since October 20, 2005. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles. The amount of biographies written by ERcheck has earned him the nickname "Bio Man" by his peers. ERcheck has made numerous contributions to the Marine Corps portal, Military History - WikiProject and is very active in the following areas: Neglected articles, Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol. He is also a active member and participant of United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject and of the Military history WikiProject. The thing that most impresses me about ERcheck is not so much his dedication and edit count (over 13,000) but, the way he handles himself with others. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. ERcheck is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js Username ERcheck Total edits 13397 Distinct pages edited 7365 Average edits/page 1.819 First edit 02:33, 20 October 2005 (main) 7317 Talk 1626 User 319 User talk 1923 Image 571 Image talk 1 Template 6 Template talk 19 Category 21 Category talk 4 Wikipedia 1021 Wikipedia talk 105 Portal 456 Portal talk 8
Viewing contribution data for user ERcheck (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 70 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 15, May, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.88% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 62.65 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 531 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 376 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.76% (88) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 6.8% (340) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 20.42% (1021) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 14.5% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 353 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 3041 | Average edits per page: 1.64 | Edits on top: 31.44% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 81.38% (4069 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 5.1% (255 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.4% (670 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 41.22% (2061) | Article talk: 24.54% (1227) User: 2.48% (124) | User talk: 19.56% (978) Wikipedia: 1.82% (91) | Wikipedia talk: 1.46% (73) Image: 4.1% (205) Template: 0.04% (2) Category: 0.08% (4) Portal: 4.2% (210) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.5% (25)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Optional question from
Lar:
Lar, Interesting questions.
- I was vaguely aware of the Category:Administrators open to recall, having noted it on a few admins' pages. However, I was not familiar with the discussions that lead up to it. I've read the interesting discussion on the talk page and noted that it is a relatively new process with just a few months run time. I am not aware of any admins who have been "recalled". Are there any? I'm in a wait and see mode on this — wanting to see how it works in practice. The underlying question seems to be, "Should there be a process that keeps things in check, rather than have a situation be escalated to the point that an Arb Com intervention is necessary?" I guess I've been on the rather quiet side of Wikipedia — I've not seen any outrageous behavior by admins; in fact, in all my dealings, I've found the admins to be civil and usually quite cordial and very helpful. (That might indicate that, in general, the RFA process works — giving the extra admin privileges to those who can be "trusted". )
- I was not aware of the "Rouge admins". Interesting concept and amusing reading. It's always nice to infuse a little humor into tense situations. (Though I do wonder whether or not those who could benefit most from it — those who believe in the cabal, believe that the admins are a pack of rabid wolves seeking to devour newbies and POV trolls — would have the humor lost on them, taking an "I told you so attitude".) Would I be put in the Rouge admin category? I think it unlikely .... just doesn't fit my personality. But, there are only a few things in life that I will say "never" to.
I know it took me some time to response, but I did want to give it some thought. I didn't answer all of your questions directly, but I hope I addressed the gist of your inquiries. — ERcheck ( talk) 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Final (68/0/0) Ended 23:50, 2006-07-30 (UTC)
ERcheck ( talk · contribs) – For me it is a privilege to nominiate ERcheck for adminship. ERcheck has been with us since October 20, 2005. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles. The amount of biographies written by ERcheck has earned him the nickname "Bio Man" by his peers. ERcheck has made numerous contributions to the Marine Corps portal, Military History - WikiProject and is very active in the following areas: Neglected articles, Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol. He is also a active member and participant of United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject and of the Military history WikiProject. The thing that most impresses me about ERcheck is not so much his dedication and edit count (over 13,000) but, the way he handles himself with others. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. ERcheck is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js Username ERcheck Total edits 13397 Distinct pages edited 7365 Average edits/page 1.819 First edit 02:33, 20 October 2005 (main) 7317 Talk 1626 User 319 User talk 1923 Image 571 Image talk 1 Template 6 Template talk 19 Category 21 Category talk 4 Wikipedia 1021 Wikipedia talk 105 Portal 456 Portal talk 8
Viewing contribution data for user ERcheck (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 70 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 15, May, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.88% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 62.65 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 531 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 376 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.76% (88) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 6.8% (340) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 20.42% (1021) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 14.5% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 353 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 3041 | Average edits per page: 1.64 | Edits on top: 31.44% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 81.38% (4069 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 5.1% (255 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.4% (670 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 41.22% (2061) | Article talk: 24.54% (1227) User: 2.48% (124) | User talk: 19.56% (978) Wikipedia: 1.82% (91) | Wikipedia talk: 1.46% (73) Image: 4.1% (205) Template: 0.04% (2) Category: 0.08% (4) Portal: 4.2% (210) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.5% (25)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Optional question from
Lar:
Lar, Interesting questions.
- I was vaguely aware of the Category:Administrators open to recall, having noted it on a few admins' pages. However, I was not familiar with the discussions that lead up to it. I've read the interesting discussion on the talk page and noted that it is a relatively new process with just a few months run time. I am not aware of any admins who have been "recalled". Are there any? I'm in a wait and see mode on this — wanting to see how it works in practice. The underlying question seems to be, "Should there be a process that keeps things in check, rather than have a situation be escalated to the point that an Arb Com intervention is necessary?" I guess I've been on the rather quiet side of Wikipedia — I've not seen any outrageous behavior by admins; in fact, in all my dealings, I've found the admins to be civil and usually quite cordial and very helpful. (That might indicate that, in general, the RFA process works — giving the extra admin privileges to those who can be "trusted". )
- I was not aware of the "Rouge admins". Interesting concept and amusing reading. It's always nice to infuse a little humor into tense situations. (Though I do wonder whether or not those who could benefit most from it — those who believe in the cabal, believe that the admins are a pack of rabid wolves seeking to devour newbies and POV trolls — would have the humor lost on them, taking an "I told you so attitude".) Would I be put in the Rouge admin category? I think it unlikely .... just doesn't fit my personality. But, there are only a few things in life that I will say "never" to.
I know it took me some time to response, but I did want to give it some thought. I didn't answer all of your questions directly, but I hope I addressed the gist of your inquiries. — ERcheck ( talk) 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)