Redvers (
talk·contribs) – It is my pleasure and a pleasant duty to nominate
Redvers for adminship. Redvers has joined the project in December 2004 and became an active contributor from October 2005 with over 20 edits per day since then. He has more than 3800 edits in total and his participation is spread across various namespaces. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length, with suggestions from four of them making it to the
DYK. Me thinks he hates editcountitis, for he creates very large articles in a single edit such as
this. He is active in
WikiProject ITC Productions and was awarded a
barnstar for his efforts in a related
list. 14% of his total edits are in reverting vandalism to the article space – he also religiously warns the vandals on their talkpages. Among the 550+ reverts he had done, 450+ were through godmode rollback while in the remaining 100+, he performed a manual revert because he detected vandalism from multiple vandals – this shows discretion and patience on his part. His interactions with a disruptive anon early-on show his ability to convey that he is ready to engage in meaningful
discussion and when the anon made legal threats, Redvers responded in a way to convey that he means
business. He is gracious and thanks other
editors. He is also self-effacing, as seen in his request for feedback in his initial
days when no one welcomed him yet with the standard links. He is a member of
Esperanza and prepared well for admin chores through
this. He takes initiative, as demonstrated by his design of a
tool for optimising the WP experience on Firefox browser. He asked me to give feedback that will help him become a better editor, if not a better admin, when I wrote to him that I would go through his contributions for determining his suitability for adminship. He implemented my suggestions about a more exhaustive image description summary and fair use rationale on some 70+ images in no time. He has displayed maturity, curiosity, firmness and humility as the situation demands. To conclude, Redvers is well versed in the ways of WP and has served it well so far; he deserves to be an admin and get hold of the keys to the janitor’s cupboard. --
Gurubrahma 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with grateful thanks to Gurubrahma ➨
❝REDVERS❞ 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Preemptive before-teh-nominator support --
Syrthiss 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per the cogently written nom. --
Gurubrahma 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no reason he wouldn't make a great janitor. The nomination is excellent, plus I've personally observed the candidate being polite and sincerely wanting to do the right thing, which is always a good sign. --
W.marsh 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Super support per nom. Time for the mop and bucket! -
Wezzo(talk)(ubx) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Extreme "Wow. Just wow" support - <cliche /> I honestly did think that you were an Admin already. Top guy all around. --
Celestianpowerháblame 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Won't abuse tools. Solid candidate.
Rx StrangeLove 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support with no hesitation. --
Alfmelmac 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; have encountered before and always found him helpful & knowledgeable about Wikipedia. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support-- a good editor. Nomination is excellent.
Shyam(
T/
C) 21:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. What interaction I have had with was pleasant. He is civil, friendly and his contributions show that he is a good candidate and should make a good admin.--
Dakota~° 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, based on my trust on the nominator and the few times I observed the candidate's work.
≈ jossi ≈t •
@ 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
support very strong candidate
Benon 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I made it through half the nomination background, then decided that Redvers would make one solid admin. --
Jay(
Reply) 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, no questions asked.
Silensor 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Well, the nom said it all. --
ZsinjTalk 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. GUÐSÞEGN –
UTEX – 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. All interactions with the user make me believe that there shouldn't be any issues with him wielding the
mop and the
flamethrower.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support great editor.
haz(
user talk)e20:13, 16 March 2006
Support per strong nomination and strong edit history. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length would probably have been enough, but the entire record is impressive. –
Doug Belltalk•contrib 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support good editor --
rogerd 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. (I thought he already was one!) Great answers to the questions, and wanting to tackle image copyright concerns just makes this support vote stronger. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support There really isn't anymore to say that hasn't been said.
Jedi6-(need help?) 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Go for it!
Brisvegas 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I know it is cliché, but I seriously thought Redvers had already made admin! I know you will do well. --
Psy guyTalk 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. This mop's for you
Deizio 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good. Nephron 07:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Good solid contributor, no hesitation. --
Cactus.man✍ 09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support often see his name, doing good things and making mature, positive contributions. Will be an excellent admin.
The JPS 14:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - it's a pleasure to support. --
HappyCamper 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; excellent mainspace edits, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Oh yeah, and that just made
WP:100.
Matt Yeager♫(
Talk?) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Piling on I suppose, but edit record looks good.
Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per cliché.
Alphaxτεχ 06:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support as per all of the above :) -
Aksi great 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- seems like a lovely person.
Thumbelina 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose Not enough Wikipedia Project edits. --
Masssiveego 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
There seems to be a mistake, 1/8th of his edits are to the WP space. Or you are justified if you believe that close to 500 edits to WP and WT spaces are not enough (or) all edits to these spaces cannot be counted as project edits. --
Gurubrahma 09:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't bother arguing. This guy is the new boothy.
Werdna648T/C\@ 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
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:
A - The Images namespace always has a related backlog that I'd like to help out on. Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Uploader unsure of copyright status are the two that have most caught my eye where I can bring experience and elbow grease to help out.
IfD could also use a hand. I would also plan to do more RC Patrols - I've slacked off from it lately and it would be good to get back into the fray equipped with the tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A - My first real contributions of new articles,
Irish Peace Tower and
Iron harvest remain my favourites - the latter especially, because it has been improved a lot by subsequent editors (the joy of Wiki!). I've enjoyed translating a handful of articles from the German Wikipedia on broadcasting subjects - slow, hard work but worthwhile. Again, these have then been improved by subsequent editors, which is very pleasing. I'm also proud of some of the obscure articles I've cleaned up just by hitting
Special:Random and getting to work. There's some odd things in my
contributions list because of it!
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 - Nothing really to write home about. I've disagreed with decisions others have made, but my choice is to try to stick to 1RR and talk about a change rather than getting into a war. I've annoyed my fair share of vandals (
here,
here,
here and
here if you want a laugh). In the interests of full disclosure, I've once been accused of breaking
WP:BITE (see
here). I don't agree that I did, so asked for opinions on #Wikipedia. There was no consensus, so who knows? I dropped the subject, anyway. Also (and I can't find the diff to present it here), one fellow user accused me in an Edit Summary of having made a malicious edit. We talked about it and the accusation was withdrawn and apologised for, but it'll still be lurking in the history of an article somewhere!
Basically, when faced with conflict of any sort, my immediate reaction is to want to talk about the issues and find a consensus. If something does annoy me, then I'd usually rather go silent than kick off an argument. Essentially, I would always assume that I'd buggered up first, and check my own reasoning and processes before firing off. This does not apply to simple vandalism - for that I have no tolerance - and no quarms about reverting it and putting a stop to it!
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redvers (
talk·contribs) – It is my pleasure and a pleasant duty to nominate
Redvers for adminship. Redvers has joined the project in December 2004 and became an active contributor from October 2005 with over 20 edits per day since then. He has more than 3800 edits in total and his participation is spread across various namespaces. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length, with suggestions from four of them making it to the
DYK. Me thinks he hates editcountitis, for he creates very large articles in a single edit such as
this. He is active in
WikiProject ITC Productions and was awarded a
barnstar for his efforts in a related
list. 14% of his total edits are in reverting vandalism to the article space – he also religiously warns the vandals on their talkpages. Among the 550+ reverts he had done, 450+ were through godmode rollback while in the remaining 100+, he performed a manual revert because he detected vandalism from multiple vandals – this shows discretion and patience on his part. His interactions with a disruptive anon early-on show his ability to convey that he is ready to engage in meaningful
discussion and when the anon made legal threats, Redvers responded in a way to convey that he means
business. He is gracious and thanks other
editors. He is also self-effacing, as seen in his request for feedback in his initial
days when no one welcomed him yet with the standard links. He is a member of
Esperanza and prepared well for admin chores through
this. He takes initiative, as demonstrated by his design of a
tool for optimising the WP experience on Firefox browser. He asked me to give feedback that will help him become a better editor, if not a better admin, when I wrote to him that I would go through his contributions for determining his suitability for adminship. He implemented my suggestions about a more exhaustive image description summary and fair use rationale on some 70+ images in no time. He has displayed maturity, curiosity, firmness and humility as the situation demands. To conclude, Redvers is well versed in the ways of WP and has served it well so far; he deserves to be an admin and get hold of the keys to the janitor’s cupboard. --
Gurubrahma 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with grateful thanks to Gurubrahma ➨
❝REDVERS❞ 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Preemptive before-teh-nominator support --
Syrthiss 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per the cogently written nom. --
Gurubrahma 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no reason he wouldn't make a great janitor. The nomination is excellent, plus I've personally observed the candidate being polite and sincerely wanting to do the right thing, which is always a good sign. --
W.marsh 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Super support per nom. Time for the mop and bucket! -
Wezzo(talk)(ubx) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Extreme "Wow. Just wow" support - <cliche /> I honestly did think that you were an Admin already. Top guy all around. --
Celestianpowerháblame 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Won't abuse tools. Solid candidate.
Rx StrangeLove 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support with no hesitation. --
Alfmelmac 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; have encountered before and always found him helpful & knowledgeable about Wikipedia. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support-- a good editor. Nomination is excellent.
Shyam(
T/
C) 21:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. What interaction I have had with was pleasant. He is civil, friendly and his contributions show that he is a good candidate and should make a good admin.--
Dakota~° 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, based on my trust on the nominator and the few times I observed the candidate's work.
≈ jossi ≈t •
@ 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
support very strong candidate
Benon 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I made it through half the nomination background, then decided that Redvers would make one solid admin. --
Jay(
Reply) 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, no questions asked.
Silensor 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Well, the nom said it all. --
ZsinjTalk 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. GUÐSÞEGN –
UTEX – 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. All interactions with the user make me believe that there shouldn't be any issues with him wielding the
mop and the
flamethrower.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support great editor.
haz(
user talk)e20:13, 16 March 2006
Support per strong nomination and strong edit history. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length would probably have been enough, but the entire record is impressive. –
Doug Belltalk•contrib 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support good editor --
rogerd 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. (I thought he already was one!) Great answers to the questions, and wanting to tackle image copyright concerns just makes this support vote stronger. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support There really isn't anymore to say that hasn't been said.
Jedi6-(need help?) 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Go for it!
Brisvegas 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I know it is cliché, but I seriously thought Redvers had already made admin! I know you will do well. --
Psy guyTalk 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. This mop's for you
Deizio 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good. Nephron 07:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Good solid contributor, no hesitation. --
Cactus.man✍ 09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support often see his name, doing good things and making mature, positive contributions. Will be an excellent admin.
The JPS 14:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - it's a pleasure to support. --
HappyCamper 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; excellent mainspace edits, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Oh yeah, and that just made
WP:100.
Matt Yeager♫(
Talk?) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Piling on I suppose, but edit record looks good.
Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per cliché.
Alphaxτεχ 06:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support as per all of the above :) -
Aksi great 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- seems like a lovely person.
Thumbelina 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose Not enough Wikipedia Project edits. --
Masssiveego 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
There seems to be a mistake, 1/8th of his edits are to the WP space. Or you are justified if you believe that close to 500 edits to WP and WT spaces are not enough (or) all edits to these spaces cannot be counted as project edits. --
Gurubrahma 09:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't bother arguing. This guy is the new boothy.
Werdna648T/C\@ 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
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:
A - The Images namespace always has a related backlog that I'd like to help out on. Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Uploader unsure of copyright status are the two that have most caught my eye where I can bring experience and elbow grease to help out.
IfD could also use a hand. I would also plan to do more RC Patrols - I've slacked off from it lately and it would be good to get back into the fray equipped with the tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A - My first real contributions of new articles,
Irish Peace Tower and
Iron harvest remain my favourites - the latter especially, because it has been improved a lot by subsequent editors (the joy of Wiki!). I've enjoyed translating a handful of articles from the German Wikipedia on broadcasting subjects - slow, hard work but worthwhile. Again, these have then been improved by subsequent editors, which is very pleasing. I'm also proud of some of the obscure articles I've cleaned up just by hitting
Special:Random and getting to work. There's some odd things in my
contributions list because of it!
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 - Nothing really to write home about. I've disagreed with decisions others have made, but my choice is to try to stick to 1RR and talk about a change rather than getting into a war. I've annoyed my fair share of vandals (
here,
here,
here and
here if you want a laugh). In the interests of full disclosure, I've once been accused of breaking
WP:BITE (see
here). I don't agree that I did, so asked for opinions on #Wikipedia. There was no consensus, so who knows? I dropped the subject, anyway. Also (and I can't find the diff to present it here), one fellow user accused me in an Edit Summary of having made a malicious edit. We talked about it and the accusation was withdrawn and apologised for, but it'll still be lurking in the history of an article somewhere!
Basically, when faced with conflict of any sort, my immediate reaction is to want to talk about the issues and find a consensus. If something does annoy me, then I'd usually rather go silent than kick off an argument. Essentially, I would always assume that I'd buggered up first, and check my own reasoning and processes before firing off. This does not apply to simple vandalism - for that I have no tolerance - and no quarms about reverting it and putting a stop to it!
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.