Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blurpeace

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Blurpeace

[edit]

Final (82/5/2). Closed as successful at 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe.

Nomination

[edit]

Blurpeace (talk · contribs) – I'm proud to ask to the community to consider Blurpeace to be an administrator.

The user has been here since January of 2008, and active since June of that year. There are over five thousand live edits, with a nice project space balance. Blurpeace spends time helping new users, reverting vandalism, doing work relating to the volunteer response team, and other gnomish activities. In theory, all users should act as administrators maintaining the encyclopedia, and Blurpeace has been acting accordingly. Blurpeace is not a content creator, but helps serve those who create. I implore you go through the user's contributions and decide for yourself if the user can use the tools wisely. Blurpeace is a trusted admin on commons, and I feel can be trusted to wield the mop. Keegan (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words Keegan; I accept. Blurpeace 03:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would primarily continue my work with images in the backlog (deleting transfers, unambiguous copyright violations, etc.) and closing nominations at FFD and PUF. Being a regular throughout IRC, I am occasionally asked to assist in varied administrative requests that I cannot handle. Removing the middle-man would be especially convenient. Aside from image maintenance and copyright, I would also participate at AIV and branch out as other areas begin to interest me (although I personally abstain from any "unsure" action until a consultation with another experienced editor).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions directly to the project are maintenance related, participating in backlog cleanup and making gnomish corrections to articles. Off-wiki, on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help connect, #wikipedia-en-afc connect) and OTRS, we are the front-line representatives of Wikimedia. I, among others, regularly teach interested editors how-to contribute and what our core policies and guidelines are. Having patience, being cordial, and upholding a certain amount of professionalism when speaking with new editors is important. These sustained contributions to the project, both on and off wiki, are my best.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: On en-wp, I don't think that I have ever been in a "significant" conflict that has caused me stress. Most online activities do not have that effect on me. One incident that I can recall was between a new editor named Afisair and myself. They went from yelling profanities to being a civil and interested participant (see talk page and noticeboard archives). One significant conflict that had caused me stress over at en-wikt, after much baiting on both sides, ended with two crude remarks that were both retracted (see here). I later extended an olive branch at his talk page in the pursuit of mutual understanding and we put the clash behind us. Although I am not easily flustered, when I am, I have some tea and biscuits, reassess, and examine the problematic details.
Additional optional question from Graeme Bartlett
4. What is the copyright status of publications and images from the government of California? Can we use their material on Wikipedia?
A: Lawyers, more so for amateur editors, cannot always provide definitive answers when discussing copyright law. Copyright status of works by California's government: SNAFU. According to their website's conditions of use, "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." Furthermore, information obtained through the Sunshine Amendment or California Public Records Act are "generally not subject to copyright". These are guiding principles that should be remembered when handling works by the government of California, although I would practice caution and research each given case individually. Finally, if the work was found to meet one of these or some other exception, and was in the public domain, then that work should be appropriate to upload.
Optional question from Keepscases
5. It is clear from the nomination statement and the comments here that no one has any idea what gender you are. Is there a reason you avoid sharing this? Answering this question is optional; I respect your right to privacy if you desire it.
A: Huh, the nomination statement is worded oddly. I'm guessing that Keegan didn't know whether I wanted my gender made public or not. Anyhow, I've nothing to hide: [1].
Interjection I've always made it a habit of referring to users and account names in such a style in almost all my nominations, I'm not big on assuming genders or age even if specified. Keegan (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
6. In your own words, what's the best way to deal with a vandal?
A: Vandals intentionally change page content to compromise the project's integrity as an encyclopedia of reliable information. Unambiguous vandalism (e.g. "PENISPENISPENIS", replacing an article with profanities) should not be tolerated and blocked on-sight; depending on whether we're blocking an account or an IP address will determine the amount of time issued. Editors that make less serious changes, sometimes mistaken as vandalism, should be given appropriate warnings with an initial welcome template. Always fall back on conversation; a tried-and-true tenet of the wiki model.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Blurpeace before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support Thought he already was one... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I know it's a cliche, but I honestly thought Blurpeace was already an admin. Beaucoup de clue, so why not? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As nom. Keegan (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fuck yes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support He's an admin at Commons. Blurpeace is an excellent contributor who should also get the mop here. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Strong Support After knowing this user for the span of my entire active time here onwiki, I am glad to finally see an RfA. User demonstrates the upmost patience, espeically when dealing with new users. User is also patient when a user shows good faith, but assertive when it becomes obvious that bad-faith is involved in a situation. I think that this user would make an excellent sysop, as demonstrated on commons. Absolutely no concerns, full support. --  IShadowed  ✰  04:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support should do. Prodego talk 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Why not? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Can't follow instructions in a sandbox? How can we support that? Hi878 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support no doubt, would be a great help in multiple locations James (T C) 04:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Clear support for the blurry one. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Amory. Tim Song (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Risker (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support There's just too many reasons to support then oppose. -Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Keegan! —Dark 07:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: wide range of activities with no disasters. Would be useful to go to for day-to-day admin services. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support seems to be doing a good job nominating things for deletion especially in the image area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Contribs demonstrate industrious work in undermanned areas, answers here show a level-headed approach to conflict. I don't subscribe to the "must create audited content" requirement, and don't think the cited RfA votes are particularly heinous. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Why not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Great. Aiken ♫ 13:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Specialist admin candidate. One can set all the criteria for an "ideal" candidate (none exists) one wishes, but the bottom line is "will the candidate benefit the project with the tools?" In this case the answer is "yes." User already is trusted with OTRS and as an Admin on Commons-- show has proven common sense. User delves deeply into areas I could never work in and has the knowledge to use the tools in those areas. Dlohcierekim 14:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Although in my opinion creating articles is like a proof to show how well you understand the Wikipedia policies, he does get a lot of trust from those new users who can't wait to create articles. I think he has read all the existing policies and has used that knowledge to help the others too. Even though he never abused the rollback, I hope he's not a trigger-happy kind of person when he does get the tools he want. Minimac (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, and a very strong one at that. • ɔ ʃ → 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support. I was going to go neutral because the opposers raise concerns that are not invalid, however, Dlohcierekim's comment changed my mind- the candidate is obviously trustworthy (OTRS; admin on Commons) and appears to possess enough common sense to do a good job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Nathan T 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. This user, no matter if it is here or other projects, is my voice of reason and sanity. I bounce a lot of ideas off of him and he always gives good feedback. I just feel bad I am converting him to become a vexillologist like me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support: Light on number of edits to article space and highly active for only a year; however, the candidate has been a Wikipedian for 2 1/2 years and has made solid contributions to the project. What tipped the scales for me is his current status as an administrator on Commons, and a firm belief that the project will benefit from his high level of technical expertise.--Hokeman (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I feel that the candidate is trustworthy, and would not abuse the tools. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Of course. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Very intelligent and reeks of clue. ceranthor 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. We have three very strong candidates at RfA, all of whom I feel will be hugely beneficial to Wikipedia in the long run. Specifically, Blurpeace is a dedicated editor, and dedicated editors make dedicated admins. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per wise comments from Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) above Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Often, editing and admin work are mutually exclusive as devoting time to one keeps you away from the other. I don't think an admin needs to be a great editor, but I do want to see an example that a person has some editing experience to at least have empathy with those who do spend more time working in article space. I see enough from Blurpeace to satisfy me. Contributions outside of article space are impressive. -- Atama頭 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support mainly to offset the opposers who say the candidate doesn't have enough article creations, because there are admins who AREN'T content creators, and I don't believe in the "must have created x X-class articles" mantra to qualify for the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Commons admin, looks like a great gnome - seems eminently suitable -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - opposes are unconvincing. Solid editor, so I don't see why not! Airplaneman ✈ 22:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - in my review I found nothing to say that giving Blurpeace the bit would be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Trustworthy editor who will not misuse the tools. Rje (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - seems to be a very helpful and knowledgable Wikipedian. Orphan Wiki 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: editor's experience as a Commons admin and desire to focus on neglected areas are more than enough for me.--~TPW 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have interacted with this user before and I feel confident that they have good intentions and would be a great asset to the encyclopedia. I am also satisfied with the answers given to questions in this adminship request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support based on positive interactions at other projects and per contributions here as well. Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. (edit conflict) Support Absolutely no reason to oppose. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Why shouldn't you get the weapons of minor destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)
  45. Support - no reservations or concerns here; everything seems to be in order. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Was under the misapprehension that the candidate was already an admin -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -Siva1979Talk to me 11:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Trustworthy and clueful. -- Ϫ 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak support Per concerns raised above and in oppose section. BejinhanTalk 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - admin on commons, infinitely patient with new users, willing to tackle file problems, has a clue. Why not? PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I trust this user. Kansan (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Jujutacular T · C 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I think he will be a good administrator. J.delanoygabsadds 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. All looks ok; I don't know the candidate but the supporters more convincing than opposers. Blocking an IP on-sight for PENISPENIS might be a bit rough but maybe I'm misreading the answer to Q6. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. JamieS93❤ 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes  7  22:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Has some content, informed on copyright issues, would work in deleting duplicate images, an area I am fairly frequently involved in and know takes a lot of work. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Q6 was not a home run for me, but somewhere between a base hit and a standup double. That's good enough. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support The PUF and other image backlogs do need more people who specialize in that rather (for me) esoteric and mysterious area. So count this as a support on the strength of your other supporters. RayTalk 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Good answers to the questions, and enough history that anything troublesome would have shown up by now. Full support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. As one of the few admins who works in WP:FFD and WP:PUF (I can only think of maybe four or five other admins who I notice regularly active around there), I can definitely say we need more admins in these areas. I see no evidence suggesting that Blurpeace would abuse or misuse the tools. — ξxplicit 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Agreed with Dlohcierekim. Aditya Ex Machina 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. AGK 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. I've seen Blurpeace exercise good judgment both here and on Commons. Working in image related areas = even better. We need more administrators there (as Explicit says above). --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Good answers to questions and trusted as admin on Commons. I agree with Explicit and Kanonkas as well. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Blurpeace. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Does he have a clear reason to use the tools? Yes. Do we have any reason to believe he will deliberately misuse the tools? No. Does he have sufficient experience to use the tools effectively and with a minimum of mistakes? Yes. If mistakes are drawn to his attention, does he seem likely to accept criticism in good humour and learn from the experience? Yes. Full support. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support mostly per Atama. I think the reason for wanting to see evidence of quality content work is really just as reassurance that an admin candidate understands and can empathise with Wikipedia's most important role. I'm happy that Blurpeace will be of great benefit in those areas he intends to work in and, at worst, won't be a hindrance in the others :) EyeSerenetalk 08:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Complete support, knows what he's doing and will make a fine admin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Seems responsible and trustworthy. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support No concerns -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Being a university professor is not required to be janitor at the library. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support – No reason to oppose. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Little in the way of content creation, but lots of experience in the image department. That, plus a good knowledge of our image policies, means that this candidate will be a helpful addition at the almost-always backlogged WP:FFD and WP:PUF. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No reason why not; I don't consider content contributions essential in sysop candidates. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. A strong colleague among the Commons administrator corps. Because of the large number of images hosted locally at en:wiki it is useful to have administrators on this site who are well versed in media copyright. Durova412 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oui, je suis d’accord. Pourquoi pas? δεʟɪʀɪοuς & ʟoςτ ☯ ~нuɢѕ~ 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I have looked through logs and contributions both here and on Commons. Blurpeace seems to well suited to be an administrator here and passes my criteria well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - a great helper. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Blurpeace iss a great candidate who should have had the mop and bucket long ago. I'm happy to support! Valley2city‽ 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - For a few reasons. A lack of core content contributions (3 created articles that aren't RDs), a whole lot of meta-contributions, low levels of edits (especially when considering automated edits), and some fundamental disagreements with RfA reasonings. For the latter, some examples include: Per PeterSymonds "reasons", 1 2, Opposing based on the editor having a narrow areas of interest 1, 2, and opposing based on philosophical reasons without an explanation 1, 2. Also some concerns about policy issues including some misunderstandings about new usernames (this was later retracted and this reason for opposing is minor). In the end, I don't have enough confidence about this editor's need for the tools balanced against their history and criteria regarding others having the same set of tools. I could be convinced with additional editing, and in a few months, but I'm bothered by the above. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - As Shadowjams said, I'd like to see more mainspace content contributions in an admin, since we should all be here to make an encylopedia. These peripheral tasks can be important, but an admin needs to be focused on editing. Also doesn't meet several other of my minimum RfA criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Content contributions just aren't enough for a sysop candidate in my opinion. Wikipedia is about more than policies and vandalism reversion. No doubt that the tools would not be abused, but I just can't support a candidate with such meagre content creation. BigDom 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to lack of content contributions (only 3 pages created), overall lack of activity (user was not really active until April 2009), low edit count, a very irregular month count, including 300 edits this month, and lack of evidence of extensive vandal-fighting (over the past 500 edits I only see a couple of vandal-reverts). Also, I question why this user was made an Autoreviewer when I (who has created 13 articles) and whatamIdoing (who has created 34) were turned down for autoreviewer rights. If this user becomes more active in Wikipedia, particularly in content additions and vandalism-fighting, I might support at a later time. Immunize (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Immunize, turning you down for autoreviewer rights when you've only created 13 articles was the correct action on the part of the reviewing admin. Secondly, while Blurpeace has created few articles, he has uploaded many, many files (see here), which means that giving him the autoreviewer user-right benefits our new-file patrollers. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was not aware of the fact that users consider files uploaded in granting autoreviewer rights. However, I must still oppose this candidate. Immunize (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - per the nomination. This user is a servant, he doesn't require the tools to freshen mah drink. :) Crafty (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - Basically as per Shadowjams oppose, but not enough for me to oppose at this stage. Blurpeace has only contributed four short creations and they are not altogether of a quality and/or significance I would expect from a (future) sysop, and many of his/her other main space contribs seem to be small, minority edits. With just over 5k edits, I think maybe a more balanced contribution profile would be preferable. I'm also wary of RfA candidates (or contributors in any kind of debate) regularly following the opinions of others; it might look to some is if the candidate is trying to curry favour with a sysop. I may of course (hopefully) be completely wrong, but the possibility is staring me in the face. Finally, although it is totally optional, I feel that an admin should be prepared to be a bit more open on his/her user page - one short line and four neutral userboxes do not convey enough for me to know with whom I am dealing and to establish confidence.-Kudpung (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You say regularly following the opinions of others - do you have any evidence of that here? Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - it comes from doing a thorough research before commenting on an RfA ;) - in fact the links were already provided by Shadowjams.--Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood. I thought he was referring to the supporters on this RfA. I think Keegan also interpreted it like that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, sure did. I still get the point. Keegan (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What can I say, I'm a cabal of one. It probably has to do with Darkfall's support. No big deal, it is well worded and rational. I'd hate to think that because people trust my judgment and others do they would oppose, but the neutral option is all well and good. Shadowjams and Kudpung raise salient points, though I much more disagree with Shadowjams. All in all, rational reasonings. Apologies to Durova for flaring up over Tim Song, again. Keegan (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keegan knows I love him; I respect the above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral 4 articles created in total, considering opposing as in case of other candidate. M.K. (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blurpeace&oldid=1145837910"