Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Circeus

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.

Circeus

[edit]

Final (66/0/0) ended 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Circeus (talk · contribs) – Circeus has been around for close to two years, I think. He does lots of maintenance-type stuff, fixing templates and categories and cleaning up stuff. I thought of nominating because he asked me to delete an article to make way for a move, and my first thought was to wonder why he couldn't just do that himself... AFAIK, he's never been in any edit wars or big disputes, and I think he'd make a good admin. Tuf-Kat 03:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept Circeus 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First support Moe ε 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ...and support as well; distinguished contributions all over the place. Sandstein 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - looks good to me -- Tawker 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for a solid editor. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support after looking you over, can't think of a reason why not. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I don't personally have much experience with this user, but he looks OK. JIP | Talk 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - seems like a conscientious and reliable user. - Richardcavell 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Can't find anything even slightly suspicious, therefore you get my support! TruthCrusader 08:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, Per above --Masssiveego 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, Solid editor. a lot of experience
  12. Support, strong across the board. Heck, even Massiveego said yes...you must be good to go--Looper5920 10:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, definitely. Proto||type 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--MONGO 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, seems a very solid editor with a lot of experience and great contributions. I think Plato would argue that the fact that Circeus has never sought the mop suggests that he would be an ideal wielder of the mop.--Deville (Talk) 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Supprt, very experienced but variation in month's contribution is significant. It is a drawback but still I suport. Shyam (T/C) 14:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Supprt --Tone 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Veteran editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 15:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support An experienced and capable editor. I see him around a lot and thought he already was an admin. --NormanEinstein 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Looks like a very constructive and responsible editor. Lukas (T.|@) 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support absolutely. --Jay(Reply) 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, good work Afonso Silva 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Thunderbrand 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- Obradović Goran (talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:22 (UTC)
  30. Support per everyone Jedi6-(need help?) 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support. coulda sworn he was one. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support. sounds good to me. +1 for tuf-kat, and +1 for the right answers. ... aa:talk 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support good editor --rogerd 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. pschemp | talk 03:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per User:avriette. Jkelly 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support ran into him somewhere i believe, our dealings were good. good editor who deserves the mop.--Alhutch 05:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--Jusjih 09:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, good user. Hiding talk 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per above. AndyZ t 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom. VegaDark 01:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support very good, hardworking editor abakharev 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support glad to offer my support. A great Wikipedian. Gwernol 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, he could have been promoted to admin a long time ago. -- King of Hearts talk 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Total support without a moment's hesitation. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - looks good to me. Nephron  T|C 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: Very experienced, thorough editor. _-M o P-_ 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - looks good to me too - Aksi_great 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Give him the tools. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. JoshuaZ 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Excellent user! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support this vote has no point, but what the hell... one more cant hurt. KI 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, long overdue. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, an easy choice here - great editor. Weatherman90 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Edwy 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Though you clearly don't need it to be successful here. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 14:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Rock solid. Covington 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Guettarda 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Ugur Basak 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:38, 3 April 2006]
  62. Support, great editor who will use the tools wisely Deizio 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Royboycrashfan 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. For the most part, dealing with administrative backlogs and maintenance. I've gotten used to the sort of tedious tasks these can be through other past projects. I'd also take advantage of the revert button over pop-ups to better fight vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As far as the article space is concerned, I am particularly happy with my work in Category:Birds by classification and I have a soft spot for the few plant articles I created or expanded. Overall, I am prouder of the wider-reaching projects aimed (amongst other) at standardizing wikipedia templates.
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. The closest thing to an edit conflict I can really think of are a disagreement with User:JoJan over the list of works in Harold E. Robinson, and a strange series of edits and revert between myself and user:LUCPOL centering around Rapcore, which are summarized here, which have not had any follow up beyond what is mentionned there.
I have overall never had to deal with a serious edit war, and everything would probably depend on what is at stake in the given issue, and how WP:CITE/WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT are involved. I generally believe in the power of common sense and middle ground (although I sometimes need someone else to point said middle ground, as User:Urthogie does in the debate over the Heavy Metal genrebox in the above linked discussion page).
Actually, I've remembered 2 things since I typed the above.
  • I had a conflict with User:HPN, summarized here, with a copy in the 2005 archive of my talk page.
  • I was also involved (actually, kinda triggered) into the flag issue over Template:Canada, though it was mostly an issue of an editor fighting a lost battle.
If people want to scrutate everything, might as well make the job simpler. Circeus 05:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Masssiveego

1. Why are there two orphan pictured in you gallery? --Masssiveego 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aqcan.jpg was uploaded prior to Wikipedia stopping to accept non-commercial licenses. It has been replaced in Wild Columbine by lower quality, but free images, but never formally deleted. Image:Bufflehead.jpg was superceded by better quality images, and again, never formally nominated for deletion. Circeus 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is reverting a page 3 times in 24 hours and 5 minutes wrong? --Masssiveego 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, tricky one. I'd say it is likely to be a stretching of the policy, something that I personally would find wrong, but I would probably not enforce anything more than continuing to try and reason the reverter(s) concerned, possibly warning against bad faith editing, since to spot such a thing, I'd probably have been trying to sort the thing out already.

3. How many users does it take to bring an issue to Arbcom? --Masssiveego 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any sort of minimum. It doesn't necessarily takes many people before it becomes clear an editor's conduct cannot be worked out through discussion of any sort. I wouldn't normally expect a case to jump to RFC with only 2 or 3 people involved, though.

Question from JoshuaZ

1 Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
Probably the only reasons I would indifinitely block a user straightaway would have to do with either the username being inappropriate (WP:U), an illegal sockpuppet (WP:SOCK) or a user who actually vandalize a high-visibility article (such as the current Featured Article). For any otehr cases, I'd probably ask for advice from more experienced admins first.
2 Your total monthly contributions seem erratic. Please explain.
Up to november of last year, my largest amounts of contributions were usually due to a project involving mass editing of pages, such as the aforementioned establishing of Category:Birds by classification(which lasted from May to December of last year) or the standardization and application of the canadian provincial footers and the Musicboxes (January). On the other hand, computer access issues were involved during the months were I made very little contributions. Circeus 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Circeus&oldid=1082476674"