Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EVula 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

EVula

EVula (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 21:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm EVula. I'm a former admin (and oversighter) here; I was desysopped at the beginning of 2012 for being inactive. Around that time, I was dropping off in activity on a lot of different projects. I've been picking back up in my cross-wiki activity since going to Wikimania back in July (which was an absolute blast, FYI; if you ever get a chance to go, do so). I'm not quite back to the level of focusing my attention here as much as I used to, though I do pop by every once and a while to check the recent changes, and I've run across a bit of vandalism here and there that I've been able to tag for deletion, but would rather do myself.

I'm no stranger to wikis; I'm a bureaucrat (and former oversighter) on the English Wikipedia, a bureaucrat and CheckUser on the English Wikiquote, a bureaucrat on Wikispecies (though I'm largely inactive there now), and am an administrator on Commons and the English Wikisource. I was also an administrator of the Simple English Wikiquote before it was closed down, and have the editor (or equivalent) flag on more than a half-dozen non-English editions of Wikisource or Wikipedia; you can see the full breakdown at sulutil:EVula.

So... yeah, I think that's about it. I'd just like to get my mop back so I can help out a bit more directly than I currently can. I won't be the most active admin, and I realize that might be a strike against me, but I feel that I would be a net gain. EVula // talk // 21:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination
Well, pretty clear consensus so far that I jumped the gun on this RfA, so I'll withdraw without wasting anyone else's time. I'll see if I can remain active for a steadier amount of time before making another attempt. At least I got some unmistakably clear feedback from this. :) EVula // talk // 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - no problem with this candidate. Experienced user who has been missed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - I think those other Foundation wikis have good reasons to keep him as a bureaucrat while quite inactive and he will therefore be very helpful if a crisis occurs at Simple horizon. Michel Alençon aka ONaNcle (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - Very low edit count since period of inactivity and de-admining through that inactivity. Seems like hat collecting. Checking user contribs goes back to 2011 on only checking last 50 edits. I see no need for the admin tools. Kennedy ^(talk) 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   In fact, upon checking your last RfA you were accused of hat collecting too. Kennedy ^(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   I've been accused of hat collecting many, many times; that RfA wasn't even close to the first time, and I doubt this RfA will be the last. :) Every time someone says that about me, I just shrug my shoulders and keep on keepin' on. I don't understand what I get out of the hat collecting, but obviously I don't see eye to eye with everyone. EVula // talk // 22:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I am really sorry to oppose because I think EVula has the experience, knowledge and trust necessary for adminship but I do believe the edit count is way too low here on simple.wiki, especially after the desysopping for this same reason. Things don't seem to have changed a lot over the past few months. --Mark91it's my world 10:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Somewhat oppose. Here is a good person who has done some good work in 2012, but only about as much as some do in a day or two. Consequently, the application is too early. An occasional visitor does not need to be an admin. We already have at least a dozen admins who almost never really take part in important discussions and decisions, but just do enough to stay on the list. What we need are worker bees... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Was concerned that they were hat collecting last time although I supported due to AGF. But since they disappeared not overly long after getting the flags (only 4 months) it does appear that is what they were doing. I have no problem giving it back should they become active again over an extended period of time since they are experienced. Our inactivity policy was put in place partially to stop hat collecting so I wouldn't want to circumvent that so quickly after a user returning, I would want to see some commitment to being here on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose As above. I would have considered otherwise if this RfA was held around February 2013. Chenzw  Talk  15:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• My major concern here is the inactivity. It might be good to see some more of that first.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Dear Evula, your last 100 edits go back to 27 May 2010. If I take a reasonably active editor, I'd expect them to get to 200-300 edits a month. Given there are 4 weekends (8 days) were people edit, this would make between 30 and 40 a day, for a total of 240-320 edits a month. I feel rather inactive, and if I look at my edit count, 100 edits last for about three weeks, back to december 7, of this year. If I look at what I actually do, I'd say, most of my admin actions are probably deleting nonsense (QD), followed by ceating stubs for articles with reasonable titles, after deleting the nonsense. Tools are there to make life easier, for those who actually edit. So, start editing, and ask when you re-established yourself as an editor. --Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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.