Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Either way

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

Either way

[change source]
Either way (talk · contribs)

End date: 04:19 12 March 2009

In my opinion, Either way has been an outstanding member of this project since he joined. Always eager to help, fix, and maintain this pedia. Some may see this (especially the candidate) request as controversial, but nevertheless, I believe he is an asset to Simple English Wikipedia, and he has my full trust to act in accordance with the communities wishes serving in this role. Thank you. Synergy 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept and encourage you all to read User:Either way/draft as a statement of my candidacy so to speak. Thanks, Either way (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Optional Question from EhJJ

[change source]
Q Are you the same user as en:User:Either way? What's the story? (No need for details, just a brief explanation would be appreciated.) EhJJTALK 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Yes, that's me, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the story," could you clarify? Either way (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It seems odd to me that an admin on enWP would be having such difficulty in getting though an RfA here for being 2 weeks short of the arbitrarily recommended three month minimum. Or, for that matter, that your actions here would be sufficiently objectionable to not pass. I realize that the two wikis are separate entities, but you seem to be doing alright here and have a good history. Thanks for answering. EhJJTALK 00:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was an enwiki admin when I was opposed here for only having 600 edits, so I suppose the community is firm on the idea that the two projects are separate entities. –Juliancolton (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Razorflame

[change source]
Q: How would you reply to users like Majorly below who have written that you are not very approachable? What would you do to try to change this to make yourself more approachable? You don't have to answer these questions, but they are/would be nice to know the answers to. Razorflame 01:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Well I would first need to see examples of what they feel is improper, because it's really hard for a person to judge their own actions as inappropriate sometimes. So, I would obviously need to know what they feel has been inappropriate first. Either way (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I am still supporting you in this RFA; but, one thing that struck me as odd, was when I manually counted your QD reports for you and gave you the information here. Whilst it doesn't really bug me, a simple acknowledgement would have been nice. I think every other editor would have acknowledged this post to their talk page; especially when it was done to help their RFA (and you requested it done at your RFA statement). I didn't think a great deal of it at the time, but reading other people's comments in the RFA, it does strike me as odd. It made me wonder if you were upset that I passed RFA and this was your way of showing it; by ignoring the post. Hope this helps a little bit :) fr33kman talk 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I never even saw that until now! So sorry! Of course I appreciated the comment! When I got the "new message" bar, I didn't notice your comment, just Synergy's right below yours. That's my problem and why I should not check Wikipedia at work because I don't concentrate as well from there, haha! Thanks for the numbers. Either way (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable mistake - I withdraw my comments! fr33kman talk 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support as nom. Synergy 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as well. Either way is a great vandalfighter nonetheless and I believe and trust that he will not abuse his tools.-- Tdxiang 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — Definitely. Has been one of our most diligent, judgmental, and dedicated user I've seen in a while. I have no problems with Either way (talk · contribs) becoming an administrator for Simple English Wikipedia. Plus, he has been an administrator for English Wikipedia for about two or three years now I believe? He obviously knows what he will be doing with that type of experience. I've also had several interactions with him here and at en.wikipedia, and I know he can handle different situations well. — RyanCross (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - feel that he needs the tools and can benefit project fr33kman talk 06:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support - the "hard and fast" three month thing is a silly reason to oppose, do people honestly think that two more weeks will make any difference to this editor´s capabilities here? I have no doubt that Either way´´s promotion would do nothing other than benefit this Wikipedia. I think there´s a certain subtlety required in dealing with a number of editors here which Either way may not quite have got yet, but his promotion would be a net gain for this project. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Net positive. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Not having a user page gives me the impression that you're here temporarily or somehow less devoted; even a simple page would give you some presence, particularly if you are to become an admin. Otherwise, you seem to be well oriented to seWP and would be able to use the tools well. I have no compelling reason to oppose! EhJJTALK 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Two weeks short of three months doesn't make much of a difference, imo. Either way has demonstrated the need for the tools and I doubt he would abuse them.--Fairfield Deleted? 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A net positive. No reason to oppose just because of two weeks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Net positive. Either way is a great admin at enWP, and all his edits here look very good. Best, Versus22 talk 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - After much thought and deliberation. I have changed my vote from oppose below to support because I feel that this user would be a net positive for this Wikipedia if he were to become an administrator. The only thing that I ask is that you work on being a little bit more approachable in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support From what I've seen of this user, he/she (sorry) would be a rather decent admin. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪♫ 05:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. checkY en.wp admin, checkY experienced editor, checkY overall net positive. I honestly don't see how two weeks will have an effect on the candidate's capabilities here. –Juliancolton (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I think you will do fine despite being here only three months. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support You have won me over which is why I have changed my vote. I have thought about it and you would make a great admin. Corruptcopper (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support – I weakly support you because I think you get yourself into to much drama and such. But, not having a userpage the most pathetic reason to oppose a user. I do not understand what policy a user could cite for that reason. It was said below, "3 months is not enough time on this Wiki," and that too is very wrong. I was under that time, and so have been many users as well, before becoming admin. I doubt you would abuse the tools. TheAE talk 05:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - will be a fine admin. MathCool10 05:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - what's a few days in the Grand Scheme of Things? Good luck :) Goblin 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support - I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm willing to assume a bit of good faith here, and support, afterall, its not a big deal... Kennedy 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
Oppose - You haven't been here long enough for me to support. So far you do good work here, but I feel it to be too soon to promote you at this time. Kennedy (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any time limit in particular you favor, or is it just based more on feeling for you? Either way (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally 3 months of a decent amount of activity. For me, its not a set amount of time though. Perhaps if you keep active and try again in 3 months (3 months between RfAs) I would support. Kennedy (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kennedy. Sorry, just not yet. Goblin 11:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same question to you then: is there a particular time/length you'd need to see me here? Either way (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 months, per the norm. Also, Shappy raises a few worrying points below. Goblin 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Hi EitherWay, I told you I'd be very civil about this, so here goes:
    • As you know, I've interacted with you quite a bit over the past year. One time in particular, I used the wrong venue in asking for deletion of an article, and you proceeded to stereotype me due to my age group. I don't want to see anyone getting bitten. You may say that it was a long time ago, but it's still fresh in my mind.
    • You've been here less than three months. Although it's close, three months is pretty much the standard time for being here.
    • Besides DYK, which you do a good job at, I don't see a lot of embellishment on content. The article you most edit, George Foreman Grill, you've only edited six times. I'm not saying that gnomework is a bad thing (I do it a lot myself), but on Simple I think that since there is more opportunity for content creation, a little more effort should be put into that area. Thank you. Shapiros10 12:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To reply to a few things: the first point is from about seven, eight months ago and is from En., so I'm wondering if you have any examples of this continuing with me in the last couple of months, especially from here on Simple. I think you and I had a civil discussion on IRC last night, so I don't see that history still existing between us right now. As for creating content, I have made at least fifteen, twenty articles, but my preferred role has always been improving on or working with content that already exists. I don't see how this should be a negative thing that I spread my edits around rather than focusing on one article. Either way (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Sorry, I don't think you should be a syspo just now. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason in particular you feel that way? Either way (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - Some of my interactions with this user have been, well, not very easy to have, and talking with this user can be somewhat hard at times (meaning, not very approachable), and while I believe that this user is a great user here, I do not think that he is ready for the sysop tools at this point in time. You have done great work here so far, and I definitely think that you are a great user who could use the tools at some future point in time, at this point in time, you do not have my trust enough here to earn my support. I would like to see at least 3-4 months of constant activity for me to support an RfA from you. Cheers, and I wish you luck in the future, Razorflame 14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated my !vote here because I believe that the candidate in question would be a good administrator, however, over the course of this RfA, he has continued to be somewhat hard to approach, so I've changed my vote from oppose to weak oppose because this user has worked on his approachableness amongst other things. Cheers, Razorflame 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example of me being hard to approach throughout this process? Thanks, Either way (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - you are less than 3 months active. That isn't enough for me. And in my oppinion an admin should have an userpage. Barras (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't find him approachable enough to be able to work well as an admin. Majorly talk 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I would have to agree with Shapiros and Razorflame. Either way can be kinda hard to talk to sometimes. SimonKSK 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SimonKSK, other than Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_58#Sunstar_NW_XP_ban and User_talk:SimonKSK/Archive_1#RFDs, have we had contact on here? I'm curious because you said I'm hard to talk to, but I don't recall anything other than those two situations, so if you could provide other examples if they're out there, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! :) Either way (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a weak oppose vote. I was seriously about to support, but Shapiros made me hesitate a bit. SimonKSK 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty. Feel free to ask questions or anything if it might help you make a more solid decision one way or the other. Either way (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - per Shappy....you can't be stereotyping people.-- † CM16 t c 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note Either way's response here, that was seven or eight months ago. And on a different Wikipedia. Please judge him on his contributions to this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At my RFA, I was opposed for things that happened one year ago at a different wiki. Yes, you do have to judge a candidate for their work at this wiki, but you are also judging them as a person. Shapiros10 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So presumably you didn´t mind being judged on things that took place a year ago on a different Wiki if you are opposing with the same justification? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone should be judged by the same standards. I'm no exception, and neither is Either way. Shappy (like the new name?) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing how three other people said "per Shappy" and I'm the one that gets questioned about it.-- † CM16 t c 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not amazing at all. You "per etc etc" oppose came after Either way had offered some mitigation, i.e. that it occurred 8 months ago (and we all know that time heals, and you should offer forgiveness, right?) and it occurred on another Wikipedia (and if everyone here was always judged on what happened on en.wiki, we´d have most of our regular contributors banned, wouldn´t we?). The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have to agree with Maj and Shappy, sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose - 3 months is not enough time on this Wiki. Also I agree with Barras, an Admin generally should have a userpage even if it's only one line. FSM Noodly? 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I have been here 3 months now and I wouldnt even dream about becoming an admin until at least June 2009 as I would then feel that I would have enought experience. Sorry Corruptcopper (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, however, that I have been doing a lot of work on here within these few months which have given me enough experience to be ready for adminship. Readiness for adminship isn't proven in just length of service and number of edits, in my mind. Either way (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Wow I actually agree with Majorly again, I must not be feeling well. -Djsasso (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

I think I'll change my mind, if Either way create a user page with at least one sentence. Not only this redirect. It's also OK if you write "Hello". Regards, Barras (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a poor reason to oppose someone, or pressure them into doing something they don't want to do. If anything, a redirect is better than a useless page saying "Hello". And who knows, he might just revert himself, should he pass. And he'd be completely entitled to do so. So no one is going to achieve anything here. Majorly talk 16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not only this reason. The next problem is the time. I'll forget the time, because this wiki needs every admin. The "Hello" is only an example. If you have a look at his en user page, you'll see some more then a redirect. He created this redirect regarding to my vote here (my thinking). It's just only my opinion. Regards, Barras (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Majorly. I'm not comfortable with creating a user page solely to satisfy votes on an RFA. Like I said, I created the redirect because it occurred to me that I don't show up in the search bar if someone's searching for me, so it's more convenient that they can now. If I don't have your support, that's fine. I won't protest your oppose or anything if that's what you truly believe. Either way (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (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://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Either_way&oldid=8870843"