Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fr33kman 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fr33kman

[change source]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.
Result: 11 support, plus nominator, 1 oppose; even if I don't count the vote of 'jae zambia', who likely hasn't edited that much here, the result is pretty clear. In short: welcome back--Eptalon (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fr33kman (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of Fr33kman
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: Eptalon.

End date: 19:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


Hello everyone!

I'm nominating Fr33kman for adminship.

Fr33kman was an admin, oversighter, checkuser and bureaucrat until 2014, when his rights were removed for inactivity. However, this year, he has since returned, helping out in many areas and is intending to stay active. Seeing as he is a former admin, a friendly editor and has made plenty of admin-related requests since his return, in my view it is a no-brainer for him to get the rights back and fulfill the requests himself. I hope the community agrees.

Thank you for your time and good luck to Fr33kman! --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Accepted and thanks! fr33kman 19:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Former admin who is back to activity again. No concerns and obvious support.--BRP ever 11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, but please check the discussions etc. that were held during your inactive terms as much as possible. MathXplore (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've been rereading the rules and guidelines again and some of the Simple Talk stuff to get up to speed. Thx fr33kman 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nobody better for the role. I can understand how some may be concerned, as they've only really been back for a month... That doesn't sway me though. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Per nominator. Bobherry Talk My Changes 23:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  4. Support Welcome back :) — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Welcome back indeed! --Bsadowski1 01:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support One of our best. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support One of our most trustworthy and best editors. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
     Comment: Per policy you are not allowed to vote. See: Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship#Who can vote. Bobherry Talk My Changes 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Jae zambia (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see no issue. Welcome back btw :) - MourningRainfall (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I like the answer to my question. Kk.urban (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Great user and former admin. Can be trusted. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
Weak Oppose I am happy to welcome you back however I do have minor concerns. You only returned from your wiki break a little over a month ago and stuff has changed since you left. I am fully open to having you as an admin again in a few months, however. I want to be sure that you are truly back as well. Thank you for all the work you have been doing since returning. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I am changing to full Oppose due to what occurred on my talkpage and the nominee's talkpage. I admitted I made an mistake and removed my comments but they restored it and left comments about me on it as well as my talkpage. Due to this I think they do not understand en:WP:JUSTDROPIT. My previous comments are still valid to me as well. Sorry. I am still happy to see you editing again. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
You don't revert another's talkpage, it is just plain rude, and no where did you admit to being wrong. You've made this an issue, not me. I've done nothing wrong what so ever.fr33kman 05:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I was gone, I had too much work as a doctor to work here. I'm now fully retired. :-) fr33kman 01:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to attempt ignore all of the stuff just above here while writing. I've got some concerns here. To start, xtools is showing the candidate has been editing actively for only about 1 month. This, to me, is very worrying. I hold RFA candidates to pretty low standards, reletavely. But I mean, really? One month of active editing after many years of break and requesting sysop. I find this quite premature, especially concidering many things have changed with norms in the last many years. While I agree with what the candidate was saying, I don't love the way theyre speaking to BH above. "You've made this an issue, not me. I've done nothing wrong what so ever." While this may be true, is it polite or appropriate for RFA? No, it isnt. Lets not bring drama here. I love to see former admins come back to projects and I do hope they keep at it. Maybe later, but for now its an oppose from me. Illusion Flame (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite civil in my response. I merely pointed out that reverting someone else's talkpage unless it's clear vandalism is rude, especially if it's to hide a comment you made that you now regret. I'm not getting your support vote but do feel the need to explain I didn't bring any drama here nor was I impolite. Thx! fr33kman 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'd just like to address two things. Firstly, he has indeed only back for a month, and things have changed, but not massively. In terms of deletion policy, since Fr33kman lost the mop, it appears we've had minor changes to A3, G11 and we've bought G5 back. There have been changes, definitely, but these are not significant changes and Fr33kman has shown he is aware of these changes. If he hadn't, I wouldn't have nominated him. He understands the changes to policy and still knows other admin policy very well, so waiting months just for the sake of box-ticking is pointless, in my view. The whole oppose above is of course something you may agree with, or perhaps be disappointed with Fr33kman's response despite it being civil, but I find it difficult to see how he has bought drama to the RfA, when he did not bring it here. --Ferien (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a need to clarify my statment. My comment about bringing drama here was more directed towards Bobherry, not the candidate. Apologies for the confusion. Ferien: I really respect you and your well articulated opinions. I really dont see waiting a few months is box ticking at all. Its gaining experience and more familiarity with new sewp things, community, and policies. Admins heavily guide the wiki, and for an admin to be elected after 1 month of activity, I don't know how they candidate will guide. Trust isnt the issue at all here. I've taken a moment to think about the net gain/loss of appointing the candidate. Neutral Illusion Flame (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really respect your reasons and your decision. Thanks for clearing up the drama thing. For what it's worth I have actually been editing here on-and-off over the years as an IP editor; probably couple hundred times per year. And upon returning to full activity I went around rereading all the policies that apply to being an admin. Since my return I've done over 700+ edits, many in article space but many in ways that having the mop would have helped which is why I accepted an early nomination. Anyway, thanks for clearing up what you meant fr33kman 02:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some people will have different views about how long someone should stay around before getting the mop back, and waiting a few months is a completely reasonable thing to do. For me, I saw a candidate who still knew admin things very well, and had been involved in the community a good amount prior to the RfA – in my mind, there was no need to wait in this case, but I do understand others may disagree with that and completely respect your !vote, whether it be neutral, oppose or support. --Ferien (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • If given back the admin tools, which areas would you like to help in? Which areas do you think could use improvement, more activity, and which ones do you think you are going to be least active in? Thanks for volunteering! — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism and Page deletions mostly; I'm the type of person who actively goes looking for backlogs to do. I don't see any areas I wouldn't be active in as Im the type to do whatever needs doing. I've been getting a feel for the sockpuppets also. fr33kman 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like recent changes patrol. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note) I included an additional request in my support vote so they can do better in their new term, but even this request was not satisfied, I don't think it would seriously harm the project. Since the user is already trusted, my answer is support. MathXplore (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to your statement above :) fr33kman 17:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please in your own words explain each of Wikipedia's 5 core pillars. Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's hardly a point to asking questions after you've already voted in opposition. If fr33kman's answer will affect your vote, then consider removing your vote for now and waiting until they have answered maybe? Kk.urban (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree especially as you changed you vote to full oppose 4 minutes BEFORE you asked this question!!, but here goes (it's a good reminder for others too); 1) Wikipeda is an encyclopedia, not a social website to hang out with your buddies. It's not a newspaper or a soap box. 2) NPOV, we don't publish opinion; we are neutral in everything we do and write 3) Anyone can edit it. I've always said that IP can do any another user can do unless it is technically impossible; 4) Be nice, no WP:BITEing, no arguing etc... Admin means nothing more than a technical set of tools to be of service to the project and the other editors; the most powerful group is users, the most useful is new users as new users and IPs write most of the content; 5) WP:IAR, if something is getting in your way ignore the rules and do it, as long as it makes sense and doesn't harm the project or its users. fr33kman 05:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How should the articles here be different than on English Wikipedia? Please be somewhat specific in regards to what is "Simple English". Kk.urban (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there is no such language as "Simple English" so we've (as a community) defined it to mean the words in Basic English 850, 1500 and VOA Special English. What this means in real-life is that the articles here should be as simple as possible to read. How articles should be different between enwiki and simplewiki: are that we don't always include all the information that enwiki includes; we tend to focus on a decent sized introduction and less on having large main bodies. We want to give enough information to give the reader a basic understsnding of the topic but not become an expert based just on our articles. We also (at least hopefully soon) will be focusing on having simple introductions based on what I hope will be a new guideline WP:SI. Hopefully this answers your question. Thanks! fr33kman 19:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a known quantity. Done the job before, was good = say yes! and close case. We're not robots... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the vote of confidence! :) fr33kman 10:41, 30 August 2023 (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/Fr33kman_2&oldid=9040479"