Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr. Stradivarius

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.

Mr. Stradivarius

[edit]

Final (125/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]
Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) – It's not often that I come across a user and I'm genuinely surprised that they are not an administrator. Mr. Stradivarius, however, definitely fits into that category. Although he's been editing solidly for over 18 months, I only noticed Mr. Stradivarius when he helped to steer the mediation of WP:V to an actual conclusion. A thankless task, staying neutral despite the strength of opinion behind the groups, yet he managed it. Once it was over, he wandered straight out and started again.

Such skill in dispute resolution and mediation would be enough for me to nominate an editor, but Mr. Stradivarius has far more to offer. He's the top contributor to the dispute resolution noticeboard, has an excellent looking CSD log, spends time at articles for deletion and even finds time to write about teaching and learning foreign languages.

Mr. Stradivarius has an excellent combination of knowledge and demeanour, helps out all over the place and knows how to handle difficult situations. I cannot recommend this candidate strongly enough. WormTT(talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Steven Zhang

[edit]

Hi all - I'm happy to offer a co-nomination for Mr. Straidvarius. Worm that Turned has left me very little to say that's not already been said. Mr. Stradivarius has all the qualities I look for in a potential administrator - excellent knowledge of policy, broad participation in all areas of Wikipedia, quality contributions to articles, and most importantly, excellent performance in dispute resolution. The way he handled the verifiability mediation and the fact that as a result of his efforts a workable conclusion was brought to the dispute is monumental. I admire his dedication to the project and know that he will do a superb job as an administrator. I wish him my support and the best of luck. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would start out with CSD work and closing AfD discussions, the two administrative areas in which I have spent the most time. After I have gained more experience I intend to branch out into other areas as well, for example helping at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and answering some of the requests for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Eventually I would like to help with a broad range of admin tasks, but I plan on going slowly and asking for help with anything that I am new at. The extra buttons that admins get have the potential to cause some serious grief if used badly, so I plan on taking my time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm a language teacher by trade, and my main area of focus when writing articles is language education and second-language acquisition. Probably my best article is Silent Way, about a method of language teaching, followed by Second-language acquisition, which I have been a major contributor to. I am also quite fond of the Natural approach article, and of Interaction hypothesis, both of which I wrote from scratch. I was first drawn to Wikipedia when I noticed the choppy coverage of foreign language education, and it gives me a great sense of accomplishment to see that I am doing a small part to correct that imbalance.

I have also written a few articles as a result of my experiences at AfD and doing new page patrol. I expanded Armada 2526 from a two-sentence stub after it was kept at AfD, and I started New York University Abu Dhabi after a related article popped up at Special:NewPages. The idea for writing Performance calligraphy came after I noticed the Shodo Girls article while doing new page patrol, and I thought that it was an interesting gap in our coverage that could be filled. Then there are the other stubs that I have written as a result of new page patrolling, which are nothing special content-wise, but which I hope have helped to make the experience of our new contributors a little bit less confusing. For example, I wrote Nicklaus Design to create a redirect target for this page, and I expanded Enable Scotland from this version to save it from speedy deletion.

Recently I have been spending time working with templates, particularly the speedy deletion templates and notices. My contribution here with the most impact must be my rewrite of {{db-notice-multiple}}, which solved a long-standing problem with pages nominated for speedy deletion under multiple criteria. Previously, editors who had their articles deleted under multiple criteria just saw a generic warning message on their user talk page, which didn't really give the author much idea of what they might have done wrong. With the update users get advice on how to deal with each specific reason for deletion, which hopefully has saved a few new editors from leaving the project. I also wrote {{NewDRNsubmission}}, the old template for submitting disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and {{csdcheck}}, to help other authors of speedy deletion templates.

Having said all of this, my best overall contributions to Wikipedia are probably in the area of dispute resolution. I am a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard and have managed to rack up over 650 edits there. I was also one of the coordinators at the Mediation Cabal (before it recently shut down), and in May this year I became a member of the Mediation Committee. I've lost count of the number of disputes I've helped to deal with, but this link might give people a rough idea. A couple of the more memorable disputes from DRN were the Lotus E20 dispute and the Flag of Western Sahara dispute (plus accompanying RfC). If I had to name one dispute which I was the most proud of being involved with, however, I would choose the MedCab mediation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the resulting RfC which was closed yesterday (July 30). That is the biggest dispute I have dealt with, and I am very pleased that there is finally some consensus on the issue. Also, dealing with a mediation this big has taught me a lot, and hopefully should stand me in good stead for my next project.

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: I haven't been in any disputes for a good long while now. Language education is a very quiet corner of Wikipedia, and it is rare enough to see another editor there, let alone get in a dispute with them. I do have to deal with angry or distressed users from time to time as part of new page patrolling (for example here and here), but nothing that I would call an actual dispute. The last time I got into an actual dispute was at Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant in September 2011, and before that at Chinaman (term) in June 2011. In both those cases I managed to remain calm, and they were both resolved with help from dispute resolution processes - the first from a third opinion and the second at a dispute resolution noticeboard thread. With my work in dispute resolution I've become pretty good at being patient and negotiating solutions, and I know Wikipedia's dispute resolution system very well now. If I get into any disputes in the future, I'll just apply this knowledge and get outside input if it seems necessary.
Additional question from Diannaa
4. Please tell us some more about the work you've been doing on templates.
A: Sure. The first template I wrote was {{NewDRNsubmission}}, which I based heavily on {{NewDYKnomination}}. I had the idea to write it when I saw that all the discussion threads at the dispute resolution noticeboard were simply called "discussion", which made keeping track of individual disputes difficult via the watchlist. I learned a lot about template coding and its idiosyncrasies from writing it (as you can see by all the failed tests in the page history).

The next big template job I did was {{db-notice-multiple}}, which I noticed through new page patrolling. This one required me to learn how to deal with "switch" functions properly, which was a challenge I thoroughly enjoyed. {{csdcheck}} was really a simplification of the db-notice-multiple code, but rather than make it a sub-routine I turned it into its own template as it seemed like it would be useful elsewhere. (Sure enough, I ended up using it with {{db-multiple}} as well.) Csdcheck reduced the size of db-notice-multiple from 46k to 23k, and made the code more portable. For example, if a new speedy deletion criterion is introduced then adding it to the template will now require much less work and be less prone to error.

I also did a fair amount of work on {{db-multiple}}, which involved also updating {{db-meta}}. Now, if someone includes the G10 criterion, the template automatically blanks the page, and displays a notice that the page has been blanked at the bottom of the template. (Before, the blanking notice was sandwiched in the middle.) Also, now the suggestion to use {{subst:db-notice-multiple}} on the author's talk page is automatically updated with the relevant speedy deletion criteria. And perhaps most importantly, now the source URL of any copyright violation etc. is automatically included in the deletion summary, making it easier for new page patrollers to find copyright violations in pages that have been reposted after being previously deleted.

Most recently I have been working on the documentation for the speedy deletion templates. This was centralised at {{db doc}}, and although this template is very well-coded, its complexity meant that people have generally been reluctant to update the documentation for the individual deletion templates. This has meant that various errors have crept in, for example saying that a template lists pages in the wrong speedy deletion category, or saying that a template is included in the standard Twinkle installation when it is not. And in my case, it meant that I couldn't easily update the documentation for {{db-g10}} after I added a couple of new parameters. So I have been moving the speedy deletion templates back to using the standard {{documentation}} template. As part of this process I will need to update most of the speedy deletion warning templates as well, so you might see me doing this over the next few days.

Additional question from Jorgath
5. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'll start with WP:ADMINACCT. Administrators are held to a higher standard of conduct than other editors, and rightly so. Some administrative actions, such as blocking users and deleting pages, have the potential to cause a great deal of strife for editors. This is particularly true for new editors, who may not yet be aware of the intracacies of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I regard taking the time to explain the reasons for administrative actions as a common courtesy, and also as one of the best ways to defuse tensions and ensure the smooth running of the project. It is the same principle as being involved in a content dispute: problems are invariably easier to resolve if you treat the other parties' concerns seriously and let them know that their voice is being heard.

Regarding the second half of that section, which talks about sanctions: I think it is only fair that administrators should stay in their position only as long as they have the trust of the community. Administrators are appointed because the community has expressed trust in them through the RfA process, and if they have lost that trust, then it would seem disingenuous to me for them to continue to serve. How we determine whether that trust has been lost is a whole different matter, however, and I think it is beyond the scope of this question. I will just note that there have been a few promising developments on this front recently (for example this, this and this).

Now for WP:WHEEL. I can't imagine any circumstance in which wheel warring might be a good idea. It's bad for everyone concerned: it has a strong negative effect on the working relationship between the administrators involved, and more importantly it is disruptive to the editors who are affected by the administrative actions. It is much better to discuss things than to take action too hastily. Through discussion administrators might find a common ground on an issue that might have seemed completely divisive at first. If administrators can't agree after an initial discussion, then community noticeboards such as WP:AN and WP:ANI are there to help find a wider consensus.

Additional question from Webclient101
6. A user is trying to upload an image from Flickr using the license cc-by-nc-2.0, which does not allow commercial use. How would you proceed?
A: Wikipedia requires its content to be available for commercial use, so an image licenced under CC-BY-NC 2.0 cannot be used without restriction on the site. (The copyright FAQ has a good explanation.) However, assuming that the image was uploaded to the English Wikipedia and not to Commons, it may be eligible for use under our non-free content criteria. I have very little experience working with images, and I don't intend to get involved with them in an administrative capacity. So I will answer your question with the actions that I would actually take, rather than the actions that I think an "ideal admin" would take.

First, I would try and ascertain whether the image met all of the non-free content criteria. If I was sure that it did, then no action would be necessary. If any of the criteria weren't met but it was possible to fix the situation, then I would do so. This could mean providing a non-free use rationale, tagging the image with an appropriate copyright tag, fixing broken links to articles on the image description page, or resizing the image. If I was sure that the non-free content criteria could not be met, then I would either nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion or tag it for speedy deletion, depending on the circumstances. I would be very careful with this part, as the only files I have nominated for deletion so far have been on Commons. And if I was unsure whether the image met any of the non-free content criteria, then I would try and fix the file description page as best I could, and start a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to try and find a consensus on the matter.

Finally, in all but the first of the cases above, I would leave a message on the talk page of the user who uploaded the image explaining the situation and giving advice for the next time they uploaded an image. A message wouldn't be necessary if all the non-free content criteria were fulfilled, although I might leave a thank you note depending on the circumstances, and I would welcome the user if they were new.

Additional question from Hahc21
7. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
A: Well, obviously blocking a user is never something to take lightly. Blocking should always be done with the best interests of the project at heart. As the blocking policy says, blocks should be preventative, not punitive. From the perspective of blocked users, I would imagine that blocks often seem harsh and unfair, and that blocked users might often think that they have been wronged by the blocking administrator. To prevent this as much as possible, it is important to clearly warn users before blocking them, and to advise them on how they might change their behaviour. Often this is all that is necessary to rectify the situation, and it would be a shame to block someone who was editing in good faith when they might have been willing to change.

Personally, I always prefer educating users to sanctioning them, and I would only use the block button after all reasonable attempts to fix the problem have failed. Having said this, sometimes a user can be so disruptive that a warning is not necessary. This would apply to vandalism-only accounts and obvious sockpuppets, for example, although for sockpuppets I might choose to file a sockpuppet investigation rather than blocking immediately. If a block is made in error, then it will always remain in a user's block log; that can affect the perception of the user among the wider community, and so I think blocking should be approached very cautiously indeed. I hope this answers your question.

Additional questions from Carrite
8. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using any other account? If so, what user name or names have you also used?
A: Yes. I have an alternative account, Mr. Stradivarius on tour (talk · contribs), and three doppelgänger accounts (1, 2, 3). I also registered Example3 (talk · contribs) for help with the documentation of {{NewDRNsubmission}}, and Gypsyjiver (talk · contribs) after my username change in December 2010. All of my registered accounts are listed on my user page here.
9. A few days ago you nominated for speedy deletion a page Oh My My (Ringo Starr song), started in July 2009, which included the content: "Oh My My" is a song released as single from, and on, Ringo Starr's 1973 album, Ringo, and features backing vocals from Merry Clayton and Martha Reeves. It hit number five on the US Billboard charts, making it one of the most successful songs of Starr's career. — What possible rationale is there for using the draconian Speedy Deletion process on such a page? Why did you not bring such an obviously debatable nomination to Articles for Deletion? (Even going to Proposed Deletion would seem to be a great stretch here, let alone Speedy)? Was this an error of judgement on your part?
A: I had no issue with the content when I tagged this article for speedy deletion; the nomination was purely technical. A user had attempted to move the page Oh My My to the new title Oh My My (Ringo Starr song), in order to create a new disambiguation page. The problem was that they had done this by copying and pasting the text of Oh My My, rather than making a clean move using the move function. Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence requires that we preserve attribution for our content via the page history, and because of this it was necessary to fix the cut-and-paste move so that the history could be preserved. It was only necessary to delete Oh My My (Ringo Starr song) so that a clean page move could be performed, and this is why I tagged the page with {{db-copypaste}}, one of the templates for speedy deletion criterion G6, "uncontroversial maintenance". However, in the end this was fixed by a history merge, so it might be hard to tell what happened from the page histories alone. To see that it was fixed by a history merge you need to look at the deletion logs (here and here). If anyone is unsure about the technical side of things here, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page, and I will explain it in more detail.
Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. As co-nominator. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Exceptional work on the WP:V policy revision demonstrating exceptional patience and ability to get the best from widely differing ranges of community opinion. Leaky Caldron 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Obvious. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support; this transparent attempt to wilfully cause another unanimous promotion! His impressive work at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability alone would have convinced me to support. — Coren (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support In the often-fraught world of Wikipedia editing, admins who can smoothly handle complex disputes are an absolute necessity. Mr Stradivarius fits the bill; handing him the toolset would be to everyone's advantage. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; previous encounters with Mr Stadivarius (usually around DR) have left me with the imrpession that they'd be a net positive as an admin. The editors above say just what I wanted to say, but more eloquently. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Content creation isn't great, but otherwise, Mr. Stradivarius is a fine candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Obvious The ultimate diplomat, civil person, careful person, strong credentials and track record dealing with disputes. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Looks sound to me. GiantSnowman 12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Leaky's comments about WP:V, per Yunshui's observations, Coren's faith, and my own experience and confidence that Mr. Stradivarius will use the tools wisely and with the full trust of the community. This appears to be Wikipedia's "Summer of Love" at RfA, and I am quite pleased that so many truly exceptional candidates have offered to serve the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support We've crossed paths and in a good way. Excellent demeanor. Also, he talked about some template work he'd done but didn't mention how good he is at it. I fulfilled a bunch of complicated requests for him, that he could have used the tools to do himself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
  12. Support - Has done great work at Wikipedia:V. On the other hand, I have seen him work and was pretty impressed myself thus I see no reason why not to support. Another example of a candidate for adminship who is so close to be perfect. TheSpecialUser TSU 13:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, with the very, very highest of enthusiasm. I've just spent a few months working with the candidate at the WP:V discussions, and I've seen his work first-hand. This is a truly great member of the Wikipedia community – intelligent, articulate, clueful, careful with people's feelings. I cannot imagine anyone whom I would trust more with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per many of the above. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per all of the above. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I've seen him around and always found him to be a good editor. He has great strength in his nominators and his strength at mediating is exactly what is needed for an administrator. Ryan Vesey 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Easy. Another thought-he-was-already in a pleasingly long list of late. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Trustworthy and competent. Unreserved support. AGK [•] 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support (for Brad;). I've seen useful and clueful comments from this user, so no worries.  Br'erRabbit  14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ← Street-Legal Sockpuppet. — Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (nb)[reply]
  20. No reason to oppose this candidate, and every reason to support him. His fantastic work with dispute resolution and mediation shows he has exactly the right attitude and temperament to deal with the more challenging areas of adminship, and I have no doubts that he will use the tools well. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I had seen Mr. Stradivarius around AfD in the past, so I specifically took a longer look at his AfD work. I saw familiarity with our our policies and precedents, even-handed application, common sense, a willingness to actually dig into sourcing questions in depth, and a willingness to turn around his opinion based on new evidence when appropriate. I imagine that many of these qualities are present in the other areas he chooses to work in, and they will serve him well as an admin. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, seems level-headed and clueful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I admit to a bit of bias here but I always consider experience at MEDCAB to be very useful for prospective admins, as dispute resolution is a core part of what we're asked to do. There's plenty of experience in other admin-related areas as well, and I'm familiar with Mr. Stradivarius from places on the project and happily support his candidacy. -- Atama頭 17:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Always a pleasure to work with on wiki! Yes, please! :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. At some point, we need to figure out why this long string of excellent editors didn't choose to run for RfA before now. Strad's mediation work looks very good, and a mop might (or might not) have been useful. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per Atama. Based on the candidates involvement with MedCab, I'm sure they'll make a fine admin. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support As per Yunshui ,the user is experienced and has been active since November 2010.Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I saw this nomination and couldn't resist adding my vote. I've seen Mr. Stradivarius's work in mediation, and his temperament is exactly what I would hope for in an administrator. (And I know this has been said a lot, but I too thought he was already an admin.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support good work at DRN. --Rschen7754 19:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't see any reason why this user shouldn't have the mop. Great work! Topher385 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Excellent work, on WP:V and elsewhere. Be——Critical 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support On balance of probabilities will not delete main page or ban Jimbo Wales Egg Centric 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support Per excellent work at both MEDCOM, as well as WT: UTM. Electric Catfish 21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Dispute resolution is one of the most difficult areas in which to work, and Mr. Stradivarius appears to do it well. Bonus points for that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support He shows judgment, patience and thoughtfulness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Very qualified. Lord Roem (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Would enable Mr to take care of more things himself, which is not a worry as he seems to not take sides. Mysterytrey talk 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Pretty good quality articles, pleased with what I've seen in his contributions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I just spent 10 minutes trying to think of a better candidate. I can't. MJ94 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support We need more admins willing and able to help out with template development and maintenance, and his proposal to help with admin closure backlogs will lend support in an area where we are always short-handed. A superior candidate. -- Dianna (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I said once that I felt you could charm the wool off sheep - I still have that opinion : ) - And I'm not bothering to check your contribs. If you're a sleeper vandal, you've got quite a lot of us fooled : ) - jc37 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Per SilkTork Secret account 02:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Per using tools for article work, and pledging to have patience. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, experienced user as is shown above. --MakecatTalk 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Per Worm That Turned. Graham87 06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 08:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Everything I've seen of this editor's contributions has been positive, and his responses to the questions are very good. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - no brainer. Highly mopworthy. Manning (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good articles. —HueSatLum 12:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support after reviewing his work on Lars von Trier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Yeah, yeah, yeah! We need admins like him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support; excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Thoughtful, even-tempered, and clueful. Mop is long overdue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Does his best to help out newcomers and inexperienced users. Altamel (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support .. WormTT and Steve say it well. — Ched :  ?  17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support — Mr. Stradivarius and I are currently co-mediating a case at MedCom. He has been a pleasure to work with, and I have every confidence he will make an outstanding administrator. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I have seen his work and believe he will do a good job. Kierzek (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support No problems here. Michael (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No Concerns -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 20:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support One of the finest, most considered (and considerate), and smartest editors I've encountered here. No qualms of any kind, whatsoever. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support per Yunshui. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Per many things and (obviously) because of Q7. This users shows a great skill of tought-before-acted attitude that any admin must have, and an additional reliability on sincerity that is—and will still be—a great asset for him as an admin. Regards. —Hahc21 03:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I've been particularly impressed with his work setting up the recent successful RfC concerning the lead of WP:V.  Sandstein  14:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - a well rounded and strong candidate. Agree with Atama above also--Cailil talk 15:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support - Honest, trustworthy editor. I don't think we have any problem's here. Webclient101 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support No concerns. --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Adequate mainspace edits and tenure. Excellent answers to my questions above. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - The nom is great admin material, I can support fully with no reservations. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Stephen 23:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Aye.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Seems a good choice, good answers...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support This candidate has a good experience editing Wikipedia. He doesn't lack an admin's requirements: Good experience, goals as an admin, responsibility over Wikipedia,... He'll be a good admin who'll use the tools properly. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 12:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support: No concerns. Thanks for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support This user's work on wp:DRN is invaluable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Clear answers. Deliberate. Good logs. I've noticed him around. Good candidate. Glrx (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I've seen you around and wondered when you'd get here. Perfect temperament for the job. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Per nom(s) and my usual philosophy (ping for details)--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support good article and AFD work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support with no doubt at all. Work on WP:V alone would be enough. Answer to last question above shows superior diplomacy and good tech knowledge. DocTree (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - he is a well trusted user, and would obviously make an excellent administrator. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. An awesome trusted user, also, per the above. TBrandley 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Looks like a great candidate to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Strong support — Absolutely. We need more admins with a background in dispute resolution. Another plus is his experience in the deletion process; he'll be an asset in clearing out CSD backlogs and closing AfD debates. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Not enough admins currently; doesnt seem to have bad habits. Good luck to him or.....her? Ceoil (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Strong support All Stradivarii are in administrative positions - why, here's a chance for Mr. Stradivarius to join them. Good contribs and record. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, good impressions from interactions with the candidate, do not expect any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose, as sysop buttons should have been given to candidate a lot earlier than this. Can they be back-dated? Brilliant dispute resolution plus impeccable content work. Unambiguous support.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Great work on the project, and a very constructive and collegial approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Outstanding mediation skills and process-orientation. Really easy to support this nomination! Vertium When all is said and done 01:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support- Sound judgement. Dru of Id (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. I have been watching this since it started and I thought I had already !voted (sooo many RfAs to watch recently). Shame on me for not doing so earlier. No concerns - again, the early Worm is catching the good candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Unusually sensible and constructive. Warden (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Met him frequently at DRN. Excellent editor and mediator. My fullest support. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 09:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, every time I've seen Mr. Stradivarius around, he's clear, patient, and civil. I think the tools will be in very good hands here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Excellent candidate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Basically due to his answer to Q1 The extra buttons that admins get have the potential to cause some serious grief if used badly, so I plan on taking my time. It shows he is concerned about his fellow editors and will build his adminship upon that foundation. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Have seen him working....... no probs! TheStrikeΣagle 15:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Yes please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyo (talk • contribs)
  108. Support. Reasonable bloke, good answers, and the large chicken found in his bathroom was a nice touch. -— Isarra ༆ 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support per noms. We can always use more civility. Mr. Stradivarius is able to inject more light, instead of heat, into disputes. Neotarf (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Absolutely no concerns. Excellent candidate. — sparklism hey! 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Delighted to pile on in support. This is an editor I trust with the tools for a lifetime! Jusdafax 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Me too, really no surprise at this point. Has a good use for the tools. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - strikes the perfect balance between content work and administration. Answers to questions are sound. Is this going to be the 6th RfA with no opposes? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - WP:DRN work has been spot on. Nobody Ent 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Very qualified. --Carioca (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Impressive work at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. I feel he can be trusted with the admin tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. mabdul 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Welcome aboard. -- Ϫ 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support per WP:SNOW. :D Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Piling on, as he meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Happy to support this potential candidate. Mr. Stradivarius has a large number of contributions to different areas of the project which shows they have experience and are also knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A totally trusted and qualified candidate for adminship. They also have the trust and confidence of so many people which makes them perfect for the job. All the Best Mr. Stradivarius! TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Suppport Of course - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support for his work on DRN. We need more of these admins at the ANI and other noticeboards.--DBigXray 10:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - looks a good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]


Neutral
[edit]
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/Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=1142505422"