Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rambo's Revenge

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rambo's Revenge

Final (70/2/1); Ended 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC). – Closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk.

Nomination

Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) – Rambo has been an editor since 2007 and in that time has accomplished an impressive amount of work, which drew my attention to him in making this nomination.

Rambo has 15 featured credits and participates in the DYK/ITN aspects of the main page. He appears to contribute mainly in media and awards articles, which shows a good knowledge of our inclusion policies. Further, from his deleted edits, I see a knowledge and use of CSD criterion.

I believe that if selected, Rambo will continue his content work and help clean up things with the admin tools that he would otherwise need to ask an administrator to do. I believe he will continue to be an asset to the project. MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much. I accept. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would intend to hep out in areas where I have noticed only a few admins doing nearly all of the work. For example WP:RM, and WP:ITN/C. I will also try to monitor CAT:EP, a place where, in the past, I wished admins patrolled more regularly. There are a lot of requests for template changes there, and I have coded a few templates in the past so I would feel happy working there. By my own admission I have not done an awful lot of work at XfD, but I believe I have a pretty good grasp of deletion policies. I have recently become a PD reviewer on Commons (a new initiative) so I'll hopefully start becoming more involved at IfD in the future. That said, I would be willing to learn and help out wherever the community requires. If I were to be given the tools, I would definitely spend some time at admin school, tread carefully at first, and try not to make any big mistakes!

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I was very pleased to improve and promote five The O.C. based lists, to get my first (and thus far only) featured topic. My only experience in FAC with Premiere (The O.C.) was also a challenging but rewarding one. Other things I'm proud of are doing thorough reviews at FLC, like this one. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to do this for as many candidates as I would like.

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: At an FLC of mine an oppose was given over the transclusion of episode lists. I initially strongly disagreed with the reasoning because everything else at the time used transclusion. However, I must admit I did not assume good faith on Bignole's part, as I had previously got into a dispute with him after opposing at his Smallville FTC. However, I discussed it with him and some other WP:TV and FL contributors, took on board comments from all parties, and we comprimised. I would like to think that my attitude has greatly improved since our first interaction. Another possible conflict was when I opposed an FLC based on a bug that was (at the time) unfixable. It was seen as an unactionable oppose and some editors encouraged me to retract opposition on something unactionable. I felt it was still a valid reason, so I gathered input on the validity of the oppose and together a solution was reached. (The bug has since been fixed).

4.Optional question from user:Caspian blue

A: Is there any particular reason for you to choose your screen name as Rambo's Revenge? Is it related to the character, Rambo? (because the "revenge" in your name looks to me you can be a block-happy admin. ^^;;)

Unfortunately I don't bare much resemblance to the action hero. "Rambo" is loosely derived from my actual name. I'm quite happy to explain via email if you wish, but for now I don't fancy posting my real name in such public place. The "Revenge" part is because, over the years, I found that the majority of sites I tried to sign up on would already have "Rambo" taken. On this occasion instead of tagging a number on the end I added a word. I can't remember why, I don't think I was feeling in any way vindictive, I probably just liked the way it sounded.

Rambo's Revenge Forgiveness 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think BLPs are extremely difficult to monitor. The concerns are that for a little known person (obviously notable) who recieves low traffic, any vandalism can sit there for weeks/months. This has the potential to be damaging to the subject. Here, the more obvious vandalism isn't the harmful stuff (because readers will know it is false). It is the subtle vandalism that needs added scrutiny, because a reader may read vandalism that has been integrated into the article (i.e. not obviously) and believe it to be true. People have started to become more aware of the sensitive issues for BLPs, and new projects like WP:WPBLP and the possibility of Flagged revisions for BLPs mean that people are definitely trying to get on top of the situation.

5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I agree with liberal use of semi-protection, however I believe semi-protection for all is not the right decision and would significantly slow down article development. There are too many different proposals for me to adequately talk about whether I think Flagged revisions will work on BLPs. I think the general idea is good, and the WP:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions trial will give us an idea of whether any of it will work or not.

5c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: No consensus usually defaults to keep. But it is the idea of consensus that is important here. Consensus is determined by weighted arguments, so even if there is only one "delete" comment, but it is backed up by policy then the AfD maybe closed as delete (assuming there are no good "keep" arguments). To close any AfD, BLP or not, you must consider all arguments carefully. For BLPs I don't think we should change what normally happens to AfDs, however the article has an additional set of requirements that must be met.

5d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: As a new admin, I don't think I'd be immediately comfortable closing that kind of AfD on my own, and would garner input from more experienced parties. However, I would take their argument seriosuly. BLPs are a sensitive issue, and I would look carefully at the page history. I'd consider reverting to an earlier version without the "false claim" if possible, and make sure the article complies with all of WP:BLP. As we are talking about a "marginally notable" individual, they are quite possible at non-public figure and as such only information relevent to their notability should be included. If the article cannot be improved then deletion is an option I would consider taking.

Additional question from Toddst1:

6. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do and why? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).

A: Any suicide claim must not be overlooked. I would discuss the case with other administrators. Looking through that essay, I disagree with using the boilerplate response, {{Suicide response}}. If I were to reply, I would do so with a personal message, hopefully making them feel like they could talk about it, and give them the option of contacting me via email. I would try to locate a checkuser, so we can find out where they are. Then, with guidance from WP:AN, we could take appropriate action with local authorities, WMF, etc. I'd exercise care in locking the user's pages, as I would not want to inflame the situation, and prevent them being able to talk about their feelings. This is something else I would discuss at WP:AN.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

7. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A:

General comments

• Links for Rambo's Revenge: Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rambo's Revenge can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rambo's Revenge before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, excellent user Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - All interactions have been positive, and the content creation work is superb. — neuro^(talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per interactions with the user. They seem to have enough clue for the extra buttons. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Mainly for the name, but also appears to be competent, trustworthy, and experienced enough to wield the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Absolutely. AdjustShift (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Haven't come across this editor before but, after a look around, seems competent and focused on articles. No worries from me. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, can't see why not. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems to do good work, and is willing to admit to mistakes and move on. That's exactly what's needed. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support as a specialist admin candidate seeking the tools for specific tasks. Article building, communication, and conflict resolution skills are such that I don't believe admin abuse will be a problem. Seems meticulous and careful in his edits, so I don't believe will misuse tools by delving into areas where experience is lacking. Agree with rationales offered above. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Pro forma response. Opposes as of this writing seem poorly based/supported and do not seem relevant to/reflective of candidate's abilities. Having carefully considered their rationales, I still believe candidate's adminship will be a net positive. Dlohcierekim 05:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Support. Fine editor, and, if those comments are the most uncivil things he has done, he is quite civil. No worries. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. No apparent problems, and this diff says a lot about his approach. (I'm just going to hope that his user name doesn't carry a hidden message.) (The preceding was intended as humor.) Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Per Julian. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per nom. Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support My interactions with him at FLC have been nothing but positive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Seems fine. tempodivalse [☎] 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Quick review triggers no concerns.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support per MBisanz nomination. Glad to see someone willing to tackle some of the lesser-visibility areas of adminship. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Per this and this, I'm happy to support. Excellent content creator.  PUBLIC GARDEN  18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rambo's Revenge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Good enough. Ceranthor 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
24. For some reason I find it amazing that you have 13 FL with about 5,500 edits. Clearly your doing great stuff.--(NGG) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    He only has one FA, the rest are FLC/Topics. FA's are MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult to obtain than the other stuff. I put FLC more on par with GAC, than FAC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Stupid eyes of mines.--(NGG) 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

25. Support because I see no reason not to grant this editor the tools. He is doing some great work. Timmeh! 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Yup. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support No problems. Good luck. hmwithτ 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent content work; he will definitely be a good admin and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. Good luck, Rambo! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Of course. -download ׀ sign! 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - 15 Featured credits? Wow.--Unionhawk ^Talk 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support - by default. Also checked contribs, healthy activity since March of 08, solid contributions to articles. No reason to think Rambo's going to blow up the the wiki. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Answers to the questions look good, clearly dedicated user. GlassCobra 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
34. I support Rambo's Revenge Forgiveness for his serious answer to my question (Q4) and sense of humor presented by his signature. (of course other good stuffs are accounted)--Caspian blue 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
35. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
36. In my interactions with the user during the O.C. article FAC and PR, he was cheerful, eager to improve and accepting of criticism—the qualities we need in an admin. Clearly here to work on quality content. Don't think this lets you off the hook for writing more, though :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Poorly argued opposes as of this posting. Thus, little reason not to support.  Marlith (Talk)  02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
38. It's hard to say this with Ais's admin highlighter script, but I seriously thought he was one. Rambo is a civil, mature, and extremely clueful editor. Their featured credits are amazing, and is properly balanced with other work. This RfA was long overdue, but I'm still glad to support. Xclamation point 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - seems to be a good candidate for adminship based on my interaction with this user on FLC.—Chris! _ct 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support...thought he was one already! One (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support No reason no to. America69 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Great work. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    This edit convinced me to support. Need more people familiar and comfortable with images in the Admin Corp!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Ooops, looks like I already supported---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

43. Support Very good work at WP:FL, esp. reviewing. Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. No drama here. Rambo's Revenge has good reason for Admin rights, and the temperament to exercise those rights responsibly. I found that he always communicates well with others as he improves the encyclopedia. Rambo will meet the end goal for the community. --Preceding unsigned comment 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - I've been impressed with his work at FLC, in both reviewing and nominating. Definitely think Rambo will be an asset for the community as an admin. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Good experiences with clueful candidate whenever I run into him. FlyingToaster 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - everything seems to be in order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Should do well in his areas. No reason not to support. Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support. Wizardman 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Answers to the questions above and edits to mainspace make me think he will be a great sysop. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support clear evidence will be a net positive :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - plenty enough edits/time on board, great contributions of high quality, interesting user page. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support - good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support as I see no valid reason to oppose. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no evidence the tools would be abused. Rather, I see instances where it's liekly they will be used for good purposes, as a benefit to Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Superb user. Like the content contributions and his work at WP:FLC and WP:FLRC is greatly appreciated. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Strong support. Another recognisable user. --candle•wicke 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Absolutely. AniMate^talk 04:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support no problems. Toddst1 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support User has been around since April 2007 and great content contributions and see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Further as per MBisanz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Sounds conscientious and does good work. Thanks for answering those remaining questions; they helped tip the scales. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Big support -- I started to write my reasonings, but they became too long. If you want to read them, see User talk:Matthewedwards#RfA Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. I see no problems at all. — Σxplicit 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Fine Wikipedian with a clear understanding of its ins and outs. He will do us well as an admin. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
66. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 16:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Absolutely! No alarms here. --GedUK  17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support No problems here and a net positive. Razorflame 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. Seems to be level headed and invested in improving content. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Personal experience with the individual leads me to have little confidence in his ability to interact with others in a manner that should be expected of an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Difs, please? Dlohcierekim 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed, I'm going to need some evidence or something before I can take this oppose seriously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

   No. This is a personal reaction. If you want to find reasons not to like him, why bother looking for -my- personal reason? It even says -personal- right at the top. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   You said "personal experience"; it's not too much to ask that you provide diffs about the experience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have no problems with Ottava's not providing references, I think Ottava realizes that in not doing so that his !vote would most likely be discarded, but for whatever reason has decided that is OK with him in this case. I'm guessing the reason is between Ottava and RR, and is personal---EG something the two of them know about, but isn't worth rehashing here again.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Exactly, and with it being 42 to 1, its not like it would matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   LOL, I'm not sure if you were discounting your !vote or Dougs there ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Glad we cleared that up. If were something horrid, I might have felt the need to change my position. ;) Dlohcierekim 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Possibly this is the 'personal experience'. End of bug hunt. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   No. Actually, it deals with IRC, off-site discussions with other users, and other things that I would rather not bring up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Understood. I value all comments at the RfA, but can only give weight to verifiable remarks. Without diffs or other resources, I respectfully give yours none. Thank you for clarifying. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I cared what other people thought about my comments or concerns, I wouldn't bother posting. If Rambo has a concern, he can speak for himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Username concerns PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I may ask, how does this lessen Rambo's ability to effectively use administrator capabilities? I don't see anything particularly incendiary about his choice of username. One (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, what's wrong with the username? If it's not an inappropriate username then it doesn't seem to be a good reason to stop you supporting ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Nothing wrong, a fictional convicted terrorist is still a fiction. NVO (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I tend to agree that the username could be a bit off-putting in certain situations. To recycle examples I've previously used, "You've been blocked by Rambo's Revenge" or even a "Please be civil. Rambo's Revenge" at a new user's talk page comes across a bit strange. To me, at least. Peace, Amalthea 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   (Switched to support) Neutral Wondering why there have been no responses to later questions. Is acceptance a foregone conclusion or does RR just have no answers? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 22:25, 9 May 2009 (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.