Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sr13

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.

Sr13

[edit]

Final (44/1/1); Ended Mon, 7 May 2007 13:21:38 UTC

Sr13 (talk · contribs) - Hello, and thank you for taking the time to evaluate me. To begin, I joined Wikipedia at the end of August 2006, but did not contribute heavily until October of that year. I have over 4000 edits over a period of 6 months, with 1883 mainspace edits. Here are my first and second editor reviews. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept myself.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I have reported several vandals to WP:AIV, and I can help with clearing the lists of user and bot requested blocks. I can also definitely lend a hand to the heavy backlog at CAT:SPEEDY, as I have reported many nonsense and unencyclopedic articles there. Having the mop will also give me the ability to close WP:XfD (especially WP:AfD) nominations that have "delete" consensus, as well as helping me with the overdue WP:PROD log. I will also be very happy to help out with maintainance in the backlogs, with previous experience in the Stubsensor and Double redirects logs. I would love to help out with the Administrator backlogs as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am pleased with the smooth development of WP:PJAA, in which I have introduced the idea on how articles should be processed in the WikiProject. Just several days ago, I have started WP:WARRIORS, a project on improving Warriors articles. Adding references to Punahou School was another accomplishment of mine. I have even requested peer review of the article and hopefully get the article into GA-status very soon.
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: The greatest conflict I have been in was with Nihonjoe as a newbie over a dispute of the full name of "Sudoku." The debate did not become as heated, but I tried to question him before finally accepting his explaination. Other discussions I have been in were with Yrgh (now indef blocked), in which I tried to solve a dispute between him and other parties. I was also in a small dispute when I nominated Lunchtime soccer for deletion, as well as List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin for deletion. Note that I never was uncivil or disruptive in any of the discussions. In the future, I hope to stay cool in any discussion I end up with.
4. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). As an administrator, how rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: To begin, I believe that the quotes noted of the policy should not be "softened" and breaching of this guideline should result in strict enforcement. Any re-insertion of libelous, unsourced, or controversial material (after being given a clearly stated warning) will not be tolerated (especially after the Seigenthaler controversy, and others requiring legal intervention). To enforce this guideline, I would first give a fair warning stating that the user has inserted libelous material and should not continue to do so. A second offense, I believe, shall require another message stating that the user will be blocked if s/he inserts contested material again. A third time shall result from a week to a month block (depending on the offense).

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sr13 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. --dario vet (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - although I would like more experience, I can see no problems with this editor, good luck... The Rambling Man 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - strong candidate, good contributions across both mainspace and projectspace. Walton Need some help? 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Four is a magic number. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 10:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support looks alright. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 10:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Can not find any problems. -Mschel 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support With a spike in editing this month, does raise slight concerns about overall experience, but looking though contributions shows nothing but courtesy and reflection and I'm confident will not rush into using the tools. All the best. Khukri 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  8. Strong support based on the answers and on the endorsements at Editor Review. YechielMan 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support — excellent work at WP:ER, as well as useful contributions around the encyclopedia; not only can misuse be ruled out for this editor, frequent usage can be concluded as highly likely as a result of Sr's already-existent contrib's to sysop areas ... i.e., he already helps out with maintenance tasks, and the Mop would only allow him to both continue and extend this excellent work ~ Anthony 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support You seem like you would make a reliable admin. Shlom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Michaelas10 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. After reviewing the candidates contributions, I see no reason to oppose. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, as per above, looks good. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Seems good. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. Good experience and I've really liked what I've seen of his contributions. Would use the mop well. WjBscribe 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - more than adequate experience. Addhoc 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Very good editor. Will certainly be a very good administrator. --Carioca 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I'm convinced he's ready due to these posts: User talk:Sr13#Closing AfDs and User talk:Sr13#Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ries. If a person is competent in closing AfDs, I think they should just close them. The rule requiring that the discussions be unanimous keeps (for non-admins to be able to close them) doesn't really make sense to me. The fact that Sr13 ignores dumb rules shows independent judgement, and I like that. The Transhumanist 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support seems trustworthy and reliable. No concerns here. —Anas talk? 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A sound candidate for adminship. Captain panda 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks appropriate in usertalk interface as well as other areas. --Kukini hablame aqui 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: seems to know his stuff well enough, and to be level-headed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. Acalamari 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good contributions, nothing adverse to see.--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support well-rounded editor. the_undertow talk 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support John254 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - you can use the tools, I believe you can be trusted with the tools, and (most importantly) you've taken criticism and learned from it. I can't say I'm a fan of self-noms, but I believe you're a good candidate and won't hold it against you. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: While a couple more months of experience would be better I see nothing wrong with this editor. Seems to be trustworthy enough and should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Good Editor..:).--Cometstyles 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No evidence that the candidate would abuse the tools. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Nominee seems to be willing to listen to advice and correction from other editors, an admirable quality for an admin. Pastor David † (Review) 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support no gripes here. Darthgriz98 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. WikiProject Nihonjoe strongly endorses Sr13 in his bid for adminship. I see nothing in his history that indicates the tools would be abused. On the contrary, I see plenty of evidence indicating Sr13 would be an asset as an admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Well within my standards. Additionally, the candidate has demonstrated a clear ability to respond positively to criticism and a strong will to learn. Vassyana 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Seems to understand the importance of BLP.--Docg 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, definately in the position to put the tools to good use. I have no doubt that Sr13 will become quite an active and helpful backlog clearer as well as XfD closer. Great work so far, Sr13! *Cremepuff222* 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Joe I 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support crossed the rubicon and came back to tell about it --Infrangible 01:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Perfect admin!! --ISOLA'd ELBA 23:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Editor creates non-notable articles such as Hawaiian Electric Industries and then goes ahead and votes to delete ancillary articles to FAs such as Aaron Sorkin. He is not rational, and does not have a good head on his shoulders.-BillDeanCarter 09:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right to oppose the candidate's adminship based on this history is unquestionable, but the tone of the second sentence is regrettably uncivil. Please consider rephrasing the tone of your comments in the future. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawaiian Electric Industries is notable (it is the largest supplier of electricity to the state of Hawaii), and I wasn't the only one to endorse deletion (actually, the closing admin said that the consensus was to merge). Sr13 (T|C) 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SR13 - I think most of us know what "merge" means, so your link perhaps wasn't that helpful; could you provide a link to the actual AfD page? Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, Mr. Broughton; the link is provided in the answer to Question 3. Here is the link. Sr13 (T|C) 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing another candidate and stating that they are "not dedicated to the project" is too harsh. El_C 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This user has retracted his vote. Sr13 (T|C) 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Erm, I prefer to call it expression of support or some other euphemism — anything but "vote," or even worse, "!vote"! El_C 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the comment. I have rephrased what I have said in his RfA. Sr13 (T|C) 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. El_C 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. The candidate appears suitable, but I don't have enough evidence of competency at collaborative editing to support. An endorsement from a suitable WikiProject would likely alter my opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a collaborative project is it not? A WikiProject is just a miniature Wikipedia within a Wikipedia, I'd have thought... --kingboyk 19:12, 1 May 2007 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sr13&oldid=948161577"