Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vermont

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

Vermont

Vermont (talk · contribs · count)

Closed as Sucessful 13/1 clear consensus for promotion. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC) End date: 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been active here for about 7 months, participating mainly in anti-vandalism. I commonly patrol recent changes in the #cvn-simplewikis IRC channel. If granted admin tools, I’d use them mainly to patrol CAT:QD and deal with VIP reports.

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination

Support

1. Support This wiki needs more active administrators. Petrb (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Support - No concerns. Very active, competent, receptive to feedback and willing to learn from mistakes. Clear evidence that they'll use the tools constructively. They will be an asset to the community. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 21:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support from my small contributions to Simple, it's clear that more administrators are needed. Candidate has enough clue to know when to act, when not to act, and when to stop and ask for advice - TNT^❤ 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, enough experience for getting the flag. Esteban16 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support. We need more active admins because there are cases when vandals do over 50 edits before being blocked. We also need more active admins in irc. As vermont is very active in irc and is actively patrolling, he can use the tools well.-BRP ^ever 09:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Support. I've seen plenty of good judgments on his part. I'd be happy to see him as admin, and hope he would also try his hand at writing the occasional page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Support --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 16:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Support Active user - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Support Someone mentioned to me that Vermont was doing an RfA here, so I looked (I couldn't tell you whom, because I forget, but it wasn't Vermont and there was no canvassing, just an off-handed mention). I wasn't going to comment at all, but since a block I made on en.wiki was alluded to, I decided it would be best to say something: Vermont was being overzealous in enforcing out COI policy there and violated 3RR. It was a mistake. I unblocked about an hour later after we discussed it. I haven't seen any issues with him on any Wikimedia site since. I'm supporting because I know he does a lot of work on simple, is active in dealing with cross-wiki vandals, and I think giving him the tools here would help the Wikimedia movement as a whole. I'm less involved here, but I know the candidate and felt it worth bringing up since I was tangentially mentioned below. Make of it what you will. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
10. Move from oppose to support per Tony. --Mareklug (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Support per above Mohamed^Talk 08:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Support A very helpful editor and already doing great work. I am sure they can be trusted with admin tools. Also simple Wikipedia needs more active admins. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Support has experience, active and as per above, we need more sysops. 1.02 editor (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Out of abundance of caution, let us not activate administrator privileges for User:Vermont. He is very usefully performing edits without being an administrator, and there has been editing conflict in the history of his edits elsewhere, which casts a certain worrisome pall over the prospect of Vermont not doing the correct thing in a content-related conflict. Details on request, but ideally, the self-nom will address and document my objection forthcomingly and levelly, to assure us that he has learned from these experiences. --Mareklug (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC) / edited 06:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Well, as user:TonyBallioni offered such strong endorsement, I am reconsidering my oppsition to the self-nom, and, in fact, as a gesture of assuming good faith and all that is right with Vermont, move to support. ;) --Mareklug (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This all seems rather vague, so I'd like to hear details. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 21:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that Mareklug is referring to two instances of edit conflicts, both on the English Wikipedia. The first being an argument that Mareklug and I had over the use of "command" as a noun (see [1]), and the second being an instance where I was blocked for about an hour for edit warring with User:David McGimpsey on en:David McGimpsey in early March, as I misunderstood the COI edits to be an exemption from 3RR. (see [2]) Vermont (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Oppose Vermont has done solid work patrolling, however I'd prefer to see more experience. 0 articles have been created by the candidate, which is not terribly concerning since most of the admin toolset does not deal with content creation, however I would prefer for Vermont to show a deeper understanding of basic article policies that don't have to deal with vandalism and bad pages. For me, maybe not now but would be glad to support in the upcoming months. --Eurodyne (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

   Since he wants to do patrolling and cleaning of vandalism (which is what this wiki needs a lot), I think amount of articles created or knowledge of "article policies" is absolutely irrelevant here. Petrb (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Article creation show a user has an understanding of "Simple English", so it is a very relevant consideration in many edits an admin reviews. --Peterdownunder (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

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.