Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheProject

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.

theProject[edit]

Final (67/0/0) ended 03:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

theProject (talk · contribs) – theProject has been with us for a while (2004, account even older than mine) and has brought us a very nice balance between article, wikipedia and talk edits. For a while I've been on click on the request links for sysop activities (dealing with transwikis to various wikis which he is heavily involved in. theProject has also given me lots of cruft and obvious speedies to delete and has a great policy knowledge. I've known theProject offline for quite a while and he's one of the most trustworthy people I know (and for that matter he has a much better NPOV when it comes to hockey, but thats another story and not really relevant on an Rf :) Tawker 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm co-nominating. Really an outstanding, level-headed and knowlegable user. Deserves to captain an adminship :-) Sasquatch t|c 03:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank Tawker and Sasquatch for the nomination. I gratefully accept. If this RfA passes, I won't have to keep bugging Tawker to do what I command anymore. :-)
I was warned before this RfA to enable my email. Yes, I've enabled my email but I might as well note that one is more likely to get my attention faster by leaving a message on my talk page and triggering that bright orange banner rather than by emailing me -- I'm not quite certain I check email that often. (Of course, talk messages aren't an option for blocked users, so I'm still available by email.) I'm also sometimes on IRC, so I can be reached there, although I often (read: always) completely forget to say when I'm away.
Oh, and by the way, I'm flying behind the Great Firewall of China in a week and a half, so if this RfA passes, the first action I intend to take as a Wikipedia administrator is to take a Wikibreak for a month and a bit. Please accept my apologies in advance if I'm not extremely prompt in answering questions here, as I may be getting ready for this. I still should be able to answer all questions within 24 hours, though. TheProject 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong Support - as nominator -- Tawker 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OH NO DEAR GOD ANOTHER LONG ALL CAPS SASQUATCH SUPPORT!!! Sasquatch t|c 04:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support, of course. --Rory096 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. SushiGeek 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Hands down. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support! --Steve-o 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Don't say it... Don't say it...Ah dammit, thought he already was one Support PER TAWKER Werdna (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nominators. DarthVader 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. User has been a great contributor and thoughtful communicator from his first edit. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Great user. Appears to pass my RfA criteria very nicely. Grandmasterka 09:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I trust Tawker's judgement and you seem to pass my RFA criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per werdna! --james // bornhj (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The Project for administrating the project.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems like a good candidate for the mop and bucket, based on number and spread of edits.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support great candidate, anyone willing to clear a backlog is generally my kind of Wikipedian. --W.marsh 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Wmarsh. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not having the pleasure of knowing theProject, I've taken the time to review his contributions, and the conclusion I've reached is that he deserves nothing short of a strong and loud Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom, record of contributions, and willingness to help with cleanup tasks. --Elkman 15:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Naconkantari 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No comments, except support. — Vildricianus 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. bd2412 T 16:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yet-another-cliché support. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good editor, deserving of the new buttons. DVD+ R/W 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Voice-of-All 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. He's been ready for awhile and could do more with the mop. Roy A.A. 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Meets all of my criteria. --Wisden17 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per noms. G.He 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oui - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. digital_me(TalkˑContribs)
  31. Support Give 'em the mop. --Shizane 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per noms. —Khoikhoi 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --Alphachimp talk 05:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I think I know you well enough already to support your adminship. See ya around. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. There's not much more to say, but I particularly appreciate his work with transwikis, a sorely neglected project on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per noms. - Holy Ganga talk 08:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per the trifecta of Sasquatch, Kylu and Dmcdevit. robchurch | talk 13:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Cliché Support. --Zoz (t) 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Good answers. -- Миборовский 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Excellent contributions, talk page responses and RFA answers demonstrate consistent civility and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support more than qualifies for the position--WillMak050389 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, per nomination. --Mhking 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support great editor, meets my criteria--TBCTaLk?!? 22:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Sir Studieselot 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support A pretty easy call, this one. We need more people getting grease under their fingernails in the backlogs. I've never even heard a whisper of a conflict with the user. Geogre 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support theProject's answers show that (s)he would make an excellent admin. joturner 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Demonstrating good contributions. As Ohnoitsjamie said on above. *~Daniel~* 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support--Jusjih 23:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support; theProject will be an excellent admin on Wikipedia. Andy Saunders 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support For sure MichaelBillington 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Well, duh: Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Everything (particularly talk page) looks very positive, you will make a great admin. Abcdefghijklm 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Why not?Agoodperson 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Iolakana|T 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, I am familar with his positive contributions and feel he will make a good admin. Accurizer 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. YEs.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support gets my vote of confidence, good luck to you. Gryffindor 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom. Encountered him when processing his prods for transwikied stuff. Good editor! Kimchi.sg 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Joe I 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, sound and valued contributor. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per nominator. Polonium 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -Lady Aleena @ 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Solid. SilkTork 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
  • To the candidate: You will want to read Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China. Apparently it's still possible to use secure.wikimedia.org to access enwiki normally. Kimchi.sg 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually able to VPN back home now, but I think I actually need to get some work done overseas... I'll do my best. :-) TheProject 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user TheProject (over the 4116 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 611 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 23, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 21, September, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.33% Minor edits: 99.75%
Average edits per day: 24.98 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 398 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.51%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4116 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.17% (7)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 6.03% (248)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 16.08% (662)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 85.54%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2885 | Average edits per page: 1.43 | Edits on top: 25.53%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 26.41% (1087 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 43.32% (1783 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 26.14% (1076 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 2.5% (103 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 47.04% (1936) | Article talk: 2.92% (120)
User: 1.48% (61) | User talk: 25.87% (1065)
Wikipedia: 18.03% (742) | Wikipedia talk: 1.53% (63)
Image: 1.92% (79)
Template: 0.56% (23)
Category: 0.34% (14)
Portal: 0.19% (8)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.12% (5)
Statistics for: TheProject
- Total: 4109 -
Main: 1940
Talk: 120
User: 61
User talk: 1063
Wikipedia: 733
Wikipedia talk: 63
Image: 79
Image talk: 1
Template: 23
Template talk: 2
Category: 14
Category talk: 2
Portal: 8
-------------------
Total edits: 4109
Minor edits: 2800
Edits with edit summary: 4079
Edits with manual edit summary: 3939
Percent minor edits: 68.14%  *
Percent edit summary use: 99.26%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 95.86%  *

Username theProject
Total edits 4115
Distinct pages edited 2960
Average edits/page 1.390
First edit 23:57, September 20, 2004
 
(main) 1936
Talk 120
User 61
User talk 1065
Image 79
Image talk 1
Template 22
Template talk 2
Category 14
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 742
Wikipedia talk 63
Portal 8
 G.He 22:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'll probably be helping out with tasks that I, as a non-administrator, have impatiently wondered to myself why an administrator doesn't take on faster, and, having helped to clear two backlogs in my time here, I think I have a pretty clear idea of what that might be. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a place where I'd definitely be popping into frequently, as backlogs there tend to irritate some people (including me). I participate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion somewhat often, and consider myself decent at gauging consensus, although some might disagree. :-)
Lately, I've started tackling a rash of magazine covers from Category:Fair use magazine covers used in articles about the subject on the cover, rather than on the cover's publication itself, which I understand is in contravention of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. This has, though, raised a few eyebrows -- see my response to question #3.
I've done RC patrol in the past and I find it as a great stress-reduction technique, and I'll most certainly still be doing that from time to time, although, in my opinion, that is a very well-filled position already. I do understand the importance of monitoring Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism closely, and I'll be checking that often.
A few days ago, I monitored new pages for the first time. I quite enjoyed it, and I hope to be doing that more often down the road.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm particularly happy with my contribution to clearing the Move to Wiktionary backlog. Since then I've also helped to clear the Move to Wikibooks backlog (although there wasn't that much of a backlog by the time I got to it) and am currently dealing with items to be moved to Wikisource.
In terms of articles -- although I'll admit I don't edit actual content as much as I should -- I'm quite happy with my edits to Byron Moreno, in particular, being able to find references, small as that may be compared with the effort I've put into other things on Wikipedia. A long, long time ago, I expanded Gustav Mahler quite significantly (so long ago that, if you look at the edit history, you'll see it was before I'd learned to use the preview button), although I've since stopped paying any attention to that article -- see my response to question #3.
This might be a little unconventional, but I wanted to mention one other thing I've participated in recently: an AfD. It was a most illuminating and most unheated discussion, and I think it would benefit the project greatly if all AfDs were conducted in this manner. (But that is, of course, rather idealistic of me.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Most of my disputes have been particularly minor, but two incidents in particular stand out. Back when I was particularly new to Wikipedia and watching Gustav Mahler (I had not quite gotten the principle of article non-ownership, but neither had someone else), I had an issue with another user who was using particularly abusive edit summaries. I wasn't quite aware of the options available to me then, so I just stopped watching the article, and I haven't re-added it to my watchlist since.
Having the benefit of hindsight and more experience on Wikipedia, though, next time a similar situation occurred, I would try to talk it over with the user and ask the user to be more civil. Although leaving a heated dispute may have been a good thing for my sanity personally, letting abusive users have their way with the project will not be at all good for the project. (This principle, of course, has to be taken in moderation; I'm not going to go around picking fights for the sake of picking fights.)
I've also noticed that fair use, and enforcing Wikipedia's fair use policies, is a fairly (excuse the terrible pun) contentious issue. Removing fair use violations from articles once got me yelled at[1], but I think the situation there was defused quite rapidly, and I'm quite happy about that. I anticipate some more heat generated as I continue to do this, but I think a careful and gentle explanation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines should help alleviate any conflicts that will undoubtedly arise.

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
Not in particular; I haven't had any disputes big enough that I'd say it was the most frustrating part of Wikipedia for me, and there haven't been any policies that have been major obstructions for me. Adminship, of course, would always make things more convenient, but I don't consider it as clearing a problem as much as it is enabling me further in my quest to aid the project.
Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
Nothing in particular stands out to me. Observing critically, I see a large number of mainspace edits in comparison to talk page edits, but this has largely to do with my May-long RC patrol resolution (which was to spend an average of thirty minutes on patrol every day for the month).
One statistic not on that list that I've always been interested in, actually, is the number of deleted edits I have (as of three days ago, a little over 650). As the niche I've carved for myself thus far has had very much to do with transwikiing entries across projects, I imagine I have more deleted edits compared to total edits than the average non-newpage patroller, as a lot of material I move is usually prodded or listed on AfD soon after. (Of course, this guess might completely be out to lunch.)
Q: Do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
Interesting you ask that, because I've participated in all of one RfA in my entire time here. The low number is because I generally consider myself to be rather poor at judging the character of other users and their fitness for tools I haven't used. If this RfA succeeds, I would hope that by gaining experience as to what an administrator is required to do, that I would become more adept at recognizing who is fit to become an administrator.
As for any specific criteria, therefore, I can only name one which I will almost always adhere to: I need to know, or at least know well of, the user in question. This doesn't mean that I need to have communicated with the user, of course, although it would certainly help me form my judgement. There are many users I've seen on RC Patrol who have repeatedly beat me to a revert, for example, and I most certainly remember their usernames even though there's no need for me to communicate with them.
Q: Lastly, what is your largest wiki-weakness? This is your view and doesn't need to be based on the comments placed by oppose or neutral voters.
To boil it down to one word: impatience. Near the beginning of my adventures with the transwiki log, I listed everything I transwikied as a candidate for speedy deletion (I've since learned to use prod and AfD). There have been a few times when I've been annoyed by listing an article for speedy deletion and come back half an hour later to find the listing still there, although I will certainly delete with caution if this RfA passes. In the past, I haven't quite appreciated having to wait for a proposal to be discussed, be it a proposal in the mainspace or a policy page, and it's led me to be a bit pushy sometimes. But of course, everyone has my word that I will most certainly continue to work on this.
Miborovsky's question (optional if you don't want a support vote ;-D)
8. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Expound in 300 words or less, with specific references to Wikipedia politics. (12 points) -- Миборовский 08:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with that statement; I haven't lived particularly long compared to some others, but I've known of some real-life politicians who have started out in office very well-intentioned, but, given too long a period in office, have forgotten the whole concept of serving one's community. I won't name any examples, of course, as I have no desire to bring real-life politics into Wikipedia. (I resent Wikipolitics as much as I resent real politics in general, but I recognize that in any group of more than two people, political disputes are going to pop up here and there.)
Nobody has absolute power on Wikipedia. I don't agree with the assessment that Jimbo is Wikipedia's "benevolent dictator", and I wouldn't want him to be one: benevolent dictators, if they get too used to the power, often turn into malevolent dictators. Rather, his power on Wikipedia is strictly limited to reserve powers, and hence is more analogous to that of the Queen, as Jimbo himself has compared on occasion.
I think the one of the greatest powers on Wikipedia is one of its most fundamental -- the ability to edit the encyclopedia -- and one that we freely give to all users (I've always tried to adhere to the principle that in terms of editing mainspace, "anonymous users are users too"). All of the other powers in the hierarchy of rights -- blocking, protecting, banning, etc. -- only exist to ensure that this fundamental power is not abused. And to make sure the ability to block, protect, or ban is not abused, the community must always be able to choose those who might have power over it.
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/TheProject&oldid=1147963306"