Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Future Perfect at Sunrise - Wikipedia


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

Final (73/0/1) Ended 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) – Fut. Perf. has been 6 months with us (actually, longer, but I'll let him explain) and has accumulated 2600 well-spread edits since. He is a model of politeness and civility while being a firm vandal- and cruft-fighter. He is an expert on linguistics (as his user page confirms, for those who want an admin to have a sense of humor ) and history, and he often acted as a good faith mediator in various wiki-ethnic-conflicts (notably, Greco-Turkish and Greco-Macedonian). He's a frequent contributor at WP:AN, WP:AN/I and WP:AIV, both as a reporter and as a commenter. C'mon people, let's give him the tools! Duja 12:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to co-nominate Fut. Perf. for adminship. I have been in quite a constant interaction with him since he first appeared in wikipedia, and I have admired his ability in dealing with controversial issues and problematic editors, as I have often found outstanding his coolness when disputes erupt. I can hardly immagine a user that can be trusted more with the tools.--Aldux 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I gratefully accept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 30 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My main motive in wanting the tools (in the sense of not a big deal) is that I've quite frequently been getting into situations in the course of my normal editing where they were needed, forcing me to run for assistance when I would have felt quite confident doing things myself and it would have been much quicker for all sides that way. I have a number of frequently vandalised articles on my watchlist; there have been some persistent problems with routine blockings of banned users around me; I keep bumping into situations where I need help with uncontroversial moves. So, I'll just start from there and then see where that leads me. Probably into some WP:RM work, the occasional *fD closing, and some WP:AIV monitoring during hours when few other admins are active there. Frankly, I can't really promise that I will be doing a huge lot of systematic, regular admin work in any specific area, at least at first, since I can't really afford to increase my total wiki time too much at this moment, and of course I want to keep some spare energy for normal editing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My purely linguistic work (my proper area of expertise) can perhaps best be illustrated by Modern Greek phonology. Apart from that, I hope I have a certain talent as a "problem solver" in NPOV negotiations (for a small example, see this RFC thread together with this). In the notoriously politicised area of Balkan topics, I hope I've earned myself a bit of a position of trust among editors with different national backgrounds; sometimes I end up in the role of an informal mediator. You may notice in my edit statistics that I have a rather high ratio of talk edits to article edits. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but the reason seems to be I get involved with issues that require a large amount of advance debate, consensus building (see e.g. here) or discussion of sources. In the end this may lead to a quite thorough rewrite of some article - but that is then often a matter of only few edits, prepared offline long days in advance. Such was the case with "Arvanites" or recently with "Names of Istanbul". - But that said, I must admit I'd wish all the debating and negotiating would leave me more energy for simple, basic article creation. I'm rather fond of a few smallish, little noticed articles on relatively outlying topics, such as this Byzantine writer, this minor composer, or this curious medieval document.
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: Conflicts are never very far in the domains where I edit. Most of the recent ones were not stressful for me, because I was only tangentially involved from a detached outside position. But I know only too well that feeling of anger, when you think you are confronted with stubbornness or mindless POV-pushing, which can so much push you towards that seductively simple solution, the revert button. The only thing that helps then is to work off your steam by spending that extra half hour in the next library researching the topic, rather than on Wikipedia doing reverts.
One conflict that affected me more closely was my dealings with a certain user who I felt had a habit of very problematic edits (plagiarism, fringe POV-pushing etc.) and whose work I felt compelled to monitor over the course of several weeks (see here). This could easily have led me down the wrong path into wikistalking - a danger that I do hope I managed to avoid, although the person in question evidently felt otherwise. I countered it by constantly placing myself and the whole situation under as close scrutiny by others as possible. While I am still confident that what I did was necessary and ultimately useful, I need to admit there may have been instances there where I could have said what needed to be said in a slightly less terse tone.
One note: As Duja hinted in his nomination, I used to edit previously under a different account, which I gave up for reasons of privacy protection. It's never been a big secret, but your discreetness in not naming it is appreciated. Any questions about it will be gladly answered in private. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: IAR was aptly described by another candidate the other day as a "convenient safety valve" or something like that. The important thing is that it shouldn't be invoked to knowingly override informed opposing opinion, in situations where there is lack of clear consensus. In such cases, some kind of tiebreaker mechanism may be needed, but IAR is really not the best tiebreaker mechanism there is. I stress informed, in the sense of: awareness of the guiding principles and goals of Wikipedia. Too often, IAR application is justified afterwards with cheap dichotomies of "doing what is good for building an encyclopedia" versus "what those other guys wanted". In reality, controversial decisions are rather more often decisions between two well-reasoned views of what actually is good for building an encyclopedia. In such situations, an admin should exercise great restraint invoking IAR to make their own interpretation prevail.
SNOW is, of course, much simpler, it's really self-explanatory. It's simply the version of IAR when there really is consensus. (And I think it's wise that some of it is worded in such a way as to not really invite you to ignore rules, but just to encourage you not to dig in your heels unnecessarily when a rule already has been waived.)
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: This question has been answered often enough that everybody has by now understood there's only one correct answer. (It might still be interesting to have a discussion whether the principle stated in the policy matches the practice of what we're actually doing, for instance in applying 3RR, or whether it matches the sense of "justice" that normal Wikipedians on the ground expect admins to apply. One might also want to question the practice of Arbcom in some instances, but that's a bit beyond what I want to do tonight.)
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I must admit I missed the introduction of that new criterion and wasn't aware of it until a few days ago when I skimmed the other recent RfA's, and I don't think I've come across relevant cases in my own editing recently, so it's not really something I've given too much thought so far. Basically, you have the choice between three practical alternatives: deleting, tagging for cleanup, or rewriting/stubbing back yourself. And in deciding between these three, you'd have to weigh up quite a host of different criteria against each other, such as: the degree of blatant-ness of the case, the degree of notability of the subject, the likelihood that somebody else will actually be willing to do the cleanup; the amount of material that is salvagable and could be helpful for an editor in doing a rewrite; and yes, also the amount of time you can yourself afford to put into the case. I don't think I could easily condense it into an easy checklist right now. Basically, invoking G11 is like saying: I haven't got the capacity to rewrite this myself right now; but having no article for the time being is better than having it in the present state; but everybody feel free to recreate or ask for undeletion if you want to do a legitimate rewrite.
7. Will you commit yourself to Administrators open to recall , and abide by the recall petition, in the event such a petition is brought forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.253.121 (talk • contribs)
A: I hadn't really given that much thought, and I understand the whole institution is still a bit controversial, but I think it's a good idea that the threshold for an admin to give up his role should be reasonably low, so, now that you ask, yes, why not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

  • I am curious why you edited under a different account, why you no longer do so, and why you don't care to explain the reasons publicly.Can you at least hint at the reasons, if you don't mind?No way I can comfortably opine further without some more info here.--Caliga10 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a real-name account that was repeatedly attacked with threats of real-life harassment. I'll tell you more by e-mail if you have it enabled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.Mainly I just wish there was a way we could review your activity on your earlier account, that's all.--Caliga10 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that Future Perfect at Sunrise graciously contacted me about this and filled me in on the details.Please note that before today I had never heard of him, so am probably positioned well to comment on his case as an outside observer.I reviewed the account he used to use (specifically, with careful attention to his talk page and some other related user talk pages germane to the prior conflicts hinted at in this RfA) and my opinion is that he conducted himself well and in no way was his behavior beneath the standards expected from an admin.I will shortly review the history of his present account, but I do expect to log a Support vote.Thanks again for your cooperation, Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Caliga10 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I missed this, but what was the different account you were using? Nishkid64 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, situation understand. Thanks for clearing that up. Nothing wrong with that. Nishkid64 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support T REXspeak 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Needs the tools and seems unlikely he'll abuse them. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support Has lower than 1,000 mainspace edits, but still great article-builder and editor nonetheless. Situation understood. This user definitely will make a fantastic admin. Nishkid64 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - another "why not" case ST47Talk 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Put together the editcounts of the two accounts, and you'll see a promising admin in time to come. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support meets my standards.-- danntm T C 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He said: "The people I argue with the most are my friends!" I say, keep it up, and I am really honoured to be one! •NikoSilver• 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support wonderful to see an editor with expertise in unique and interesting subjects. Rama's arrow 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, absolutely. Very level-headed in difficult situations, good contributions, not at all likely to abuse the tools. I did hesitate a little about the previous account, but from what I see, the contributions and work under this account are solid. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support great combination of expertise and diplomatic skills, should use the tools well. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It doesn't appear that this editor will abuse the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, fine by me. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I've had this user's talk on my watchlist for a couple months now (I can't remember why) but he's civil and articulate, and patient, considering all of the crap he's had to deal with. I feel compelled to give my total support here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Have seen him rational when dealing with some of the least rational areas of WP. Septentrionalis 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Of course. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. wtf he's not admin yet? ~crazytales56297 O rly? 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, he deserves to be an admin! Hectorian 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Давай! Well, er, per Tony Fox of course. Whatever. This guy deserves it. --Pan Gerwazy 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support.I see no problems whatsoever with this user, and his answers satisfy me completely.Should be a great admin.--Caliga10 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support no danger of abuse here --Steve 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support absolutely!!A fine contributor and levelheaded to boot -- Samir धर्म 00:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I think that we need an admin who can cross cultural/language boundaries so well. I might just ask FPAS if he could go easy on this sort of thing - eg [1]. An admin shouldn't be participating in an edit war; rather he should be above it. - Richardcavell 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - nice editor. The number of the mainspace edits is below my requirements, but since he worked before under a different account I guess I can waive it. Alex Bakharev 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good to see a solid candidate with under 3000 edits †he Bread 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good answers to question 2, answered with a dose of humour --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I came across this person when he was fighting a persistent POV warrior and I like his attitude. -- Lost(talk) 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom. John254 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support all linguists, absolutely. - crz crztalk 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support My pleasure to support a friend :) --Aminz 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I don't usually vote when the outcome seems clear but I have seen Fut. Perf. around and I think he'll be a fine admin so I am glad to support him. --Richard 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support As mentioned above, the candidate seems to have overwhelming support quite early into the RfA process, but I figured I'd chime in with an extra voice of support, as he seems to be an ideal candidate who can certainly be trusted with a few extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as nominator. Wha? I revisit the page 12 hours after the voting opened and found myself 31st 34th to support. Duja 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Perfect Support at Nightfall ~ trialsanderrors 10:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support without question. Should have been made admin long ago. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support will make a good, responsible admin. Gwernol 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Unconditional Support when Nishkid (some one with excellent judgement) says he conducted himself well and in no way was his behavior beneath the standards expected from an admin  Doctor Bruno  15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, actually it was Caliga10 who said that, not Nishkid. But I'm grateful to both for taking the time to check my explanations and review the earlier situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Great candidate. Give him the mop ! Jcam 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support as co-nominator.--Aldux 17:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Obvious Support one of the best users around, will do well with admin tools! --SunStar Net 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Dina 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Would do good. Cheers -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A very level-headed user. Would be a great admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Seen him around. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good answers.Seems like he will use the admin tools responsibly.zephyr2k 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Tawker 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. One searches for adequate adjectives to describe his dedication to vandal-busting, his willing to walk an extra 100 miles to help others, his helpfulness, his whatnot....and I refer to both his old and new accounts. Wholehearted support for a long-overdue RfA. I'm sure the fact that he has these new tools at hand will prove an asset to Wikipedia. ImpuMozhi 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Have seen this user around; I see no reason why not. --210physicq (c) 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I've seen him around and like what I've seen. KrakatoaKatie 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support This guy is going to be a fine admin. I'm only sad I didn't get to nominate him (I know the whole story about him, and you can take my assurance that nothing improper has ever occurred).--Tekleni 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, per the "no big deal" clause.Guy 10:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support! Great user, dedicated to the Wikipedia principles, would benefit from the mop. Todor→Bozhinov 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support All the way from the AR-OH-EM! - Francis Tyers · 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, but I want you more active in WP:HOG!--Yannismarou 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom, good answers, comments above. No issues here. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Seems sensible. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - good responses. Michael 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I generally agree with Anas' opinion with regard to previous accounts, but in this case I am happy to accept Caliga10's and trialsanderrors's evaluations of the account's history. Best of luck Fut. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support, but conditional, good editor,calm,neutral as posible as, a good mediator in disputes. Condition:I want to learn why he used two user names.Mustafa AkalpTC 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has already explained that his original username was his real name and that the account "was repeatedly attacked with threats of real-life harassment". Two independent editors have already confirmed that they have reviewed the account and agree it was changed for privacy reasons. I think that should suffice. However, I can also confirm it because I have his real name from some emails we exchanged. I have checked the account's talk page, history, archives and his contribution history and I confirm that the statements by the candidate, Caliga10 and trialsanderrors are true and correct. I can give you some non-identifying RfA-relevant information about the other account: it has over 2000 edits which break down as >600 mainspace, >400 WP, >400 user talk; edit summary usage was nearly 100% for major edits and >80% for minor edits; it did not make a run for RfA; it has logged no blocks and from what I can see, received no administrative warnings. I very carefully compared XfD and RfA !votes and cannot find any instance of double voting. I could find nothing in the account's history which would prejudice an RfA.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Sarah Ewart for details.Mustafa AkalpTC 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Excellent candidate. Give him the mop! --   Avg    19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Go!   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Yes. I am not taking any chance. --Bhadani 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support was impressed by his demeanor, reasoning, and position in a recent sysop RFC. Derex 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I can safely say that Future Perfect at Sunrise deserves to be an administrator. He is a good editor and commenter. His calm and polite attitudes towards problematic issues were always to compromise. I believe his contributions to wikipedia as an administrator will have a positive effect. I wish him success in his future works. E104421 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. He contacted me off-wiki to explain the account situation and everything seemed just fine. He'll make a great administrator. Alphachimp 17:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support OK, seems clean. I was expecting a response from him though. Good luck Fut! ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Troppus noelip emertxe. >Radiant< 11:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Last minute support Will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. —freak(talk) 07:00, Nov. 1, 2006 (UTC)
    Not trying to be a pest here, but can I impose as to why you voted neutral here? Nishkid64 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, check his contributions, especially for the controvesial cases, you'll see he's really a good editor, trying to solve the problematic issues in a neutral and positive way. E104421 13:05, 6 November 2006 (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.