Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Who 2 - Wikipedia


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

Final (73/1/0) ending 02:02 September 30, 2005 (UTC)

Who (talk · contribs) –

Nomination by Redwolf24: Who is part of the 15,000 club, a very exclusive club for non-admins. Or anyone for that matter! When something is CfD'd and cat changed, you'll see Who recategorizing the hundered plus pages that may be in that category. He does a lot of cleanup work, more than any other user I know. He was nominated before for adminship, with no consensus. Most, if not all, of the oppose votes were over an edit war he had a while back, but I think that's in the past now, forgive and forget. Who is good humored, and always a friendly face willing to help. This man spends at least 10 hours a day on wiki, the perfect candidate for admin abilities. He also gets about 3000 edits a month it seems (though for two weeks he had close to 0 because of Katrina.) I think he's proved he's a great user who won't abuse the adminly powers. Another place you can see him is on user pages, reverting vandalism. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination by Essjay: Who is an excellent editor, constantly vigilant to the needs of the Wiki. I ran across this editor early on, and have always observed courteous and well-intentioned contributing. His prior nomination was clouded by an uncharacteristic streak of controversey, and I believe that his post-nomination work (including at least 5000 new edits) is evidence of his dedication to the site and knowledge of its processes. Adminship, of course, is not a reward for high edit counts; it is a function extended to individuals who are interested in and capable of making positive use of its features. Who is most certainly one of these editors, and the previous nomination aside, there is no reason he should not be promoted. Who has my full, unequivocal, and unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 02:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: <- There? Or here: I accept. I thank those who believe I am worthy, and appreciate comments from any who think I am not. ∞Who?¿? 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. I support.Tdxiang 10:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I agree with the nominator ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Obviously. Essjay · Talk 02:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Definitely. Ral315 02:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. yupsireebobfersure. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Who works extraordinarily hard on extraordinarily dull but important tasks. He takes some flak for it quite regularly and responds easily and with a knowledgable backing in policy. It's just a pity that he can't finish off what he starts yet. It'd also be great to speed his vandal fighting, which he is already very effective at. Will Who benefit the Wiki with the admin buttons? Oh yes, most certainly. As an added bonus, we have a rare case of a rhyming RfA page-title. -Splashtalk 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Of course. Jaxl | talk 02:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support As distracting as those damn question marks are, I don't think they'll affect your judgment as an admin in any negative way. Acetic'Acid 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, for all the reasons given by the nominators. JeremyA (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes yes yes yes yes. Can't support any stronger than this. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. --fvw* 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, strongly. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Extereme non-generic support Alphax τεχ 05:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Who? El_C 06:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Great contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support unconditional. Alf melmac 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. RFA cliché #1. Though, I would recommend toning down that neon green in the sig. my eyes hurt. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support but the user name looks odd.--Jusjih 08:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 08:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Kirill Lokshin 09:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - No question. --Celestianpower hab 10:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Shimgray 11:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Who is Who? - Darwinek 12:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I have seen him around. I just ass/u/me/d that he already was an admin! He has been helpful and friendly to me, and I have no trouble supporting him. Psy guy (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Stewart Adcock 15:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support MONGO 15:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - FireFox  T C E 17:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support a notable "good egg". Hamster Sandwich 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Should be no big deal :)

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  30. Support, changed from neutral. He's a good guy, and hopefully he won't sick his attorney on me for giving him a hard time.  :-) Dragons flight 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support KHM03 20:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support We pot smoking baseball players will soon UNITE!!!!!! JobE6 21:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've seen Who's work, so I support. The Fascist Chicken 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good editor --Rogerd 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I'd almost say the nominator should take a wikibreak :\. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. thought he was one. Type O Spud 03:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Aranda56 03:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I support he who is who.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 04:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without the obligatory Who joke. -feydey 15:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - RFA cliché no. 1! Thryduulf 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Duh - Rick Block (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support does admin work, so he would find the tools useful. The JPS 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, SqueakBox 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good work on templates and categories, I'm sure he'll do great as an admin. Owen× ☎ 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. --Alan Au 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. +sj + 07:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support CambridgeBayWeather 09:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. EXTREME JAPANESE SUPPORT Nandesuka 21:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Guettarda 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Decumanus 05:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - long overdue. NoSeptember 12:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support for protection of my Userpage. - RoyBoy 800 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Yes! - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support. He'll be great. --Kbdank71 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support because Who's on first! -- BD2412 talk 20:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, I'll jump on the bandwagon. dbenbenn | talk 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Wha? How come Who isn't an admin already? Titoxd 22:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support!¡! -Thatdog 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Who? aka support =) Sasquatcht|c 05:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support not that 61 to 1 support really requires my joining, but I always like to see more good janitors. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support I've seen him doing lots of support work for the admins, which is always nice. I won't hold my pet peave of people using font tags in their signature against him! :) RedWolf 05:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Give the man a PhD and a TARDIS. Support.-gadfium 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. First base er I mean Abbott and Costello er I mean Support (for those unenlightened see: Who's on First?)  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. What? Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Who, What, Where, When, and How. Excellent editor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Who's this? Snort, snigger, giggle. I thought he already was. Banes 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Who would have thought he wasn't one already!? Hall Monitor 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, wholeheartedly. I thought he was one already--and here I was trying to flatterimmitate!  :-) >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Will be a fantastic admin. --Neutralitytalk 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Who isn't an admin? Who is now. Jonathunder 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Please see question below. I will move to support if the answer below is satisfactory in my view.JuntungWu 16:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral #I think everyone deserves to know the answer to the pressing and important question I posed in the comments section below. Till then, my vote is neutral. Dragons flight 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Changed to support. Dragons flight 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I currently try to help out with all aspects of Wikipedia. I spend a great deal of time in WP:CFD helping with recategorization. This usually leads to helping users, fixing articles and templates and other small projects. I help out on WP:ANI, WP:VP, WP:TFD, and of course WP:RCP. All these can be done by any user, I would only use the admin abilities to follow through with these daily tasks. I am familar with most of the policies, and frequently refer to them before making decisions. The idea is not to anticipate using any admin ability, unless necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although I have contributed to many articles, with more than a minor edit, I find satisfaction in maintaining the innerworkings of Wiki. I spend my time working with category structures, templates and discussions, and feel this is as beneficial as the encyclopedia itself. I copyedit articles, and try to save ones that I think I can personally expand on. I also help with the template documentation, so that users can easily implement them.
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. Yes indeed, please take a moment to visit my previous Rfa. I believe in communication above all else, but we all find situations where we should take a break and ask for a second opinion. I have learned from my past mistakes, and would be lying if I said there wouldn't be more. I think Wikipedia:Policy trifecta are a good set of standards. I intend to handle each situation with fairness and civility, reguardless of adminship.
4. Have you considered changing your user name or your signature? I think it is somewhat confusing for new users to interact with someone called "who". JuntungWu 16:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A. Actually, no I haven't. I think a variety of pseudonyms used on Wiki are misleading, vague or confusing in one manner or another, as they are only pseudonyms. However, I have previously provided the meaning of my this name on my userpage, some time ago. Verbatim from my userpage: "Who is roughly translated from my Ojibwa name (in Cree), Nevaahe. Its literal translation is "who?", and can mean "finding ones self". It is not obscure or an attempt to obfuscate my identity, it is "who" I am." I appologize if you feel it is any more confusing than the variety of usernames used. ∞Who?¿? 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A2. Hey, I'm not the 24th Redwolf on the site, so I guess I should change mine ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as an extraordinary demand to make of someone that they should change a perfectly innocuous user name to earn an RfA support. If he was called User:Whos-ure-momma, I'd understand, if barely. But really, a simple, three letter word? And my pseudonym bears no relation to who I really am at all either. I haven't come across newbies who think that I am actually made of water, or that they might get wet if they interact with me, but maybe I should change it, just in case? -Splashtalk 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't imagine the problems I had before I changed my sigature to Martin, rather than Bluemoose. Even Redwolf thought i was a moose. ;-) Martin 13:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be confused by reading a username such as "Who" requires intelligence on the level of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (if you haven't read Hitchhiker's, go do it now). Anyone who wouldn't be able to understand that "Who" is a pseudonym probably isn't capable of editing WP either. --Blackcap | talk 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who's on first? >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.