Today: Thursday 24 June 2021 , 2:53 am


Requests for adminship nProlific

Last updated 9 Day , 13 hour 30 Views

In this page talks about ( Requests for adminship nProlific ) It was sent to us on 14/06/2021 and was presented on 14/06/2021 and the last update on this page on 14/06/2021

Your Comment

Enter code
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. sebi
22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • :Weak Support Changed to abstain Sorry, your responses to the opposition seem a little bit too defensive, in a rude way, that combined with not having a ton of faith in the first place makes me unable to support This editor is right on that line between too new and experienced enough, but they're a fairly active contributor, and I'm sure they can help with the backlogs given their style of editing. As long as he agrees to take admin tasks slowly at first until he's got the experience, and he doesn't get an inflated ego from it, I'm sure he'll be fine --
    17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support unlikely to abuse the tools and I have to give credit to images people - it takes much longer than one supposes. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Carlossuarez46 et al. A long-time user, making lots of edits to pics rather than text, like one is unlikely to abuse the mop. Especially since his pics are disgusting. :-) Bearian 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Can't imagine him abusing the tools. Yes, there may be areas of policy which he's less familiar with but those gaps are not dramatic and I also trust him to be responsible enough to take this into account. The image backlogs could sure use an extra man and this is certainly an area in which WikipedianProlific has the required experience. Pascal.Tesson 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Could use a little more familiarity with policy-related issues but nothing serious. Appears to be a dedicated contributor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Mainspace contributions are great, has a good demand overall for the tools. Shinealight2007 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Support I think the answers to questions and responses to opposers show me that this user should have the tools. Captain panda 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I will not give in to accusations by users with an axe to grind. The candidate, whom I never knew existed prior to this RFA, nonetheless has demonstrated dedication to creating featured content and maintaining high standards. Shalom Hello 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • :An axe to grind? Shalom, I respect you and your work (and forgive my arrogance, for I am led to believe this respect is mutual), but I would ask you to make less general accusatory statements. I for one have no axe to grind, I merely do not think WP is ready at this time (I would gladly support in a few months, I can say that with no hesitation). You cannot mean that users who are generally quite active at RfA, not to mention a member of the arbitration committee, all have some personal beef with WP? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ::Ah, good point. Of course this does not change my opinion, but I should have assumed good faith. I won't strike out those words because it seems pointless to do so, but I should have simply said that I politely disagree. Shalom Hello 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • :::As a side point, I disagree with the implication that a member of ArbCom is somehow less likely to have a "personal beef" than the rest of us. ArbCom duties are not relevant to RfA, and I certainly don't think that being an arbitrator implies higher judgment or maturity than the average Wikipedian. (No comment on any individual arbitrator, just a point of principle.) WaltonOne 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per (mostly) outstanding question answers --Ben hello! 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I don't see his lack of mainspace contributions as a problem because his featured images are a direct contribution to Wikipedia. His wonderful answers convince me that he understands what is required by an admin. GizzaDiscuss © 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can live with this user. Probably not a crazy fascist, or anything nasty. Moreschi Talk 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I have a suspicion many of the "opposers" below haven't actually reviewed this user's contributions. Clearly dedicated, clearly knowlegable, probably not a mental. Good enough for me.
    00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Blnguyen and the candidate's aggressive tone in replying oppose votes makes me worry. @pple 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Riana. Sarvagnya 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Riana and blnguyen.Bakaman 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mainspace edits/lack of activity. Miranda 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • :Oppose per all issues raised above --Ben 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ::You already supported above. –
    07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blnguyen and Riana. T Rex talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just too little project space work with admin-related tasks. I probably would have gone neutral but I definitely don't care for the the user's tone when replying to dissenting opinions in this RfA. Trusilver 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Miranda, Blnguyen and Riana - Modernist 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Inconsistent editing pattern over the past year. Poor understanding of rules and terminology (not sure applicant knows exactly what a meatpuppet is). And I have know clue what this candidate will do for the project except cruise around a few Rf whatevers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of experience. --- RockMFR 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly per Blnguyen and Riana. The image work is awesome but there isn't enough project or mainspace edits to get an idea of your aptitude as an admin, which is very surprising if you've just done four months of admin coaching. Also, the bitey concerns pricked me somewhat. Sarah 10:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasoning of Blnguyen, Riana, @pple, and Sarah. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks a goodie, but I'm afraid there's insufficient evidence in his edit record for me to decide whether he has enough experience to be ready for adminship. As I cannot yet trust him with the tools, the oppose is regretful, but I look forward to a future, successful RfA. --Dweller 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral
    Neutral Seems like a good editor with good mainspace work but an overall low count combined with a lack of WP and user talk work means I can't support. Keep up the great article work, though. GDonato (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

    1. Neutral while trusting that important questions will be honestly answered and not be evaded.Cuddlyable3 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) But being called a "troll" by this candidate is now making that trust increasingly difficult to give....
    2. ::At this point I have to consider that WikipedianProlific spoke on my page of his dyslexia ("I'm telling you I'm dyslexic" - 15:21 20 March 2007) which may correlate with his indisputable graphic talent. That talent has just now been acknowledged by a featured picture promotion, possibly the fastest ever for a diagram in Wikipedia. I wished him luck in that bid for FPC but did not participate in the vote. However his bid for adminship will have to be supported by other qualities than good drawings, and his latest answer about his future attitude to enforce NPA is too unclear. We have to look at what he has demonstrated already in that area. A personality test that I find useful is whether a person seems willing occasionally to "agree to disagree". Cuddlyable3 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    3. :::With all due respect, Cuddlyable3, preponderance of evidence strongly suggests you would fail that very test, so while acknowledging that you yourself are not requesting adminship, I question the propriety of your applying this test to others. As for his latest answer, he has stated "My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks." Whatever lack of clarity you object to is not apparent, and his answer is appropriate and fully aligned with what is expected of WP admins. That being the case, he certainly appears to meet your criterion of supporting his bid for adminship by qualities other than good drawings.--Scheinwerfermann 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    4. :::::Scheinwerfermann it is an interesting answer, and so is your protestation of respect. I shall mull that over together with your abusive exercise in mockery here 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    5. ::::::Keep in mind, Warnings to behave yourself remain visible even after you've tried to wipe them from your talk page, and you are overestimating the level of respect implied by "all due respect". This is not an appropriate place for you to grind a personal axe against WikiProlific. --User:ScheinwerfermannScheinwerfermann 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    6. :::::::Scheinwerfermann please just vote as you think best and don't harass others. Cuddlyable3 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    7. :::Neutral leaning Change to oppose. While the majority of your work has been impeccable, and the talk of yours I'd seen prior to this was good, I am very concerned by your statements to an IP at Talk:Oral sex#Islamic views on oral sex. Not only are they patently BITEty, but the idea that information on the Islamic treatment of oral sex is trivial is just plain foolishness. The point of view of a religion that influences the lives of millions and millions of people isn't relevant in a discussion of sexual morality? It seems that at best, you were prejudiced against a content suggestion because of the messenger, which is unacceptable.
      Pedro  Chat 
      18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    8. Changed from support - some of the responses to opposition and neutral worries me. I may change back, but I'll probably end here. — Giggy 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    9. Neutral. Candidate shows great promise but could use additional experience before sysopping. Majoreditor 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    10. Needs more experience. Strongly recommend that you return to reapply for RfA in 3 months time. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    11. Neutral. WP explained to me what happened in the situation that was my main concern and reason to oppose. I have changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. I would still like to see some more activity from this user; there still haven't been three consecutive months with 100+ edits and I consider under 100 to be inactive. Just my personal definition of "inactive", though. If this editor becomes an admin, I would be comfortable with that, but I would definitely prefer more activity. Useight 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    12. Neutral, per Mailer Diablo. Very strong answers, but in order to support, I need to see indications (via interaction with other users in real situations) of how the tools will actually be used. Dekimasuよ! 10:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    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.


    There are no Comments yet

    last seen
    Most vists