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

AQu01rius[edit]

Final: (53/1/0); ended 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AQu01rius (talk · contribs) - I am proud to present AQu01rius, a prolific contributor to many WikiProjects. I first noticed him when he critiqued me in my first editor review. The advice was immensely helpful and paved the way for my successful RfA. He has helped many other editors at WP:ER (editor review).

AQu01rius is a prolific editor, too, single-handedly translating Xinhai Revolution, Battle of Wuhan, and other articles. He is getting Portal:China to featured status, contributed to the featured Portal:Vancouver, and is working on a few other portals.

This well-rounded candidate participates in AfD's, and possess the knowledge and experience that will complement the mop very nicely. Let him help us. Xiner (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Evilclown93: I first met AQu01rius at editor review, and he reviewed me the first time. I felt he has great communicating skills (one of my core philosophies on Wikipedia: You've got to be able to communicate with others, which goes especially for administrators). He is well roundedas an editor, and already stated by Xiner, and his involvement in the all the AFD's demonstrates a clear need for tools. AQu01rius, if he obtains the mop with the bucket, will be able to improve Wikipedia even and probably be an even better editor. Evilclown93 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. (AQu01rius • Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Every user in Wikipedia can do certain administrative tasks. Some functions run high risk to be in free use, so we need trusted users. I hope that what I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than a year is enough to be trusted by the Wikipedian community. (AQu01rius • Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am very experienced with the Main page’s “Did you know?” section, and I’m intended to take part in reviewing and approving all qualified submissions for consideration. Having contributed numerous articles to the main page, I understand the importance of DYK on getting attention for new entries from valuable copy editing.
For other parts, I won’t go into detailed listing of WP:XfDs, WP:AN and other related pages that constantly requires administrator’s attention. Those are everyday duties. If any questions are raised, I am more than willing to answer to show the qualification of my knowledge in these areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: To talk about this, I have to divide them under name spaces:
Main space: I am a dedicated translator, worked consistently on translating mostly East Asia military related articles from Chinese into English. I created (or rewrite) more than 40 lengthy articles and more than 10 of them were selected to the main page. Some of the notable ones includes Xinhai Revolution, Battle of Wuhan, Liaoshen Campaign and Central Plains War.
Wikipedia: I am passionate with WikiProjects, and had set up WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, Canada to the present state and contributed to various other projects. One of the other regular tasks I do is reviewing users in Wikipedia:Editor review. This page gets backlogged easily, and I have worked consistently and reviewed more than 30 plus users precisely.
Portal: I contributed to various portals, notably Portal:China (FPOC leaning towards promotion), Portal:Vancouver (featured), Portal:Japan (planning to nominate FPOC after discussing with WP:JAPAN) and various others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, there are always stressful times. But the only conflict that I can recall that I was personally involved in was Portal:China. I was doing a series of restructuring of the portal that lasted several days. A user objected to my changes (in the talk page, but I did not check it because the portal was abandoned for half an year), and we ended up having an argument. There were some misunderstandings because I edit very fast, and gave the user an impression that I was not listening. After I stopped to discuss with the user, the conflict soon ended. Portal:China is now in WP:FPOC leaning towards promotion, and that user and I still work together in WP:CHINA.
The steps to resolve these disputes are straight forward. First, always assume the best faith (no exceptions at any time), and understand where the objection is coming from. After finding a common ground, patiently discuss with the user. This should always work, because no one is born unreasonable. Being specialized in history and political topics, I understand that there's no single standard for accuracy.
Optional Question from Arjun
4 Recently some admin accounts have been compromised, this led to the deletion of the main page, blocks of innocent users and other troubling admin actions. Have you checked to see if your password is on the list of "the most commonly used passwords", have you checked to see its strength. Also does it contain letters (of different cases) and numbers? If not are you willing to change your password for a safer one. ~ Arjun 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A My password is a randomly generated set of a combination of letters and numbers with no sequence at all, which should be protective enough. (AQu01rius • Talk) 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Simply south
5 Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Theorically, every Wikipedian is supposed to be proud of all of their contributions in Wikipedia. (AQu01rius • Talk) 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question from falsedef
6. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no reliable sources to verify its claims. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?
A

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AQu01rius before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support Great user, surprised he isn't. ~ Arjun 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Yeah, I definitely like what I see...best of luck! Jmlk17 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I don't see any problems. TTalk to me 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems to have an understanding of policy, and has demonstrated a need for tools...so I say let's give the admin tools to AQu01rius. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Definitely Knows his stuff, and is bilingual! Should be fine. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 23:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tepid Support- I'm not sure if he necessarily needs the tools, but he's a great editor, and a nice guy. If he wants the mop, mop 'em. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've had a pretty good impression, and I've seen him around before. bibliomaniac15 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as nominator; better late than never. Xiner (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very well-rounded. the_undertow talk 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. I have had a lot of interaction with this user through WP:CHINA. He has done so much to improve that project and related areas of Wikipedia. He is also always the first one to jump at WP:PR and WP:ER, areas that can often be neglected by users. He was patient with my questions about the Beijing opera article. Overall, a great user, and worthy of my support.--Danaman5 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support no problems Khukri 06:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support should make a great admin. —Anas talk? 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I think he will do fine work as an admin. James086Talk | Email 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Recall giving him an editor review a few months ago, and had a look over his contributions then. Nothing worrying. Probably won't block Jimbo. – Rianaऋ 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. You mean that's not allowed? (just kidding, Jimbo). Good contributor, no hesitation Support.--Anthony.bradbury 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - a very decicated user who works in a number of area's, will do well. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems like a good user, your edit summary usage could be better but I'm not going to oppose just for that, its not really bad. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 12:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - as per Jimbo Wales..----Cometstyles 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Great wikipedian, knows the tricks of the trade. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Typability of username is a slight issue, but not even sufficient to weaken my support substantially. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support As co-nominator. Evilclown93 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Excellent candidate; excellent nominators. Xoloz 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Solid work. He and Ideogram could have dealt with the differences that Ideogram discusses below differently, but I'm not inclined to oppose on the basis of a user with nearly 6000 edits being involved in a few conflicts. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: How in God's creation do you remember your username? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Being able to keep calm in a politicized subject area is very impressive. DGG 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, a fine contributor with a track record of general civility, no concerns of tools misuse at all.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per above. --Random Say it here! 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - no issues here. Username-from-hell, though, which has very little to do with being able to wield a mop or not :) - Alison ☺ 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've seen him around in China-related articles, translation, etc, and he is an able editor who can responsibly use the tools. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Trustworthy, active, responsible. I was actually going to co-nom him.... --Wafulz 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support dedicated contributor.--cj | talk 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - No need to say anything else. --Deryck C. 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good contributor. Good luck! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support wholeheartedly. I have been intrigued with his articles for some time; he's a darn good editor who deserves the tools. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: User has a lot of experience, however, the user's edit summary usage isn't the best I've seen. While I see nothing wrong and this user should make an excellent administrator I'd prefer to also see the edit summary usage improved in future edits.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 'Support I've seen you around; you should make a great admin. Dar-Ape 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support User is very competent at DYK pages, and would make a great contribution as an admin there to clear backlogs. Recurring dreams 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, has addressed my username concerns. Walton Need some help? 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Agreeing with Xoloz. Acalamari 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Good candidate for adminship. Captain panda 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I see no reason not to. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support absolutely. I have had frequent and positive interactions with this outstanding contributor. I'm glad that I came out of hibernation in time to participate here. -- Visviva 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support yip, yip, yippee! --Infrangible 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I see this user everywhere! Sr13 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Considerable work at WP:DYK and WP:ER. Will be a model administrator, intelligent and kind. PeaceNT 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Rettetast 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support looks good. Has a great attitude. Look forward to further work on DYK -- Samir 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. WjBscribe 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I am afraid I must oppose. I am the editor AQu01rius conflicted with over Portal:China. Although the conflict was eventually resolved it was very frustrating for me and I feel it was only resolved after I chose to be confrontational, which was not my preferred choice.
    I have additional reasons for opposing. During the conflict over Portal:China I was accused by several editors (including a couple of friends) of engaging in WP:OWN. But the point I was trying to make is that maintaining a Portal requires constant attention, and there are five China related portals, Portal:China, Portal:Taiwan, Portal:Hong Kong, Portal:People's Republic of China, and Portal:Republic of China. When it became clear that AQu01rius wished to take over responsibility for all of them, I gave them up with great relief. However, during his stewardship these portals have been neglected for months, even Portal:China where I had to remove a spamlink that had been left there for weeks. My observation of AQu01rius is that he is technically brilliant and ambitious but does not focus on one task long enough to achieve his ambitions.
    Now, no one has to focus on one task for a long time to be an admin. However, in my view the top requirement for an admin is diplomacy, since their duties require them to interact with problem users who must be handled with care. AQu01rius did not handle our initial interaction well and I felt calling an importance rating I made "offensive" was less than diplomatic.
    I only have two examples of AQu01rius being undiplomatic. It is certainly possible that these are the only two examples that exist, and that other users have seen the more diplomatic side of him. There are certainly many existing admins who are worse than AQu01rius would be. But I felt I should register my objections.
    Plus, I find it really hard to remember and type his username. --Ideogram 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in combiniation with other substantial evidence is your last statement acceptable grounds for opposition. It's certainly no nail in the coffin. --Phoenix 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - I will support if he changes his username to something easier to remember. I realise this is far too petty a reason to oppose, but it does irritate me. Otherwise, brilliant candidate. Walton Need some help? 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing username is quite troublesome. Would it be okay if I just change my signature to "AQuarius" or "Aquarius" (like my current one?) Aquarius • Talk 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, good enough. (Changed to support.) Walton Need some help? 18:37, 11 May 2007 (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.
Category