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

Acroterion[edit]

Final (44/0/0); Scheduled to end 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk · contribs) - Acroterion has been a regular editor since April and has made nearly 12,000 edits to Wikipedia, about half of which have been to articles. He is a decent content writer, focusing on articles relating to construction technology and architecture. Among the articles he was written are Robert Reamer and Herbert Maier (American architects) and a series about LSTs, which I now understand to be tank landing ships.

Acroterion comments intelligently in AfD and MfD discussions, demontrating a good knowledge of the relevant inclusion standards. He has also shown a strong understanding of the speedy deletion criteria - reviewing his deleted contributions, I would estimate that Acroterion has correctly tagged over 1000 articles for speedy deletion. Acroterion is also a great vandal fighter and has made 190 reports to WP:AIV. Those that I have seen have been spot on - one of those users where I automatically presume the report is correct when I review it. Always civil and courteous in discussions with other users, I believe Acroterion has a temperament that would serve him well in dealing with some of the more difficult users adminstrators tend to interact with. He seems the type likely to keep a cool head under pressure.

In brief, Acroterion has shown skill and experience across the areas admins regularly come into touch with. I believe he would made a first rate admin. WjBscribe 21:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I’m good at writing essays and analyses, I’m quite slow at creating plain, factual, referenced encyclopedic material. When I started contributing in a serious manner to Wikipedia, I’d often get a little way into an article and have to stop to organize my thoughts. I’d find myself reverting vandalism and checking new pages, in the manner of someone straightening their desk before confronting a new task. With experience, I found that I liked keeping things tidy – something rather different from my real-life persona. More recently, I’ve returned to a balanced approach to content creation and maintenance, and believe that admin tools will assist me.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I’ve been mainly involved in anti-vandalism and new pages patrol, and expect to continue in that manner in the near future, primarily working at WP:AIV. I’ve had a number of encounters with long-term sock-farming vandals and trolls where swift and undramatic revert/block/ignore is the best approach – something that’s difficult to reduce to a concise, timely summary at AIV. Usernames are sometimes a predictor of an editor’s intentions, and I expect to keep an eye on WP:UAA.
On new pages patrol, I’ve particularly focused on attack pages, which I believe should have the shortest possible life on Wikipedia.
I don’t expect to do a great deal of page protection work until I get a better feel for the task. Likewise, while I have enjoyed participating in AfD debates (on either side), I plan to ease into anything other than straightforward closings.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m most proud of my recent work in a series of articles on architecture in the US National Park Service. While it’s still very much a work in progress, and a bit too narrowly sourced, Mission 66 is an example of the attraction of Wikipedia – the opportunity to start with an article that has a myriad of rabbitholes leading to other articles, which lead elsewhere, and two hours later you’re in another place entirely. Which could explain my stately editorial pace.
By the way, I didn't actually start Robert Reamer, but I did greatly expand and source the article.
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: I find my contributions here to be comparatively un-stressful, even relaxing. While I’ve dealt with other editors who were belligerent or argumentative, I’ve not found it difficult to walk away, and I make a policy of assuming good faith as long as there’s still some chance of benefit to the project. My encounters with the malicious have given me a thicker skin, and I’ve found it easier as time goes by to deal with such encounters with a sense of detachment. My greatest stresses have centered around my own mistakes, where sincere apologies have a way of reducing stress on all sides.
Q. It's very good if you have never lost your temper on Wikipedia, but what is the closest you have come to it? Or at least where you were the most tempted? DGG (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing quite like signing on and seeing the friendly yellow message, and finding a detailed death threat from a 14-year-old, who's trying to rat out his friends in the bargain. The specific threats have been oversighted, and I don't wish to provide diffs with minors' names in them, but it gets tiresome. See this [1] for a general idea of the events, which gave me experience with WP:RFCU, WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:OTRS; I ended up discussing the events with the police, and it was resolved in a satisfactory manner.
I've also dealt with Donny417 (talk · contribs), who had a particular fascination with horses, and was disruptively trolling; he appears to have been an early manifestation of Darth Vader is your Father (talk · contribs)/ Road to a million usernames (talk · contribs), although Fred Bauder blocked him as a sock of WordBomb (talk · contribs). I can safely say that both of these examples were deeply irritating. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional Question from SJP
4 Will you please give a summary of the criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks for your time. Good luck!--SJP 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A This'll be a short summary, given the number of criteria available - I'll stick with the general and article-space categories. Let me know if you'd like a summary of criteria for images, redirects, etc.:
  • Under general criteria, housekeeping, orphaned talk pages, office actions, transwikied, author-blanked and author-requested deletions are straightforward, although a precipitous deletion based on author blanking can bite editors who are in the process of rethinking their article.
  • Nonsense is frequently a matter of taste, and easily misused, but incoherence is one of the prime signs. However, a perpetual motion machine, for example, isn't speediable in and of itself - it's a hoax or an implausible theory, and needs to be dealt with by other means.
  • Test pages are fairly obvious: "Mary is my best friend!" might be a less obvious example of a test page, depending on the title.
  • Vandalism is a also matter of taste, but usually consists of profanity or a more aggressive level of nonsense.
  • Re-creation criteria should apply only to material that has been through XfD discussion.
  • Attack pages are fairly self-evident, although subtle attacks sometimes are hard to spot. BLP issues can use this category, if there's nowhere else to regress to.
  • Advertising is a matter of tone and judgment, but the work "blatant" is vital in the case of speedy deletions (price lists tip the scale into the blatant category, for instance).
  • Copyright infringement For speedy deletion to apply, it needs to comprise the essence of the article, to the extent that the article has no life after deletion of the offending content, and there is no credible assertion of public domain or permission.
  • No context can be a matter of taste, but would apply to a very short non-nonsense article that has no definable point.
  • Foreign language is sometimes a challenge if you can't identify the language to see if there's a counterpart.
  • No content is straightforward, presuming you can't stubify the article.
  • No assertion of importance is just that: no assertion. If notability is asserted, then it can't be speedied under this criterion, and should be a prod or AfD. It's always good to do a quick check anyway, since a new user may not realize the importance of making the assertion of notability. The criterion is limited to people, bands, web content, companies, clubs or organizations. Books, for instance, must be dealt with in another venue.
I've found it helps to re-read the criteria if I encounter a potential candidate in a category I haven't worked with. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missed the banned user category, although bans can be highly conditional, so the circumstances of the ban will apply. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional Question from Keepscases
5 You decide to write a movie script about Wikipedia. Describe how you would make an exciting plot.
A A GFDL-licensed screenplay? No way. I bet Sumner Redstone's got this watchlisted so he can get it for free. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional Question from Malinaccier
6. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A As I noted in my introductory statement, I'm a slow writer who temporizes by doing housekeeping, so I believe the answer would be "less general editing than I'd like", which sums up my circumstance as a non-admin as well. I'd hazard a guess of about 1/3 general editing, 1/3 admin-related, and 1/3 general wiki-related. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: As a matter of both courtesy and policy, I'd make every attempt to contact the blocking admin to discuss. If the blocking admin doesn't, or can't respond in a reasonable period of time, I'd bring it up on WP:AN for discussion and consensus. I'm not interested in wheel wars. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It pays to re-read the question: The policy is found at WP:BP, and as indicated above, I will certainly adhere. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from O (talk):
8. What does "no consensus" mean? Be specific.
A: I'm going to assume that you're primarily interested in "no consensus" as it applies to !votes such as XfD's. Consensus is, of course, a convergence of opinion within a group concerning a set of facts, opinions, or a course of action. No consensus implies that a number of valid opinions are fundamentally divergent, or that there are insufficient facts available to develop and support a consensus. It does not mean that the numbers of participants are equally balanced or entitled to equal credibility, based purely on !vote count. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Acroterion before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. WjBscribe 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Good user. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Trust the nominator, encounters (albeit-rare) with candidate were positive. Daniel 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Experienced and trustworthy - a good candidate. VanTucky Talk 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Good article writing, appears to be an eminently sane editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support — I view a nomination by WJB as prima facie evidence of a good candidate. WODUP 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Jmlk17 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support No concerns here. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support - seems very trustworthy to me. L337 kybldmstr 10:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - good history; one of those "I thought they were admins already" types. --Orange Mike 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I see no reason not to support. Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Strong Support - No problems here, although the Wikipedia as-percent-of-total edit count is a bit low, and the User Talk count is very high. I don't see this as a problem, but some users might argue that you're not making enough admin-style AfD, etc edits. Everything, to me, looks good though. --tennisman 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support - every interaction I've had with this editor in the past has led me to believe he is prime admin material. --Dreaded Walrus t c 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. K. Scott Bailey 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support. Shows a good knowledge of policies and guidelines, and has been quite helpful in reverting vandalism and flagging pages for speedy deletion. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 19:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. Anthøny 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Strong support for another "I can't believe this user is not already a sysop." An excellent vandal fighter, I run across this user frequently when I go to block vandals, and he's already warned them and reverted the vandalism! See, e.g., [2]. He tried to save Loser (slang), which counts for a lot in my book, because it means he wants to construct an encyclopedia, not just delete the cruft. Always courteous, and valuable as an expert in relatively obscure fields of interest, these are traits that would make him a great admin. Bearian 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. I've interacted with Acroterion before. Excellent user. Acalamari 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support I know this user to be great! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support based on observation in action and impressive responses to questions, particularly about CSDs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support, I have no reservations about Acroterion wielding the mop. I interacted with him in the situation he alluded to in the answer to Q3 and I walked away impressed.--Isotope23 talk 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support John254 03:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. No issues here. O2 (息 • 吹) 04:08, 14 November 2007 (GMT)
  27. Sure. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support--MONGO 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support - good editor & excellent track record. Yup! - Alison ❤ 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support — Save_Us_229 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support. I worked with Acroterion on that aforementioned death threat and, like Isotope23, walked away impressed. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support, looks like a great candidate. Very impressive answers to questions. delldot talk 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support - Good answers to the questions, and I trust the nominator. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - good interactions with this editor. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - looks good. No concerns. :-) Lradrama 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Great track and has been very active in the last 5 months with over 5000 mainspace edits ans over 12000 overall.-- Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Biggest Support I can give Thanks for watching my page and reverting vandalism! In fact, you're so good that at one point I thought you were one! -Goodshoped 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Great user, contribs are very nice, would make a great admin. Ryan (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support I've seen some fine work from this user just yesterday. There seem to be no concerns. Húsönd 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support From the contributions I see a lot of good stuff, reverting vandalism, etc. Heights(Want to talk?) 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Nominated by Scribey... --DarkFalls talk 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Seems like a good candidate --MoRsE (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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