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

Admrboltz

final (24/1/2) ending 02:09 January 13 2006 (UTC)

Admrboltz (talk · contribs) – Admrboltz is an expirienced editor, celebrating his first wiki birthday :) He is very dedicated in fulfilling wiki-chores, tagging those countless images, investigating legal status (hard work that keeps Wikipedia healthy). If he becomes an administrator, he will be able to get involved in the process of deleting obsolete and copyright problematic images. Besides that, he is always polite and patient, and as an administrator he would be invaluable asset not only in taking care of images, but also as an official face of Wikipedia. -- Obradović Goran (talk 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept --Romeo Bravo 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. -- Obradović Goran (talk 03:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - more tools for the knowledgeable people working on imagesleuthing sounds like a good idea to me. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I reread some of the questions below, and it seems as if the third one didn't imprint in my memory right away. As an admin, you might run into more instances where you'll have to be "confrontational" (in a good way, of course) with rowdy users, though. I doubt you will abuse your admin powers, and I'm sure you can find some good things for which to use them. I'm not holding to my regular voting standards due to you being an image guy. Good luck JHMM13 (T | C) 04:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Hard editor who works on tedious tasks. Admin priviledges will most likely not be abused. Gflores Talk 06:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Terence Ong Talk 09:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Making Wikipedia's copyright status more robust is valuable work. David | Talk 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - we need more poeple to help with the images on Wikipedia -- Francs2000 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mild Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. --Kin Khan 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. King of All the Franks 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support jnothman talk 12:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Yes! --Chris S. 09:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Izehar 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Alabamaboy 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Good editor.--Kefalonia 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Mihai -talk 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Johntex\talk 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support edits appear fine.--MONGO 02:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I had two edit conflicts with him at IfD today. Chick Bowen 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks like a good prospect. DES (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. While Admrboltz has a ton of project, user and image edits, he only has 262 article edits. While the sheer number of edits in those other categories is amazing, I'd like to see quite a bit more article edits. Furthermore, the bulk of his edits have been in the last 6 weeks. I'd just like to see more experience put in before I vote yes. Also, the edit summary usage is much lower than I'd like to see. If the user had more article edits and a higher edit summary usage, I'd support. I know some may think that how much a month or two more will make, but I don't it sure wouldn't hurt. I've also never had any personal contact with this user, so I can't really judge this user's character. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral for now. I think you have a good track record as an editor, and we need for image guys. However, I'm not entirely familiar with the process of image tagging. Is there a reason you don't use talk pages that often (excluding user talk)? Please see my added "question 4" below for a related question. I'll be awaiting a good response to switch my vote. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. By the time this RFA closes, this user will meet my time criterion of twelve months. However, since I do not know him, I do not have enough information to vote support. I can only vote support for someone with a demonstrated commitment to NPOV and consensus. I have added questions about this below asking for more information from your posting history; your answers may result in my changing my vote to support. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but the answer isn't responsive to everything I requested. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a minor nit. I'm in the minority, here, I think, but I like to see people's signatures match their user name, as I get confused otherwise. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Will change vote depending on response to Jdavidb's questions. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, very little projectspace experience outside of Images for deletion. --Interiot 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good question DES; I am of the belief that WP:PI is a good thing. On wikimedia projects I am a very strong supporter of process, and even when i venture into the "world" I am usually a supporter of processes, though at work I tend to be a lot more lenient than most on a lot of the policies that screw over our ccustomers.
In order to build a strong encyclopedia, created by members, and passers by from around the world there has to be some sort of standardization. Memory Alpha is a good example of where processes should have been established much sooner. The people who "ignore all rules" should not be an admin, because the admin needs to follow specific rules on closing RfAs, IfD/AfD sessions, enforcing the vandalism and 3RR rules.
Participation in RfA, IfD, CSD etc also shows that I support PI, if I didn't support PI, I wouldn't be "standing here" today giving this lil speech on my soapbox.
That's my 2 cents on this subject --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I will continue my work on Untagged Images as well as Speedy Deletions, and Now Commons. As I spend way too much time on Wikipedia, I will also assist with vandal-fighting and member requests.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Seeing as allmost all of my edits are in the Image namespace, I don't have a favorite article, but consider my work on Untagged Images to be the most important thing I have contributed to Wikipedia.
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. WP:FAIR and userboxes. I am not as involved as some people on it, but i have way too many my self and did edit a few of them, but after reverting once and leaving notices on talk pages (user and template) I will leave them alone as not to violate the 3R rule, and to not get into a heated arguement over something I do online. I do find that removing fair use images that are used improperly is an important thing, but I am awaiting the outcome of the ongoing discussion on their fate.
4. Please provide diffs to edits you have made which demonstrate your commitment to Wikipedia's core principles of consensus and NPOV. Do you believe that the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high-quality encyclopedia? Do you believe that consensus among Wikipedians is the proper way to produce articles and create and administer policy? Please demonstrate with diffs. Are there any cases where consensus has gone against the way you think things should have been? How did you handle it? Diffs representing these cases would also be helpful. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I do believe in the core beliefs of NPOV and conensus. As far as consensus, I belive IfD is a big one. I am pretty good at flagging the correct images for deletion (no source / orphaned), but there are alot of images that are not, and there is usualy a mini-debate esp on Copy Vio's (is it Fair Use or not, is it appropriate, or not, etc.)
I do believe that a consensus is a very important thing in writing a quality encyclopedia. Durring the begining of the userbox-gate I would revert a few changes, leave a few polite messages on usertalk pages on people who would revert it back to a Fair Use image. Now have I contributed to the new user box ideas page, no. Mainly because I am a hard beliver on non Fair Use images, and there are plenty of people there that share my idea.
Currently I have not had a consensus go against what I thought was the way I would handle it. --Admrboltz 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Newport High School (and related edit [1] -- this is the only time i've been involved with a NPOV situation, and as I have admitted on the talk page, I don't deal with it enough and am not realy a main article person who can clear it up. --Admrboltz 21:01, 6 January 2006 (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.
Category