Carcharoth

Voice your opinion (talk page) (86/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth (talk · contribs) - I’ve nommed a lot of people here at Wikipedia for adminship. This goes without saying. Heck, this would actually be my 25th nomination. Yet this might be, imo, my best nomination to date. I present to RfA the user by the name of Carcharoth, a guy who I thought was an admin for many months, tried to nom for months, and am hoping that he will accept now. I've also never come close to writing a nomination this long, so that shows you how I feel about wanting him as an administrator.

My original encounter with him was during the Summer biography assessment drive. Things got tense between us assessors and some old guard editors, and things probably would’ve have gotten pretty heated had Carcharoth not constantly been the voice of reason between the both of us. With one side saying, “The assessment drive is disrupting Wikipedia”, which I do remember getting frustrated about myself and contributing sparingly to the drive in July. It was at this part where his very constructive demeanor and great reasoning made me think he was a long time admin. Turns out he wasn’t, and he declined my original request for a nomination in early July.

Since then, I’ve been looking out for where he’s been contributing, and he is able to impress me in other areas as well. Pretty much any section of Wikipedia you can think of, you’ll see a great amount of work that he’s done. Article writing? I’ll point you to Astronomische Nachrichten, which he has spent the past week or two on, turning it into a real nice article. And if he can’t do it completely by himself, he’ll gladly help out others with articles. At Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_5, he contributed a lot of information and helped out himself tremendously with the article. Image fixing? He is able to find sources for PD images so that we don't lose them, such as in Image:EPChristy.jpg and Image:Mansfield Lovell.jpg, which helps tremendously. He also helps out tremendously with discussion regarding nonfree content as well (See WT:NFC). How about categorizing redirects? He even helped create the Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects guideline. He's also turned many redlinks at Royal Medal and Willard Gibbs Medal blue, simply by searching for the articles and creating redirects. Now to move to the subject of WikiProjects, he is an asset to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth, where he is a strong participant in what appears to be many, many different aspects of the project. Of course, a great way to find a helpful user is through the village pump or help desk, and Carcharoth is certainly an active face at these pages as well. Yet, he does all this great work around here, and I haven‘t even gotten to his strongest quality yet.

Many admins who participate in the village pump and ANI have most likely run into Carcharoth at some point in time. Every edit I’ve looked at is an intelligent piece of rhetoric, and he is clearly a constructive discusser first and foremost, which is vital for many of the more difficult issues admins face daily. Even on really contentious issues, such as the whole RfA/RfC/MfD mess last week here, he was a very reasonable voice during this tense time, making absolute sense out of everything despite not having followed RfA in a while (his words). Besides that, if you look at his user talk edits and randomly pick one, you’ll find a great idea, a nice piece of advice, or just good discussion regarding something.

If you haven’t seen my point yet, this guy does everything, is one of our most intelligent users, and would be even more of an asset as an admin. Wikipedia could use more Carcharoths, and if he’s been this constructive and great without the tools, imagine how amazing he’ll be with them. I'll provide diffs of his amazing work if need be as well. Wizardman 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Carcharoth 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate statement I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, and would also like to make a statement here to give a bit more background to the nomination.
My first contributions were in January 2005, though I didn't start contributing regularly until January 2006. As an editor, I enjoy tidying up around the place, adding some content, and contributing to discussions. I occassionally considered whether I needed the admin tools, but always found enough to occupy me without them. I also enjoyed article editing too much!
Then, around a year ago, someone asked me if I wanted to be nominated to have the admin tools. Part of the reason for this statement is that I want to explain why I've dithered for almost a year before finally accepting a nomination (I'd also like to thank everyone who asked previously and encouraged me). I agree with the basic philosophy that adminship is no big deal, but I also hold myself to high standards. I wanted to be properly organised and have a detailed knowledge of policy before considering this step. Thankfully, one of the discussions on my talk page managed to disabuse me of that mindset and convinced me that a certain amount of learning on the job is OK. All it took then was persistence from Wizardman and, finally, a realisation on my part that I was going to dither until the cows came home unless I semi-organised myself and went ahead and accepted.
I haven't checked my latest spread of edits, but I tend to edit roughly equally in article space and in project space, while also editing in template and category space (and talk pages in all these spaces). My edit count should be taken with a pinch of salt, as I suffer from a terminal inability to use the preview button on a regular basis. As noted above, my image work has also increased lately (though actual uploads tend to be to Commons). I have tended to edit in lots of different areas, gaining a widespread general knowledge, rather than specialising in a particular area. I go into more detail on this below, but I hope that my widespread editing experience will stand me in good stead for using the administrative tools. Carcharoth 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 read the administrator's noticeboard and the incidents noticeboard semi-regularly, and would continue to contribute there and would use the tools to help out instead of just offering advice. I have also used the template ((editprotected)) in the past to suggest edits to protected pages (generally ones left protected after being on the main page, or templates in widespread use), and would instead use the tools to make such edits (unless they needed discussion first). I would also be interested in helping out with tasks like reviewing (and deciding whether to delete) the items in categories for speedy deletion (including images), helping out with tasks at the Main Page templates (such as Did you know? and In the news). I would also be happy to help out with closing articles for deletion, and other "X for deletion" debates, though I would re-aquaint myself with any particular area and re-read the relevant policies and guidelines before assessing consensus (if any) and closing any debates. I would also avoid closing debates that I hold a strong opinion on, and would instead join the debate as an ordinary editor. I also intend to practice at Wikipedia:New admin school if I am unsure about how to use any of the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Wizardman has pointed out a few, some of which I had forgotten about! To help me keep track of what I have done here, I (fairly) recently set up the page User:Carcharoth/Contributions as a way to systematically record some of the areas I have edited in. The contributions I have been particularly proud of are Astronomische Nachrichten (as part of a collaboration with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial, and Serge Voronoff (the latter because others took over and expanded it immensely). I have also enjoyed the collaborative editing and reviewing processes at Featured article candidates and Featured article review, standing in awe at the work done by some editors on featured articles such as James I of England. I also took part in the discussions and work for the redesign of the Main Page which went live in March 2006 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page). I have also done a lot of category work (the original work being at Category:Disasters, Category:Natural disasters, and their subpages), and am currently trying to help improve index sorting of biographical articles and the related issue of disambiguation pages for people's names.
However, that is mostly article stuff. If I may quote from Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship:

"The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's [...] strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights [...] it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights."

Given that, I would say my best contributions to Wikipedia (in the context of a request for adminship) have been in the form of carefully reasoned debate and helping to form a consensus. Though the article contributions mentioned above do demonstrate an investment in the process of creating Wikipedia, I agree with Wizardman when he describes me as "clearly a constructive discusser first and foremost".
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 have been involved in many lengthy discussions over editing. I don't think I'd call them conflicts, as Wikipedia is not a battleground, but it has been stressful at times trying to communicate a certain viewpoint to some editors. I try and deal with this as I always do: by taking things to talk pages, or other discussion forums, and continuing to discuss the problems with the editor(s) involved and trying to reach an understanding over what should be done. I don't think any of the disagreements escalated into anything major, though I'm happy to answer questions about any particular incidents. I have disagreed with some editors over their wiki-philosophy, recently in the area of categories and images. I have briefly looked back through my last 5000 edits. Two examples I have come up with are two lengthy deletion debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20#Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg. I am not proud of the language and rhetoric I used in my initial contribution to the latter debate, but I hope people will agree that the later course of the debate was more fruitful, and that I am usually more civil than that. Sometimes, when things are stressful, I find the best thing to do is to take a deep breath, re-read what I've written (before saving), and start again.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strongest Possible Support as nom :) Wizardman 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Very good user who knows policy--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. The candidate seems to be a good contributor, has helped to build many fine articles and appears to be trustworthy. Majoreditor 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Really strong candidate. --JayHenry 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - In the times and places I have seen this user, they have acted with maturity, dignity and civility and they have made meaningful contributions to the encyclopaedia. I believe this user would use the mop well. Orderinchaos 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Per above - outstanding candidate. -- Folic_Acid | talk  17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - I've been after this Wikipedian to become an admin for quite some time. He's thoughtful, whether in dealing with articles, other Wikipedians, or whatever the topic at hand is. He's involved in policy and project discussions of nearly every level. (Indeed he is one of those who I tend to see involved in/commenting on a discussion before I ever get there.) He's heavily involved in the Middle Earth WikiProject. And has helped several articles attain or retain their featured or good status. The bottom line: I trust this editor's good sense and discernment and discretion. - jc37 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. No problems. --Kbdank71 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Absolutely. Carcharoth is an excellent candidate.--chaser - t 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I strongly doubt this user will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Yes. This user will be a great addition to the admin group. κaτaʟavenoTC 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support experience, trustworthy, very active. No doubts, you need the tools. Carlosguitar 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support You're ready. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sure. He's been around a while, hasn't done anything unreasonable that I know of. Friday (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Talk about someone I thought already was one! --Groggy Dice T | C 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support This editor is the embodiment of what it means to be a Wikipedian. It will benefit this project only further to have him join the admin team. A wealth of experience and sound policy knowledge. It's a pleasure to support such an excellent candidate. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. But of course. Moreschi Talk 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Embarrassing to admit this considering how I like to lurk at RfA, but I thought he already had the twiddly bits. Time to fix that. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Well, yes. Rudget Contributions 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I assumed this person was already an admin. — DIEGO talk 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Excellent candidate and per Pedro--WriterListener 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Everything I've seen seems good. David Underdown 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per above. I've run across his name a few times before, and see no reason why he shouldn't become and admin. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, I've only ever seen good things wherever this user's name shows up. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support looks good. Bearian 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Happy to chime in. Ronnotel 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Kaktibhar 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Banned User. Miranda 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Dedicated editor. Cla68 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Great editor with absolutely no problems. Captain panda 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support experienced, active and valid editor. To me he's okay. --Angelo 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Eh? I thought you were an admin. bibliomaniac15 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support As per Angelo and Wizardman and Has more than 8000 mainspace edits and more than 26000 overall.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Highly qualified candidate, no issues or concerns at all. Welcome to the ranks, however belatedly you chose to join them. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support on the basis that as I've seen your name around lots in connection with lots of excellent work, I'm sure that an additional ability to push the odd button here and there to help keep the place tidy will not be wasted on you! BencherliteTalk 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per biblomaniac. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support no concerns whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Wow, I thought I was being punked. I literally had to check his logs to believe he wasn't already one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had one of those moments awhile back when I first discovered that he wasn't. So don't feel alone : ) - jc37 03:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Have never seen any sign that this user might abuse the tools if given them. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. For sure - would not misuse the tools. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support...although I despise Carcharoth. An awesome nomination written for an awesome Wikipedian; Carcharoth is well-deserving of the tools, and he has proved himself to be a knowledgeable and valuable editor. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I've seen many of his contributions on the noticeboards. A good record, and I have no concerns at all. EdJohnston 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Daniel 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Excellent candidate. Well-versed in all major Wikipedia areas from mainspace article content to discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per good experiences with this user in the past. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A great editor who would make an excellent admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yeps. Much abused cliche but I always assumed this user already had the tools. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Wow, IIRC I never hesitated any shorter to issue my strong support of an RfA. Civil and intelligent, hard-working and loyal. "Awesome Wikipedian" is as spot-on and succinct a description as possible. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Of course! When he recently posted on my talk page, I was suprised to see that he could not see deleted edits - I had been sure he was an admin... Kusma (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support as per Daniel... --DarkFalls talk 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Of course. --Folantin 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: <cliche>Insert suitable cliche here.</cliche> Nick 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought you were already an admin. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I don't foresee abuse from Carcharoth with the mop. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, the effort on Astronomische Nachrichten was exceptional, and from what I have seen of the contrib history it is also typical of Carcharoth's dedication. John Vandenberg 09:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, a fully merited promotion (overdue, even) to moppiness. Sam Blacketer 10:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Only possible concern is 'too good to be true'... but I think we can risk it. :] --CBD 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, as per a few above, I really did think he was an admin already. Had I known, I would have been pestering to nominate him months ago. Neil ☎ 11:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Nothing to say after reading that nom, great editor. Phgao 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, of course. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. <stereotype>Wha', he ain't one already?</stereotupe> Duja► 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom. --John 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Me too. Hard to find a better all-round candidate than Carcharoth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Finally! El_C 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support seen this editor around, don't always agree, but he knows the ropes, give him a mop! :-) Carlossuarez46 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I remember asking Carcharoth for help back when I was a new user and had no clue where to find the information I needed on Wikipedia, that was when he quickly came to my aid and kindly gave me directions. I've see him around very often since that day, and he's always sensible, thoughtful and well-mannered. It is without a doubt that Carcharoth will make an excellent administrator. Glad to support. PeaceNT 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support without hesitation. And count me among the many who thought Carcharoth already was a sysop. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Mostly I've agreed with Carcharoth's often boldly worded, always well thought-out comments on policy and editing, and very occasionally I haven't. But I have no doubt he'd be a very good administrator. Welcome aboard. Chick Bowen 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, an excellent, neutral, thoughtful editor that I believe will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Hope its not too late to jump on the Carcharoth bandwagon.--Alabamaboy 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. It never occurred to me that Carcharoth might not already be an admin.--ragesoss 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support--Húsönd 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, good editor, consistently reasonable. We should have made him an admin a while ago. Everyking 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Jbeach sup 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, yes, a great user. However, I will be requesting your immediate desysopping if you should bite off Beren's hand. Keep that in mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support I did not think that he was an admin; but I certainly think that he should have been. A verey strong candidate with detailed knowledge of and experience in the project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Always wondered when this would be coming — Lost(talk) 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. True cliche moment. Super-abundantly qualified for the position, should have been mopped a long time ago. Xoloz 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Enthusiastic support. Definitely a case where I thought he already was an admin. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support - This is one of the best candidate's I've seen in quite a while! Well done, I'm confident you'll make a great admin! Lradrama 16:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support John254 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support an excellent Wikipedian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 86th support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support seems like a good candidate.Spevw 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Have bumped into this user a time or two. Seems consistently sane. Hope he's not a time bomb. —Cryptic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
More