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

Efe[edit]

Final (talk page) (80/5/6); Closed by Dweller at 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efe (talk · contribs) – Hello, I would like to nominate Efe, an editor that I have known for some time. Efe is a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia, having written 10 DYK's, 33 GA's, 3 FA's and reviewed many WP:GAN's. His total edit count stands at more than 18,000, many of them making huge improvement to our encyclopedia. In writing these articles he has a fundamental grasp of policy, guidelines and common sense principles in relation to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.

Efe also has a clear understanding of our image policy. He issue warnings correctly, reports at WP:AIV, tags articles for deletion, comments at AfD's and more. Efe seem communicative, an important aspect of adminship, more than 20% of his edit's are talk page related. He is also remarkably civil, calm, mature and helpful. In relation to article content dispute Efe knows what he is doing.

When reading through his last RfA I noticed that there were quite a number of "Weak" or "Regrettable" opposing !votes. Well, it has been a long time since that RfA and hopefully those editors will have improved views on Efe's credentials for adminship :-). Concern about insufficient answers to questions was a big theme, that won't be a problem here. Clearly Efe can be trusted with the tools, there is no question in my mind that he will ask questions before taking unsure action. — Realist2 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by User:Journalist. It's hard to add to User:Realist2's statement without being repetitive and without sounding like I'm fawning. But that is just how conscientious and assiduous Efe really is. My first interaction with the editor was April of this year, when he asked for assistance with an article, and my interaction with him has been positive ever since. He is understanding, friendly, collaborative and cooperative, and he has a vested interest in improving Wikipedia; he really does care for the project, and it's obvious in the way he devotes time to bringing articles to their potential, and the way he interacts with others around him: always courteous and respectful, never demeaning or uncivil. His knowledge of policies is implicit, rather than explicit; they materialize in his practical day to day operations, as User:Realist2 clearly outlines above. I mean it when I say he is the type of editor and person I aspire to be. He has taken on a conscious effort to addressing the concerns regarding his last RFA, has gotten more experience, and I hope that others will realize what an asset he is to Wikipedia. Orane (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I firmly accept the nomination. --Efe (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: When I started contributing to the project, my very wish was to contribute and contribute, and make WikiPedia a better place. By saying that, I assumed everything added to the pages were all constructive; however, the moment I learned how established users and IPs contribute, I was saddened because of IPs blanking pages, adding defamatory words, and all other cases of vandalisms have been persistent. So I thought I have to patrol unconstructive edits little by little; this went to greater magnitude when Acalamari reposed onto me the rollback tool. When I discovered pages like Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages, WP:AIV, WP:AfD, and more, my contributions got more extensive. Although I can still contribute greatly to the project by simply tagging speedy-eligible pages and notifying page creators, and reverting vandals and giving warnings to users and IPs, I sometimes can’t control my zeal protecting pages and blocking users and IPs myself, so I though it would be prolific if I have access to some tools that ordinary users can’t.
Aside from performing other tasks mentioned here, I believe the tools would give me the chance to help clean-up some of the administrative backlogs. For instance, WP:TAMBAY has admin-assisted moves request, only to find out these requests would wait for a week. Candidates for speedy deletion have also a back log. I was wondering why the page I tagged wasn’t deleted; instead, it stayed on the page for an hour, I think. And images as well: This previous week, I made a request to delete an image which I uploaded because it’s now unused, but it stayed on the page that a bot tagged it as orphaned before an admin later deleted it (although he deleted as a request by the uploader). With this experience, I thought I can help reduce the backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Realist have cited my contributions above, and it could be already an explanation of this question. My goal is to contribute to WikiPedia by writing more GAs and FAs, and it has been already met although I think its not enough. Write more. My second goal: Protect WikiPedia from vandals. And I also think this as one of my best contributions: Sharing my WikiKnowledge to newbies especially by guiding them, and creating harmonious collaboration with other users.
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: No serious conflicts as far as my memory is concern. I have had petty conflicts in editing articles before, but I always try to be calm, and as much as possible be civil, calm words but thoughtful. Some have caused me stress but I don't take them seriously; it will only cause more stress. Handling conflicts only need clear communication. <This is just some sort of additional info/clarification to enlighten those who are still in "cloudy" state> If the conflict is between me and another user and having known what caused it, my first move is to clarify my stand and, afterwards, ask for the user's side. After much debate and there's still no agreement reached, maybe its better to invite someone unfamiliar with the subject or to both of us to give input. If the conflict has nothing to do with me and somehow requires me to butt in, I better should look for and evaluate both sides. Hopes that makes sense.

Optional question from Keepscases:

4. If you contribute photographs to Wikipedia, for which articles might they be?
A: Any article as long as the needed image is free, I mean available in, for example, Flickr. I have uploaded mostly free images and can be found here. I have uploaded some non-free images before, but now I am careful especially that we have WP:NFCC. --Efe (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope you equal "free" and "images from Flickr" only as a shortcut for a concise answer, because many images from there are fully copyright-protected and may not be used on Wikipedia. MaxVT (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Max. I am very careful in looking for the copyright status of the image, if its copyrighted or copylefted (CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA). --Efe (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Aitias
5. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Yes, and it depends on how an editor adds the tag. There are editors who add this tag with bad-faith, although the article obviously meets the criteria for deletion as stated in WP:CSD. Whenever a hangon tag is added and the editor seems serious in salvaging the page, proper inspection of validity of the article and also how it was tagged for deletion.
6. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. As much as possible those users who know how distinguish a vandal. After all, the rollback is only used against vandalism. Also, if possible, those who are willing to patrol Special:RecentChanges, but not a strict requirement. Removing access to the rollback tool is only done when there is a blatant misuse of it.
7. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. Ideally, we should upload free images, but there are instances when there is no available free image, or "for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable", provided that it is properly supplied with pertinent information ie the copyright, templates, licensing, and everything this Wikipedia:Non-free content requires.
8. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A. Definitely no. The IP has vandalized the page and has been given proper warning templates, as required in WP:AIV. If the IP has only vandalized my page, then give proper warning; block is not the ultimate decision/judgment.
Optional question from Richard Cavell
9. Could you please explain these edits:
A. My point is many FAs do not have these. Extra tracklisting seems superfluous and insignificant, and the table for the release history is somewhat listy, as well as insignificant. There have been discussions about this in the FAC room, criticizing these "insignificant" information, so I believe many editors would agree my edits.
Optional question from Flewis
10. Would you place yourself up for 'Administrators open to recall'?
A. Yes. Users were put to admin status because of a consensus, so I am very open to a recall.
Optional questions from Uncle G
11. Presuming that you were a newly minted administrator right now, with access to the delete button, what would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, and why? Please explain in detail.
A. Wow, I'm overwhelmed. If I have the buttons now and acting as a "middleman", of course, the very first thing to do is to review the page and judge whether the editors have reached consensus either to delete or not. Assuming that I am an administrator now and my very immediate work is to delete only (and not to participate in the discussion), then I should not chip in, I might seem bias. Do I have to give my side on each AfD Uncle G? --Efe (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11(a). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asynchronous error reporting —
A.
11(b). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bouchier —
A.
11(c). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Learning Systems —
A.
11(d). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being —
A.
11(e). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coca cola christmas advert —
A.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. Support Excellent content contributor, I see no reason for concern of any kind. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Nom. — Realist2 13:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I trust this guy, and he helped me in dealing with POV/fanboyism problems on articles related to Filipino actors and actresses. He really deserves to be an administrator here. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good feeling about this one, and the contributions I'm seeing are top notch. I think having the candidate as an admin will be a net positive to the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If he can write good articles, and negotiate interaction enough to get FA status, without any fracas, he can handle adminship. Shame about the musical tastes, but we can't have everything, and I doubt opposing for that reason would result in reform.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've reviewed Efe's contributions, and I like what I see—good communication skills, a sensible approach to vandalism, and obvious dedication to the project. Darkspots (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Looks great! Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - no one thing to point to, but I've reviewed a sample of her recent contributions (deleted and none) and they show pretty good awareness of policy and practice. WilyD 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hello, my Venus Flytrap is having a birthday party this weekend, so I’d like to get a pound of horseflies and a half-pound of gnats...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a candidate who embodies everything that’s net positive. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Good content builder and has good experience with image deletion. His experience in other admin-related areas looks weak though. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm strongly supporting this nomination: I supported Efe's last nomination, and while I thought he was ready then, I do believe he's even more ready now. I've interacted with him on countless occasions, and his work to articles about Beyoncé Knowles, Britney Spears, and other pop musicians is impressive. I was hoping to nominate when this RfA came around, but I see that Realist2 and Journalist got there first. :) Efe is an excellent user, and I'm sure he'll use the tools well. Acalamari 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. He's a helpful, hardworking editor with common sense. Majoreditor (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. No one is more deserving. Orane (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Trustworthy user + Great Article Writing. Alexnia (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support Great track ,civil and very good article writer.See no scope for misuse of tools and concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Without a doubt Yup. He meets any standard for adminship that exists. At the risk of embarrasing myself if it doesn't, I predict this will hit WP:100 at some point. Valtoras (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Alright, so maybe not... but he deserves to if he does, or even if he doesn't. Valtoras (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — Nothing wrong here! Clearly a good editor (since Realist nominated...) and has no problem with admin-related areas. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Of course. Support X MarX the Spot (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Efe should have becomed an admin the day he registered from Wikipedia. Of course, Strongly Support. --FixmanPraise me 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support.I know very well Efe is an amazing contributor with past interactions, he'll be a fine admin. DiverseMentality 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per all above. abf /talk to me/ 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Looks pretty good. Sam Blab 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support excellent contributions to the article field, clean block log, very high edit count (although it is not a determining factor for me) this user will most surely be a net postive to the project if given the tools, so why not?. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: All that interaction on article talk pages looks like a good sign that the candidate knows how to discuss issues with others. Law shoot! 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Very good portfolio. --Caspian blue 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Indeed. Efe will be a very good admin from what I've seen of his work here. Absolutely. --Rodhullandemu 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. What RFA has been needing lately is some solid content contributors! This guy meets the cut. —Ceran(dream / discover) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Clearly deserves the mop.--Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Beat the nom sup--Wait, no. Just plain support. Great editor, clearly has shown they can be trusted with the mop. Xclamation point 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Turkish Outlaw Support ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. i Support. A single judgment error doesn't subdue a thousand good contributions, not to mention helping other editors too. Axxand (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - contributions look good - user ready for the tools --Flewis(talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Impressive editor, one I'd trust with unpopped bubble wrap. Maybe. - FlyingToaster 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Suppport. Per Axxand's argument that a single "fault" should not be the basis to overlook and disregard thousands of good contributions. Starczamora (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support This is one of those once-in-a-lifetime chances that people just die to wish for. Honestly, I believe he's a great editor, an active Wikipedian and one of those people who can contribute greatly to the development of Wikipedia as a whole. It's not so much a vote as to whether or not he needs or deserves the tools, it's more a vote on affirming his capability to use them since I know he truly deserves it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - absolutely. - eo (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Trust is obvious here, and therefore so is my support. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak support - the contributions and work that Efe has done all seem positive, although the phrase "I can't control my zeal" (Q1) does seem rather odd. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak Support -- The weak is per my guideline on how I vote when I don't thoroughly vet the candidate rather than anything about the candidate themselves. I started looking at him last night and didn't see any obvious issues.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sure. Contribs look fine, lots of excellent content contribs. Some of your talkpage/Wikipedia page editing (which will become a large part of what you do as a result of "admin actions"), are perhaps a bit "short", but they are sound in their policy interpretation. I think there might be a language barrier of sorts? My apologies for being assumptive, but it seems like you are not a native English speaker (I had to read your answer to Q1 above like 8 times to understand what you meant by Although I can still contribute greatly to the project by simply tagging speedy-eligible pages and notifying page creators, and reverting vandals and giving warnings to users and IPs, I sometimes can’t control my zeal protecting pages and blocking users and IPs myself, so I though it would be prolific if I have access to some tools that ordinary users can’t). A couple of things: "Zeal" has a negative connotation and comes across as if you would be "zealous" in blocking others (blocking is a last resort in most cases and comes after open dialogue is at least attempted, not a block first and ask questions later thing. Same with protecting. Same with assuming all IPs are vandals). Calling non-admins "ordinary users" also has a negative us vs. them connotation, but again, I don't think you meant it that way. I think you'll do fine with the extra buttons, and you work in an area of the wiki that does seem to attract vandalistic editing where you would be an asset to the project. If in doubt, ask someone you trust first before performing a controversial admin action, I believe you'll do just fine. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Excellent contributor. Caulde 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks good to me. Also, per good answers to my questions. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Little bit of everything, looks great for me so Support! Andy (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Yes, Yes, Yes. America69 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see such enthusiasm. :-) — Realist2 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Looks like a fine candidate, so support. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Some AfD concerns (see opposes below). Please work on that. Otherwise, I like the strong article creation and other contributions, trustworthy. --Banime (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support A motivator. - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support See no reason why not. Leujohn (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support Great editor with loads of good contribs and no decent reason not to! SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support I'll give my full support for Efe. He's a great editor.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: An excellent contributor, well experienced and looks at home with the policies. But maybe a bit umm... over enthusiastic, judging by some of the answers :) I think we can trust him not to make any wrong decisions though, and he definitely won't be misusing the tools. Chamal talk 14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes. Garden. 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Been so busy with school and work I hadn't had time to review the candidate until I was finally given a 1 hour lunch break. I wonder if that was a mistake. But what wouldn't be a mistake is making this guy an admin. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support You werent one? I thoguht you we're. Gave me a lot of advice when I first joined wiki. ^^ G ! B B i 3I4m 733t0rz 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I've come across Efe at FAC, and he responds and communicates very well with other editors, even when they are critical of his work. This is the kind of level-headedness that makes me confident that he will prove a fine admin. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support and regards. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Have clue, will use. Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Most definitely. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support as candidate has never been blocked and has contributed to good articles.--A NobodyMy talk 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Good contributor. --TheLeftorium 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Admirable candidate - the somewhat um er regrettable taste in music ;) more than amply compensated by his clarity of purpose, communication skills, thoughtfulness and diligence. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Very excellent contributor for making music and Filipino-related articles. ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - An excellent contributor, I see no reason why you should not be an admin. I have reviewed the thoughts of the opposition and they do not concern me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Efe comes across as a decent, clueful guy who could surely help out with the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Very strong support Per 33 GAs, 3 FAs, 10 DYKs, and lots of other work in those areas. Cares about our encyclopedia very much. Excellent candidate! – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - experienced enough; opposes are very weak. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) He fully meets my standards; and at least some of the opposes are suspicious - possible sockpuppetry going on here. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. We need more article writer admins Secret account 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Mojska (m) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, great input and judgement. NVO (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - We need more admins with an article focus to help balance out us vandal/spam fighters. I trust the judgment of both nominators. --GraemeL (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong support - Teh fundamentals are important. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support: Very experienced and dedicated contributor to the project. Opposes doesnot convince me at all. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Supreme Support: I envy this guy's featured articles. I am 56, a judge and lawyer, and yet, since July 2007, I miserably failed, to have even on feature article. Oh, I admit I am lazy to read the rules on how to put into vote my legal articles to be featured. Efe is very not lazy like me. He must be a lawyer, who, unlike me, reads the Wikipedia Rules. He is neutral, in fact, in our RFC and bickerings, he stays up there in rainbow. He is an asset to Wikipedia. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Final Support Let's close this and give him the mop, shall we? -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per the rather stunning assertion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show that "lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is an insufficient reason to take a page to AfD. In general, Afd work is not particularly good. Most !votes are either of the WP:JNN or WP:JUSTAPOLICY type comments ([1][2]). Additionally IMHO deletion process + sarcasm ([3]) = extreme newbie biting and is entirely unhelpful to the user who's page is getting deleted, regardless of how useless the page is. Icewedge (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What would we add to our support vote if the nominators already mentioned them? Starczamora (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Icewedge. Thanks for digging that "early mature" stage of my WikiPedia career. But I firmly disagree that "extreme newbie biting". It might not be a brilliant phrasing of my comment but it was not deliberate and not to scare off newbies. If that was my intention, shame on myself, that answer in question number two should be taken as a "drama". --Efe (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that it was done with malice just perhaps a little bit of carelessness. Giving a sarcastic reason for a delete !vote will often leave the users who's page is being deleted walking away at the end a little bit confused and/or insulted (Or did I read this wrong; did you mean to say "I thought WikiPedia is not a fansite"?). Icewedge (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC) P[reply]
    That is "extreme"? Wow. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering how bitey deletion is already (basically they invest time in helping us and then we throw their work away), I would say yes. Icewedge (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Good Article writer? Yes. Does he demostrates enough maintenance edits to deserve the buttons? No. macy 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose For two reasons: his reply to question #3 is far too vague and mostly all of his edits are music related only. Not good enough in my opinion. Caden S (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Caden, just to let you know, while Music is Efe's main area of contribution to Wikipedia, two of his GA's are not music related. Efe can certainly deal with non music articles. He has also got Beyonce Knowles to GA so has a firm understanding of writing a BLP. Wikipedia has many accomplished admins who stick to music articles. Music is one of those fan crafty, POV pushing places where we need admins. In regard to your concern on the short answer to question 3, why not ask Efe to expand upon it, if the issue is of concern. I won't be heckling opposer's, but I thought I would let you know. Cheers. — Realist2 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I just want to butt in. I believe music-related articles are the poorest area in the project that's why I stick to the project. But please note that I have also written novel-related articles, and other non-music-related articles, although some were not passed to GAN yet. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by what I posted above. The majority of your work (although good) is music related and that's simply not good enough. Your reply to question #3 is extremely vague and is of concern to me. Due to these reasons I do not believe you should be given the tools. Caden S (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite of the majority of my work is on music, I believe it cannot hamper my ability to contribute to other projects. Please, take also a look at my successful DYKs, only one is music-related. By the way, I have added my answer to question number 3, hopefully to clarify. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Efe for the clarification regarding my concern to your original reply to question #3. I'm happy with the response now so it's no longer an issue for me. I'm going to take another long look at your contributions when I have the time. So far from what I've seen, you're a darn good editor. Good job! Caden S (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks also Caden for asking clarifications, I might led other users to 'cloudy state'. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for my bluntness, but isn't this oppose a little silly? If you think his answer is too vague why not ask for clarification rather than oppose? And whats wrong with music? Music rocks, most of my articles are about ancient Rome and to be honest many people find that plain boring. A while ago someone made a similar oppose to this saying that people who love music are usually immature...IMO it's the complete opposite. Again, apologies for my bluntness.--Serviam (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluntness? No. It's more like you're being rude. You can call me "silly" or any other insult that makes you feel better. I don't care. I'm not here to be bullied by you because you hate the fact that I oppose. For the record, I never said there was anything wrong with music articles. I love music and I edit several music related pages including my favorite bands. And another thing, please don't talk to me if you're only interested in knocking me. Caden S (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not interesting in "knocking" you, just wondering why you're opposing somebody for editing mainly music related articles--Serviam (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Giggy, a very well respected editor, with 12 FAs and counting, isn't good enough? This is nonsense... Garden. 20:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? Look man, you give admins a bad name by saying that my oppose is "nonsense." That's rude. As an admin, I would expect you to be far more mature than that. Caden S (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I don't see the kind of project experience that warrants trust.--Koji† 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, with the amount of work Efe has put into Wikipedia, what kind of project experience warrants trust? DiverseMentality 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I knew this question would come up, as it's virtually impossible to not have question asked in the Oppose section unless everyone is specific enough to make a CSI shit all over himself. Sorry, rough night. To answer your question though: The kind that's actually demanded of an admin, like WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Not the occasional FAC's and peer reviews (let's not forget the ever-so-un-helpful "work" to be done around WP:AfD).--Koji† 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're entitled to oppose for any reason you think fit, of course. However, there are about 1600 admins, and I still see blocks and protections applied by editors I've never seen before. I've seen new Admins develop into areas of which they had no initial knowledge when they passed their RfAs. There is no requirement of an Admin to be "one size fits all", as far as I can see, although some understanding of the broad picture obviously helps. To me, the important questions are "Does he have clue?" and "Will he fuck up?"; in this case, I see nothing that says otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC's and peer reviews don't give me any insight to wether or not he'll screw up as an admin. It displays about as much potential/ability as an epileptic monkey with a wanking addiction who stumbled upon a keyboard.--Koji† 03:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if that's a slam against epileptics or article writers. I suppose monkeys could be offended as well. Quite a trifecta. Surely there was an alternate way to retort? Law shoot! 03:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a slam against epileptics or editors. I think it's a funny post. It's called humor. Try it sometime. Caden S (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm an epileptic and it's not funny but it's not offensive either, it's just dumb. It's certainly not something for people to get all fucked about though. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a funny post to me. Don't tell me you can't see the humor in KojiDude's message. Caden S (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Heh. I'm sure it is funny to you, Little One. :) Humour notwithstanding, I can see a number of things about Koji's message and indeed his entire, !vote, but let's not disrupt Brother Efe's RfA with that. Email me if yer like and I'll fill yer in. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very strong oppose - This candidate is not a suitable candidate due to lack of experince and possible conflict of interest. DaffyDuckDied (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which bears a lot of weight coming from a new user with two edits. Care to back it up with diff's? Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I thought Wikipedia was suspposed to welcome new members instead of being rude? I am new, but I am still entitled to vote in elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffyDuckDied (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA isn't a vote, though, it is a discussion. People's comments are weighted differently depending on their value; a comment saying "oppose, per these five differences which show clear bias" would be looked at as a fairly good point, while "oppose, I don't like his shoes" would be discounted. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth can you "Very Strong Oppose" Efe for "lack of experience", he's more experienced than most. As for COI, can you provide proof or at least a link, otherwise you ae simply making a personal attack it seems. — Realist2 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock anyone? DiverseMentality 20:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been commenting on various areas I wouldn't expect a new user to go to first off (AfD, RfA) and also seems to have good (if warped) knowledge of policies (enough to wiki-lawyer up, anyway). Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a sock. Pointy edits on removing unsourced material. Seems likely to have had a bad RfA experience recently. Anyone get in an argument in an RfA on removal of unsourced content lately? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is irritating. If this is a sock can this oppose be indented or removed? I suppose it won't be looked into though. — Realist2 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outdent; It doesn't really matter, in the end. No 'crat worth his salt (and they all are) would pay attention to it, so it's best not to worry. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to drag this off-topic since this isn't about me, but I will respond because I feel I have no choice. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, but have started editing for the first time recently. Not all new account users are ignorant. I have been reverting vandalism and removing unsourced material in that time. My vote against this candidate was because they have a disproportinate amount of edits in the field of music. I feel that admins should have a well-rounded field of edits in all areas, other they could display bias in favor of their field of interest. Also as earlier mentioned, he was made controversial edits that were at the time unexpalained which does not endear me to him either. I think he is a great editor, just he does not seem to be a good admin candidate. DaffyDuckDied (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, every Admin has his or her niche on Wikipedia. I also contribute mainly to music articles. It's rather an incorrect assumption that an editor would make a bad admin because he/she only edits a few categories of articles. The same general rules apply to editing articles on Wikipedia, regardless of topic: cite your sources, remain neutral etc; and the same rules apply to interacting with other members: be civil, no personal attacks, don't be a dick. For everything else there is the Admin how-to guide, other admins and precedence. I fail to see the conflict of interest of which you speak. Orane (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this "conflict of interest" you mentioned... is because Efe has made a lot of music edits? o_O Diffs or it didn't happen, friend. FlyingToaster 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now I'm waiting for the answers to the last few questions. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Per Icewedge's oppose !vote. Whilst I agree with his points in general, I don't think that Efe would be a net negative as an admin, so I am neutralling. — neuro(talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Not wanting to ignore the reasons to support, some facts make me refrain from jumping on the support-bandwagon: The additional question by Richard Cavell reveals something important: An admin, like any good editor, should be able to use edit summaries that really explain what they were doing. Removing things as "ce" or "not needed" is not helpful and/or reminiscent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, Icewedge's oppose is concerning as for the WP:VAGUEWAVE-part. SoWhy 13:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors use "ce" alone, and I believe its enough to say that you have done a copy edit. But to satisfy your concerns, I will try to lengthen/clarify my edit summaries. I am a proponent of this so do not worry about missing edit summaries. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I also am a little concerned by the editor removing information from articles without much explanation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral but leaning towards support. The only reason I'm not on board is because of Icewedge's concerns. AniMate 04:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I'm concerned about the amount of haranguing that oppose !voters are getting. (Note: Any response to this will automatically result in me moving to oppose.) Also concerns about communication skills. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2008 (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