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

Elkman[edit]

Final: (61/2/1); ended 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Elkman (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I offer you Elkman as an adminship candidate. This fellow Minnesota editor, from nearby Bloomington, Minnesota, is an avid contributor to our encyclopedia, with just north of 13000 edits, two years of solid contributions, and, incidentally, perfect edit summary usage (as in, no edits without an edit summary since he joined.)

Elkman is a prolific article contributor, with two Featured Articles, a Good Article and about a dozen articles featured on Did You Know. (His work on bridge articles included beginning an article on a certain local bridge that became, well, somewhat important.) He is also a regular enforcer of policies and guidelines in article space, an active newpage patroller, and also posesses an encyclopedic knowledge of policy and good judgement in his many intelligent comments at AfD and elsewhere in Wiki-space.

The only possible downside to Elkman is that he has had a couple of bad days on Wikipedia. However, the last, and most notable of these, occurred in 2006. Elkman has also had minor squabbles with a couple other editors in the past, but nothing I believe would detract from his suitability for the admin tools. I hope you will consider supporting this knowledgeable and responsible editor for adminship. Grandmasterka 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There's a continuing backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, so that's where I'm most interested in helping out. I check out new pages fairly often, and I notice that there's a fair number of new pages that aren't encyclopedic. On average, every time I pull the last 50 new pages, at least three of them meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, such as non-notable bios, attack pages, or companies using Wikipedia for advertising.
Another few examples: This guy was cruising for a block yesterday, having created some inappropriate pages and vandalizing a user page. Also, I had to ask at WP:AN for a redirect to a nonexistent page that had to be deleted, but the redirect was protected, and also for the closure of a stale AFD.
I'd also like to note that if I get the admin tools, I don't plan to stop contributing articles to Wikipedia. Having admin tools would certainly be useful, but an encyclopedia is not built by deletions, administrative rollback, username blocks, and vandalism reversion. Instead, it's built with hard work, a lot of research, and collaboration with other editors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've participated in three featured articles:
Glacier National Park (U.S.), collaborating with MONGO
Minnesota, a team effort with Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota
History of Minnesota, where I did the lion's share of the work but collaborated with other editors
I've also brought History of Minneapolis, Minnesota to good article status.
As Grandmasterka pointed out, I started the article on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, which I didn't think was a big deal at the time. It became quite significant on the evening of August 1, tragically.
Here are a couple more articles I like:
Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator -- the world's first reinforced concrete grain elevator. A lot of people drive by it on Minnesota State Highway 100, thinking it's just a sign for Nordic Ware, without realizing it's a National Historic Landmark.
Seventh Street Improvement Arches -- a really unique piece of engineering just east of downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota that few people see, because it's all but invisible when driving over it on Seventh Street.
Thomas Wilson (shipwreck) -- my newest DYK article. I enjoyed getting the underwater photographs for this.
Besides work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota, I've also put a fair amount of effort into Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and I've sort of become a contributing editor to WP:CHICOTW despite not officially being a member of that project.


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: In July of last year, I got involved in the highway naming dispute, mainly in regard to Minnesota state highways. Things came to a head in late July when I created an article under an intentionally wrong title (mainly to relieve some stress, and with the intention of moving it to the correct title later on). That gave SPUI more ammunition to resume his page moves, so that clearly wasn't a good idea. I eventually decided to leave the state highways project, as I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways)/Archive 1#Minnesota_Controversy after realizing that the dispute over highway names was getting in the way of creating useful articles. Also, I was starting to think more seriously about writing articles for properties on the National Register of Historic Places, since there's only so much you can write about a highway.
Also, last November, I got involved in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1. I got too personally involved in it, mainly from the standpoint of whether we needed Esperanza's goal of hope. I also found myself rather tweaked by Elaragirl's comments and her deletionist attitudes, and her parody of the Esperanza green "e" with her orange "a" in her signature. I recklessly proposed her orange "a" subpage for deletion, then reversed my decision about 10 hours later. I self-reported my own vandalism to WP:AIV, bringing predictable results. That was basically the low point of my editing here. As a result, I learned the hard way that I should try not to take contentious subjects personally and to not get too emotionally involved in deletion debates and policy discussions.

Optional Questions from Rocksanddirt:

4. - How much time (percentage or hours) do you anticipate spending on admin tasks v. editing/article tasks? --Rocksanddirt 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I still plan to spend a good 80 to 90% of my time on article editing tasks. I'm not planning to let the tools go to waste, but at the same time, Hesper (shipwreck) isn't going to write itself, either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from VanTucky:

5. In consideration of your 46 edits to ANI, which is in your top three project space contributions by edit count, could you please elaborate as to your involvement with cases there?
A: Many of those edits were in regard to User:SPUI and the whole highway article naming debate from about a year ago. I think that was a rather regrettable episode for everyone involved, although it did spur my interest in writing articles about subjects I considered more meaningful than highways. A few of those edits were in regard to Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who got community banned and then established a number of sockpuppets. I also asked there if a comment I made at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selket was disruptive, as another editor had asserted. I've also used WP:AN/I to ask about an article that I wasn't sure was nonsense but was definitely a shock page with no redeeming content, an editor who was creating inappropriate pages and making rather racist contributions, an editor who was continuously making personal attacks, and about Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets, who were repeatedly vandalizing John Goodsall and Brand X with allegations that John Goodsall's real name was "Ian Hart-Stein" and that Phil Collins maintained absolute creative control over the band. Finally, I think my one-line response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#CSD overload again wasn't necessarily the most enlightening, but I think it was funny.

Optional Question from Xiner:

6. How do you feel about Esperanza now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Some of the ideas were good, such as finding a way to relieve editors' stress and providing an atmosphere of support and community. The initial idea of Esperanza was a very noble concept. The problem was that it got weighed down with elections and officers, and a lot of editors started using it as a social club (e.g. the coffee lounge) instead of as an adjunct to building an encyclopedia. I don't know if the charges of elitism and exemption from policies really held water. The first MFD for Esperanza turned out to be a really divisive exercise with no real concrete result, and reading it just made me rather cynical about the Wikipedia community for a while.
I think we're generally better off without organizations that have elected leadership and bureaucratic mechanisms that create subparts of Wikipedia's membership. As far as community goes, if I want a community these days, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota or Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I don't look to either as a chat room or as a place to socialize, but as a place to talk with other editors in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. Also, it's interesting to visit these projects and to learn new things. (I haven't been as active in the trains, bridges, or cycling WikiProjects lately, but they shouldn't be slighted.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Freebie nominator support. Grandmasterka 06:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - I had initial reservations about your block from 9 months back, but that seems to be largely over and learnt-from. Everything else looks fine here - Alison ☺ 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. support. Elkman has contributed significantly in creating new articles, expanding/wikifying existing articles, and contributing photographs. When I have worked with him (which has been on numerous occasions), he has always been cooperative and open-minded. We also met in person at a meetup. --Appraiser 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Would definitely be an asset as an admin.--MONGO 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support The editor's ability to take accountability for some admittedly serious mistakes indicate a sense of responsibility, and humility which I personally like to see in any admin. Beyond that, your overall history considerably outweighs your self-described low points, and your performance since then (a period of time longer than some editors with successful RfA's have even been here) tell me that you have addressed any concerns that might be raised. Your answers to the questions were also strong, and demonstrate a need for the tools. Best of luck. Hiberniantears 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Strong Support WOW! This has to be the biggest "RfA cliche" moment for me in more than a year! I would have wagered good money that Elkman had been a sysop for ages now. Incredibly qualified... his not having been nominated before now verges on the obscene! ;) Xoloz 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support A significant contributor who demonstrates a lot of maturity and valuable edits -- what's not to like? I think he'd be a great asset to the community. --Bfigura (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. After reviewing some of his contribs, I was unable to find a reason to oppose this editor. He'll be a valuable asset. I hope he doesn't forget to leave an edit summary one of these days and ruin his perfect record! Useight 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sure I must have forgotten an edit summary somewhere. I can't believe Grandmasterka would have checked through 13,000 contributions to make sure I always used an edit summary. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Excellent Contributor, would make good use of the admin tools. The 'bad days' mentioned don't seem to be too recent, and your record other than this is clean. I'd suggest a 'bad day' would be less likely to occur considering the consequences of doing so whilst an Admin. Pursey 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Candidate has a good history of contributions and appears to be a good member of the Wiki community. He should make a solid admin. Majoreditor 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. —AldeBaer 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support A great editor. You'll be fine with the mop. -Lemonflash(do something) 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. He admits his mistakes and learns from them, and there aren't any reasons to oppose that I can see, though he did forget an edit summary once. WODUP 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    D'oh! Grandmasterka 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support This is actually an RfA I've been waiting for for some time. Acalamari 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support I'm more than willing to forgive a small blemish on an otherwise impressive record - once. You're making great contributions to the 'pedia, and I'm willing to take a chance on you. - Philippe | Talk 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support FORGIVEN! Politics rule 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - seems to be an excellent mainspace contributor. Should be quite good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - Awesome editor! --Hirohisat Kiwi 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Very impressive. Jmlk17 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Model candidate. Daniel 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support - Looks great! jj137Talk 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support A great editor. An asset to this project as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support: Fine editor with many fine contributions, all of my interactions with Elkman have been nothing but positive. Will be an asset with mop and broom. IvoShandor 05:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Looks like they'll suit the grubby, worn and neglected mop handle perfectly --Benspeak 06:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Extremely helpful and knowledgeable. Very trustworthy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support wholeheartedly. Add a credit not mentioned yet, Minneapolis reaching FA, from my point of view thanks to him noticing it was unreferenced. -Susanlesch 09:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support contribs are impressive. Melsaran (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Excellent editor. Elkman even welomed me! P.Haney 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Very trustworthy, edits like a bandit. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 02:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Fully Support The times I have worked with you, you have been great to work with. I fully support you for admin.--Kranar drogin 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Good editor with 13000 edits with 8400 mainspace ones.Harlowraman 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support A tireless contributor to main space; civil and cooperative. EdJohnston 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support Our paths have crossed in a few Minnesota articles. This editor has will do fine with the tools and I like the attitude of learning from some of the less productive situations. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. This editor's contributions most certainly do not keep the tent wher it is, and therefore I support the proposal. (Trust me, it's far too complicated to explain the reference; however, I expect Elkman will get it.) DS 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support sensible bloke - I remember the Elara thing, it was pretty uncomfortable for all concerned, and not through any fault of Elkman's. Not worried about anything here. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support of course. All-round contributions to the encyclopedia and discussion pages are the most solid I have seen for ages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support - Some are born Wikipedians; others become Wikipedians through the school of hard knocks. To a fellow graduate of this school, I offer my support. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support - a great contributor with an all-inclusive scope of editing. Keep up the good work. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support - there's nothing wrong at all with this user. A very good candidate. :-) Lradrama 08:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support - Good people sometimes have a bad day. Everything else looks fine. --Shirahadasha 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support What's not to like? He is a great contributor. Wikipediarules2221 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support per nom. Has more than made up for problems in the distant past. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools, any issues are from a long time ago. Davewild 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Don't see any reason not to... —DarkFalls talk 10:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support Looks good. I like his answers a lot, and in particular, his explanation of mistakes he made last year. Lots of contribs across many namespaces and perfect edit summary usage certainly doesn't hurt. -- Kicking222 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support first thing I check when someone wants to whittle down the CSD backlog is their deleted edits (there ought to be a lot of them - tagging speedies so they can be deleted), and lo and behold this editor has the goods! Carlossuarez46 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Knowledgeable, helpful, modest, and committed. Kablammo 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support per answer to my question. Xiner (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support. As a fellow participant on the Minnesota project, I've observed his edits for quite some time. I've interacted with him several times on wiki and once in person at a meetup. I'm confident he'll be a good admin. Jonathunder 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. ♫ Cricket02 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. i Support this editor to become an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. --Kbdank71 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support (this user welcomed me when I was still vishwin60) A user who admits their mistakes is someone who has a sense of good responsibility, and that is a quality that I'd like to see in an admin candidate. I was going to oppose because of some SRNC business, but returned to my senses that it was about a year ago, and that if we give him time he probably will come back around. Elkman has come a long way back around, and has also explained this low-point in his editing career. I don't even care about the block because of this, where some uninformed users would. Good users sometimes have bad days once in a while; I know I did, and so has Elkman. However, the main focal point to this support is because of the way he handled it. No doubt this user will make a great admin. (→O - RLY?) 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support, easy call. Even if this was a big deal (which it isn't) I'd still support Elkman because he has the intellectual flexibility required to reassess his own position. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support I think Elkman is a good condidate. Should do well with extra buttons and I can't see any problems coming out of his promotion. James086Talk | Email 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support - Huge contributer to WP:WPMN. I'm sure the tools will get put to good use. -Ravedave 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. Valued contributor, seems reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support. I would've nominated him before this myself if I'd realized that he wasn't an admin. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

  1. A little concerned about the blocks, and vandilism he did. Also, I'm not sure he has a whole lot of experience. --bobsmith319 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure he has a whole lot of experience? Please explain. Grandmasterka 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    13170 edits over a period of two years? That's a LOT of experience! I'm sure people don't look into candidate's RfAs properly before giving a vote. :-( Lradrama 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. A little concerned about the whole SRNC debacle. Note the end of [1] and has also posted vandal warnings on his own talk (can't find the diff, but circa mid-2006). SRNC was a stressful time for all of us, but some of what this user did concerns me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I respect your concerns and don't want to argue them, and my memory agrees with yours on what occurred. I make this post only to point out that while Elkman did take the dispute personally, he did not make it personal with others; he did not resort to personal attacks but instead withdrew. (Those interested can review Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(U.S._state_highways)/Archive_1#Minnesota_Controversy, which Elkman also linked above in answer to question 3.) And as you noted then, "Elkman was a good editor. I believe he still is. He just got frustrated with the whole thing and took his anger out on the articles. If we give him time he probably will come back around." We have, and he did. Kablammo 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You proably mean these vandal warnings. —AldeBaer 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I can't decide over the disruption at AIV, but he is a pretty good editor...I just can't decide...so I'm saying neutral. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[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