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

Redvers

final (105/1/0) ending 16:34 22 March, 2006 (UTC)

Redvers (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure and a pleasant duty to nominate Redvers for adminship. Redvers has joined the project in December 2004 and became an active contributor from October 2005 with over 20 edits per day since then. He has more than 3800 edits in total and his participation is spread across various namespaces. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length, with suggestions from four of them making it to the DYK. Me thinks he hates editcountitis, for he creates very large articles in a single edit such as this. He is active in WikiProject ITC Productions and was awarded a barnstar for his efforts in a related list. 14% of his total edits are in reverting vandalism to the article space – he also religiously warns the vandals on their talkpages. Among the 550+ reverts he had done, 450+ were through godmode rollback while in the remaining 100+, he performed a manual revert because he detected vandalism from multiple vandals – this shows discretion and patience on his part. His interactions with a disruptive anon early-on show his ability to convey that he is ready to engage in meaningful discussion and when the anon made legal threats, Redvers responded in a way to convey that he means business. He is gracious and thanks other editors. He is also self-effacing, as seen in his request for feedback in his initial days when no one welcomed him yet with the standard links. He is a member of Esperanza and prepared well for admin chores through this. He takes initiative, as demonstrated by his design of a tool for optimising the WP experience on Firefox browser. He asked me to give feedback that will help him become a better editor, if not a better admin, when I wrote to him that I would go through his contributions for determining his suitability for adminship. He implemented my suggestions about a more exhaustive image description summary and fair use rationale on some 70+ images in no time. He has displayed maturity, curiosity, firmness and humility as the situation demands. To conclude, Redvers is well versed in the ways of WP and has served it well so far; he deserves to be an admin and get hold of the keys to the janitor’s cupboard. --Gurubrahma 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with grateful thanks to Gurubrahma ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Preemptive before-teh-nominator support --Syrthiss 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per the cogently written nom. --Gurubrahma 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Terence Ong 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no reason he wouldn't make a great janitor. The nomination is excellent, plus I've personally observed the candidate being polite and sincerely wanting to do the right thing, which is always a good sign. --W.marsh 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Super support per nom. Time for the mop and bucket! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Rama's Arrow 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Vsmith 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Extreme "Wow. Just wow" support - <cliche /> I honestly did think that you were an Admin already. Top guy all around. --Celestianpower háblame 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support... Nice resume! Hurricanehink 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Won't abuse tools. Solid candidate. Rx StrangeLove 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with no hesitation. --Alf melmac 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support; have encountered before and always found him helpful & knowledgeable about Wikipedia. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Conscious 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Broadcasting on the London station of the Wikipedia editing authority, this is a support vote from David | Talk 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Cheers —thames 19:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support steady and reliable! TruthCrusader 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - An outstanding all-around Wikipedian with a great sense of humor. Sango123 (e) 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. support ILovEPlankton 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per all above —This unsigned comment is by Hiding (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 March 2006.
  26. Support ditto. Good editor.Gator (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No reason to oppose. Moe ε 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support An excellent nomination. Accurizer 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. STRONGEST POSSIBLE SUPPORT Excellent candidate, excellent nomination! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support-- a good editor. Nomination is excellent. Shyam (T/C) 21:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. What interaction I have had with was pleasant. He is civil, friendly and his contributions show that he is a good candidate and should make a good admin.--Dakota ~ ° 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support. --TantalumTelluride 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, based on my trust on the nominator and the few times I observed the candidate's work. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. support very strong candidateBenon 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I made it through half the nomination background, then decided that Redvers would make one solid admin. --Jay(Reply) 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, no questions asked. Silensor 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Indeed.--Sean Black (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Well, the nom said it all. --ZsinjTalk 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. All interactions with the user make me believe that there shouldn't be any issues with him wielding the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Yesum. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support as admin coach, deserves it! NSLE (T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-03-16)
  44. Support. of course pschemp | talk 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Excellent editor, another cliche moment for me. Xoloz 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --Khoikhoi 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Mmounties (Talk) 02:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support From one Esperanza member to another. --Mmeinhart 02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Solid user. Will not abuse tools. Great contributor. --Andy123 06:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, yes, good user. JIP | Talk 07:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Jusjih 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support GizzaChat © 10:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Gosh, here's a good one :-). Just look at those contribs. Yes, full support, by all means. —Encephalon 11:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Ugur Basak 11:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support-- Helpful & responsible. Deserves the responsibility! Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: yes fine. --Bhadani 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Looks great! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. An easy choice. ProhibitOnions 18:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Per all the above. SoLando (Talk) 19:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. --Fang Aili 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support looks good! Prodego talk 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support great editor. haz (user talk)e 20:13, 16 March 2006
  68. Support per strong nomination and strong edit history. He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length would probably have been enough, but the entire record is impressive. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. --Tone 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support good editor --rogerd 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. (I thought he already was one!) Great answers to the questions, and wanting to tackle image copyright concerns just makes this support vote stronger. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Robert 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support There really isn't anymore to say that hasn't been said. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Go for it! Brisvegas 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I know it is cliché, but I seriously thought Redvers had already made admin! I know you will do well. -- Psy guy Talk 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. This mop's for you Deizio 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Liberatore(T) 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Mo0[talk] 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support --Latinus 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support another great editor, it's nice to be able to put up some supporting RFA votes. :) Staxringold 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - would be a great administrator Johntex\talk 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support JoshuaZ 04:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support --Ixfd64 06:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. No doubt.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Huh? He wasn't already one? Werdna648T/C\@ 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. More candidates like this one please! Support ++Lar: t/c 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Confused support, I could have sworn this guy was an admin already. -Obli (Talk)? 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Yes. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Robert McClenon 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Looks good. Nephron 07:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Good solid contributor, no hesitation. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support often see his name, doing good things and making mature, positive contributions. Will be an excellent admin. The JPS 14:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Completely Gratuitous, PILE ON Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. User:Go for it!/Vote Support I'm impressed. --Go for it! 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Yes Yes Yes mmeinhart 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Jonathunder 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Joe I 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - it's a pleasure to support. --HappyCamper 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support; excellent mainspace edits, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Oh yeah, and that just made WP:100. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Piling on I suppose, but edit record looks good. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support per cliché. Alphax τεχ 06:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support as per all of the above :) - Aksi great 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support -- seems like a lovely person. Thumbelina 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough Wikipedia Project edits. --Masssiveego 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a mistake, 1/8th of his edits are to the WP space. Or you are justified if you believe that close to 500 edits to WP and WT spaces are not enough (or) all edits to these spaces cannot be counted as project edits. --Gurubrahma 09:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother arguing. This guy is the new boothy. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 - The Images namespace always has a related backlog that I'd like to help out on. Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Uploader unsure of copyright status are the two that have most caught my eye where I can bring experience and elbow grease to help out. IfD could also use a hand. I would also plan to do more RC Patrols - I've slacked off from it lately and it would be good to get back into the fray equipped with the tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A - My first real contributions of new articles, Irish Peace Tower and Iron harvest remain my favourites - the latter especially, because it has been improved a lot by subsequent editors (the joy of Wiki!). I've enjoyed translating a handful of articles from the German Wikipedia on broadcasting subjects - slow, hard work but worthwhile. Again, these have then been improved by subsequent editors, which is very pleasing. I'm also proud of some of the obscure articles I've cleaned up just by hitting Special:Random and getting to work. There's some odd things in my contributions list because of it!
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 - Nothing really to write home about. I've disagreed with decisions others have made, but my choice is to try to stick to 1RR and talk about a change rather than getting into a war. I've annoyed my fair share of vandals (here, here, here and here if you want a laugh). In the interests of full disclosure, I've once been accused of breaking WP:BITE (see here). I don't agree that I did, so asked for opinions on #Wikipedia. There was no consensus, so who knows? I dropped the subject, anyway. Also (and I can't find the diff to present it here), one fellow user accused me in an Edit Summary of having made a malicious edit. We talked about it and the accusation was withdrawn and apologised for, but it'll still be lurking in the history of an article somewhere!
Basically, when faced with conflict of any sort, my immediate reaction is to want to talk about the issues and find a consensus. If something does annoy me, then I'd usually rather go silent than kick off an argument. Essentially, I would always assume that I'd buggered up first, and check my own reasoning and processes before firing off. This does not apply to simple vandalism - for that I have no tolerance - and no quarms about reverting it and putting a stop to it!
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category