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

Resolute[edit]

(52/0/0); Originall scheduled to end 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful --Deskana (banana) 20:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute (talk · contribs) - I am here today to nominate a user I've been familiar with for a long time now, who goes by the name Resolute. Resolute has been editing September 2005 and editing consistently since February of 2006. At last count he has 9232 edits, which includes an astounding 1476 in the Wikipedia space. In my personal off-hand knowledge of him, I've known him to be a civil and tireless editor, undertaking various projects within the Ice Hockey Wikiproject (the type that take weeks to do) which tells me that he is definitely able to handle the thankless job of administrative duty. He's very knowledgeable and one of our more trustworthy editors on the WikiProject. His accomplishments just go on and on, so I'll just close by saying is that he has done SO much more for the betterment of Wikipedia at this point, then I did when I was elected an RFA way back when.... so he should easily be a shoo-in. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. And thank you Croat for the kind words. Resolute 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[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: I have been active with the XfD processes for some time now, as well as with new page patrolling. I believe I can help out with the consistent backlogs in the candidates for speedy deletion queues. Lately, more of my work has been related to vandal fighting, so if assistance is required at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, I am willing to help out there as well. I am also open to suggestions on other aspects of Wikipedia maintenance that would require additional help.
In the future, once I had time to gain some experience as an admin, I believe I can assist with the WP:OTRS project. I work tech support in real life, and find that I have a much higher tolerance and understanding for user problems than most of my co-workers. I believe I could capably serve in such a position, which is important to maintaining the legitimacy of this project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best, and favorite, contributions are the ones that forced me to research the subject I was writing about. List of ice hockey teams in Alberta was my first featured content, but through the time I spent on that article, I learned enough to improve the content of articles for the majority of the hockey teams on that list. I am also quite proud that the format I designed for ice hockey team season articles was adopted with minimal changes, and has been a popular addition to the project. At the same time, I have been quite receptive to the changes that have been proposed by other users, as all of them have served to improve the concept.
I am also proud of articles like Michael Dunahee and W. R. Myers High School shooting, which I was able to help save from deletion by offering extensive rewrites.
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: Compared to tech support, nothing on Wikipedia can stress me out much. ;o) Wikipedia is an entertaining diversion, and there isn't much that some random screen name on the internet can do that would bother me. I was a moderator on a very large message board in the past, so I've been called every name in the book. Frustrated people say things they later regret, which is always forgivable, and trolls simply aren't worth getting upset over.
I generally prefer to seek out assistance from the community when I end up in a conflict. I am not always right, and more often than not, the community can resolve a potential issue far faster than two users fighting over an article can. Even when I think I am right, if someone disagrees, I prefer to take a step back and ensure that the position of others is considered.

Optional question from SilkTork

4 Do you think it's appropriate to have a higher vote percentage to delete an article than to keep?
A: Well, the easy answer is that XfD is not a vote, so the percentage really doesn't matter. This is doubly true, as some debates will quickly devolve into I like/don't like it votes, and "per noms". This is probably one of the main reasons why it is no longer called Votes for Deletion.
Ultimately, I believe percentage can play a role in the outcome of an XfD, but not a primary one. If both sides of a debate produce well reasoned arguments, the percentage may be all that is left to ultimately decide if it is a delete, keep or no consensus. But if five different editors present five different policy reasons to delete an article, and are met with ten ILIKEIT keep votes, I would suggest that the true consensus in such a debate is likely delete, despite the percentage. But then, I am still an idealist when it comes to XfD, and I like to think that the reasoning behind the argument should carry far more weight than the bolded word that begins the statement.
5. Question from WKPDX
How would you handle an article where a few editors (usernames) dominated an article and reverted most others' edits, frustrating other editors? As you know, some RFC receive little response (or if they get a response, these responding editors may only comment once and not return to the article). Mediation is voluntary. ArbCom doesn't resolve editing disputes.
A: I am presuming that this is a case of some editors attempting to own an article, and reverting good-faith edits. Obviously semi-protection isn't going to put the brakes on this. It also seems to be implied that this is more of a slower, long term issue than anything escalating warnings and 3RR reports would resolve.
While the idea is that "administratorship is no big deal" according to Jimbo, there are some editors who will be more likely to respond to an admin, rather than another user, reminding them that collaboration is a key to Wikipedia. The position alone might be enough to influence some editors to reconsider their domination of an article without the need for any tools. At that point, I would hope that all parties would be open minded enough to discuss how best to integrate new material into an article. I would happily help mediate such a dispute in the hopes that all interested parties can come to a satisfactory agreement of what should be included.
If the article in question is subject to a wikiproject, I would seek members of that project out for comment, hoping to build a consensus on how best to handle the topic, as such editors would be more likely to take an active interest in the article than the general community. In my experience, when faced with such a consensus, most article owners will accept the community decision.
If open discourse fails, and the use of admin tools is required to resolve the dispute, I would certainly have to seek the aid of an uninvolved admin for a second look, as I would likely already be involved in the dispute itself at this point. Threatening or using sanctions for anything other than the most egregious violations of policy would be inappropriate on my part. Even if it was not, a sober second look by another party can often reveal additional means of resolving the dispute that do not require the use of blocks to enforce it.
Addendum: I suppose the point of my semi-fatigue spawned response is that most conflicts can be resolved with greater community input. RfC is reactive in that it waits for editors to come to it for input. I would try to be a little more proactive by trying to bring potentially interested parties into the discussion. When there are a greater number of voices discussing a topic, those who attempt to dominate it will usually find themselves losing that control to the will of the community.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support as nom, no one beat me to it this time. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support worked with him in WP:HOCKEY for quite some time, and have seen him to be an excellent contributor. He undergoes some of the most thankless tasks within the project, and gives results that improve the content of Wikipedia. Kaiser matias 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. No reason to distrust this user. J-stan TalkContribs 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom - I have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and I like his answers to the questions. - Philippe | Talk 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great work in WP:HOCKEY. Could do well with the tools. T Rex | talk 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good answers, and good edit count. Won't abuse his powers. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Patient, Level headed, Hockey smart, Understanding -- sounds like Administrator material to me. GoodDay 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Awesome choice. Jmlk17 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A fine nomination -Lemonflash(chat) 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Having worked with him before, I can also say that he'd be a great fit for an admin role. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support See no reason to oppose, editor seems experienced and trustworthy, and I actually enjoyed his answers to Q1 and Q3. Kinda surprised he doesn't already have a mop --Lucid 00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I very strongly support this nom. Possibly one of the best editors I have ever had the pleasure to work with on the site. Very level headed and always looking for the least hostile solutions to situations. --Djsasso 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Actually though he already was an admin. I have much respect for this user, always calm. --Krm500 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support this candidate will make a good (if not better) admin. New England Review Me! 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Will make a fine admin. Politics rule 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I was in a minor disagreement with Resolute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MLB seasons but he negotiated calmly and things ended well (the discussion kind of faded away but that's not his fault). Otherwise, I could find nothing but good history here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong supportA great candidate! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Supoort per everyone above, especially Kaiser matias and Djsasso. Resolute is one of the best we have to offer. Skudrafan1 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Give him the mop! --Hirohisat Talk 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good choice.--Húsönd 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support What everyone above said! Gmatsuda 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. This is a no brainer. Resolute is one of the calmest, most rational members of the hockey project. An example discussion where I feel he really displayed this occurred on Talk:Rory Fitzpatrick when people were trying to use Wikipedia to promote the Vote For Rory campaign. -- JamesTeterenko 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Seems to be endorsed by a WikiProject, which tells me that this user can discuss and contribute well. Would make a great admin. Singularity 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per above but in particular here where you tagged an article for speedy and through discourse then removed the tags, showing evidence of double checking, civilty and helpfullness to a newbie and the capacity to revisit actions (all prime admin traits) and also here where you removed an image where fair use was not appropriate, but explained it gently in the edit summary, again chowing civility and attention but also knowledge of policy. In short - enjoy the tools and Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Trustworthy... --DarkFalls talk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support looks fine. Melsaran 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per the nom. Dureo 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Unlikely to abuse asmin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support always provides great a/cfd reasonings. Bulldog123 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom et al. Bearian 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A vote for this editor is like a vote for freedom. ~ Infrangible 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A steady, hardworking editor who somehow never -- no matter how acrimonious the debate -- loses his temper or fails to be civil. Wikipedia needs every admin like him we can get.  RGTraynor  05:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Appears to be solid enough. SilkTork 07:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support admin-material. —Anas talk? 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Suppport seen him at Afds and is always civil and provides explanations. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Slapshot Support Excellent answers given to the questions above, looks to be a remarkable candidate▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. A fantastic editor and soon-to-be-admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Zaxem 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Good use of edit summaries. I like some of the points that Pedro brought up as well. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good Track. Harlowraman 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support The high project space edit is very nice. -Icewedge 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - seems to be good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support — impressive; good answers above. umdrums 09:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Seems to have sufficient experience for adminship. High mainspace and projectspace edits. ♠TomasBat 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support—good user. — Deckiller 02:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Make a resolution to use your tools wisely, since it looks like you'll get them. 24.185.34.152 12:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in or direct your valued comment to the gerneal discussion above or the talk page of this RFA. Many thanks! Pedro |  Chat  16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, Absolute. :) Dfrg.msc 07:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Maxim(talk) 23:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support- I haven't seen one real reason that this member should not become an admin but I have seen many reason why he should become one. You have my utter support! Deliciously Saucy 11:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Long-term editor with strong contributions to encyclopedia building and maintenance. Espresso Addict 11:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support looks excellent.-- danntm T C 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strongly Oppose Has not been active enough, not been a member long enough and does not contibute in a wide enough spectrum to receive admininship status. Mattbroon 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) User blocked for disruption in RfA discussions ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This account was created August 15th [1].
Note: This account was blocked for disruption. See WP:ANI#Spamming. Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose !vote was made in bad faith. Apparently his logic is that Resolute has not been active enough nor a member long enough, however 18 minutes after making this !vote he nominated himself for RfA.[2] Resolute has 9000+ edits while Mattbroon has fewer than fifty. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that amusing! J-stan TalkContribs 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think this vote should count.. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt a vote, and the closing bureaucrat should take not of the circumstances of this user. i said 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well of that I am aware, I'm just saying, and I know its still early, but it can't be called unaimonous consensus with it... I'm sure its something Resolute would take great pride in, and to see it not happen because of some unprovoked comment is unfair. Hey I've been so bored in my nomination duties thus far, Resolute's got such great support (and deservedly so!) he hasn't needed to be defended for anything yet, so this is all I have right now ;) Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol. I appreciate the defence. To see that I have the trust of not only WP:HOCKEY, but of the wider community, thus far in this RfA means a lot to me. Mattbroon's comments, and !vote simply has to be taken with a grain of salt. His objection offered nothing actionable, so it is hard to take much of anything away from it. Besides, nobody trusts a squeaky clean individual. He might have done me a favour by giving me street cred, since I am obviously not a goody two shoes with an oppose !vote on my record. :o) Resolute 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have done the right thing and struck it out this comment. It is unfair to Resolute, and we'd have only 500 admins by these standards. Maxim 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Res ipsa loquitur. Anything but a self-nomination is an actus reus displayed by the boisterous sociability essential to obtain one. Neil Larson
Note User blocked by Majorly for trolling of RFA. Oppose comment indented. Pedro |  Chat  09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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