Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Petros471 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
(Redirected from User:Knowledge Seeker/Petros471)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Petros471

edit

Final (75/12/3) ending 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Petros471 (talk · contribs) – Petros has been a diligent contributor who has made excellent contributions, been polite and eager to learn. He has participated in the Esperanza admin coaching program and: I think he is ready and willing to do admin activities. Academic Challenger 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Petros471 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support I beat the nom! Computerjoe's talk 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - should make a good admin, and answers show a decent understanding of responsibilities (or alot of RfA experience ;) ). Ach, only 2nd! |→ Spaully°τ 18:20, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
  3. Support from what I've seen, he's quite good.  Grue  18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Great answers to questions, like what I've seen of this editor. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I see Petros471 answered Massiveego's questions and well within the time limit too, by quoting policy back at him (presumably Massiveego is measuring how well people can search policy pages?). For the record I do not expect candidates I support to be available at all times, and would not hold a candidate to a 24 hour turnaround on things. With 800+ admins it is not a 24/7 job. We are all volunteers here after all, things get done, there is coverage and no one admin need give up their entire life. No change in my sentiment of support. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. — FireFox • T [18:52, 11 April 2006]
  6. Support; admin coaching is good sign. Recently saw him in action at a content dispute at WP:RFI and was impressed with what I saw - sure he'll make a good admin if he keeps that up Aquilina 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. I had the opportunity to review Petros's edits as a part of administrator coaching and everything I saw suggests that he is well-suited for the position. I believe he will make a fine administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, verily. I associate "good work" with this name. Femto 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) …and am absolutely flabbergasted that I'm quoted on his user page.[reply]
  9. Support per nom and review of question #2. Seems very willing to help out and able to learn from mistakes. --Elkman - (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Marvelous, highly trustworthy editor. Xoloz 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support Does good work at RFI, and is an excellent editor overall.--Shanel 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Tone 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Moe ε 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support nothing but good expernices with this user, and is alwaays willing to help out Benon 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. DarthVader 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Excellent. Keep up the good work. (^'-')^ Covington 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Has proven his loyalty. --SR Bryant 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support From what I've seen, would currently make a good admin with a calm and reasoned approach. Colonel Tom 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support definitely. --Jay(Reply) 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, Everything seems to be in order. Vulcanstar6 01:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, looks very good. Also reflects well that he turned down his first nomination for a solid reason. That shows real character, or something. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 03:52 (UTC)
  23. Support. Looks good.--Adam    (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. How come I've never seen you? Royboycrashfan   03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Solid support. I've seen this guy around, making good edits. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support —Wayward Talk 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good canidate indeed. SorryGuy 07:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support He is worthy. Banez 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--Jusjih 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Keep up the good work! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - friendly, helpful and even-handed user. Stringops 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Very capable and willing. great partner when reviewing WP:RFI cases. --ZsinjTalk 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- But caution that I nearly went neutral due to excessive automatic edit sums. I like to see what I'm buying. John Reid 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Well rounded. Masssiveego 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Encountered user a few times in my duties. Keep up the good work! --Syrthiss 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--Jaranda wat's sup 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Fine editor. _-M o P-_ 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Rory096 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No problem here! Funnybunny 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Joe I 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Very good person. J.J.Sagnella 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - A good choice for administrator. - Richardcavell 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, gladly. Sango123 (e) 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support because admin-tools are for janitorial work not for writting articles. Eivindt@c 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems to have a good attitude, although might be a bit too policy-bound. I would caution the gentleman to always remember to put product ahead of process, but otherwise he should be fine. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --Alabamaboy 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: looks like he's ready. Thumbelina 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support StabiloBoss 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Good watchdog is a good reason. Tyrenius 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Seems to be a solid candidate to me! TruthCrusader 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Helpful, good attitude. Veyklevar 12:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Would make a good admin. Tangotango 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support MatriX 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --StabiloBoss 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Thank you for your support, however I notice you've already given it above, and it only counts once! Cheers, Petros471 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I reviwed info nad contributions, and I think he should be an admin.--Brendenhull 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. In examining a sample of his contributions, I see edits well-distributed by topic and by namespace. Good work combatting the proliferation of link spam (don't give up). I see no reason to oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 [05:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  62. Strong support - we can't be having this. He already is one and has been for ages. Suggest delist as joke nom. --Celestianpower háblame 11:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Has the kind of material that admins need. ty 17:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Great answers to the questions, and he seems like he'd use the admin tools very well. We have many registered users, and if some want to concentrate their efforts here on behind-the-scenes work and reverting vandalism, that's fine with me. In general, I do prefer people to use article talk pages more. However, for people who spend much of their time here reverting vandalism, that's not as much of a concern; I'd rather just see a simple revert and a standard warning on a user talk page, and it looks like he's doing that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg per above —Khoikhoi 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Seems good. Bidabadi 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Great admin candidate. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Looks good, no concerns TigerShark 12:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Maybe some might feel that you need to do other article edits besides just reversion in order to be a decent admin, and maybe that is true. However, I feel that your article edits have been decent and just. You've done the work needed to be done. Great answers to the questions as well. Thistheman 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. The nominee's answers to the questions reveal a patient, thoughtful user. --Danaman5 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 10:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Good understanding of using the admin tools according to response to all the questions. Shyam (T/C) 11:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Weak Support His vandal fighting technique is superb, though lacking in diversity regarding contextual edits within articles. A good facilitator, however, so giving a nod. Netkinetic 12:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry - you seem like a nice guy, but a quick review of your contributions indicates that pretty much every article edit you've ever made has been reversion. Administrators should actually have a handle on what article editing and creation is about, because that's the most important facet of Wikipedia, not vandal-whacking. Proto||type 08:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose candidate does not meet my criteria and I also agree with Proto in regards to type of edits--Looper5920 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OpposeDoesn't seem like he's done enough. Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 13:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per copyright question, even though offical wiki policy is no legal threats, copyright claims are infact legal threats (take it down or we sue basically), also seems too new. Mike (T C)   20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright claims are specifically excluded from NLT, and for a very good reason. While it wouldn't be illegal, senso stricto, for WP to block users for making a claim to which they had a legal right, courts would look on such practice with profound disfavor should any litigation over WP's copyright policy arise. Candidate's answer is absolutely correct, and the policy should not be misunderstood. Xoloz 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Xoloz. A copyright claim is not a legal threat.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose very few content edits to articles (for an admin). That's what we're ultimately about. Derex 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Good writers" and "good admins", for the most part, are different sets of people. — Apr. 16, '06 [05:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  6. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To help me know how to improve, would you be kind enough to say why you voted this way? Petros471 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Very low talk namespace edits. AucamanTalk 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Doesn't meet my standards for admin, plus as I state in my standards, vandal fighting alone doesn't provide the perspective necessary for deleting articles and resolving disputes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. STRONGLY OPPOSE. Vanalism is an intrinsic problem of wikipedias technology, as far as existant. However article editing and contribution is something a bot cannot do, and what this is all about. Admins who constantly revert or fight vandalism tend to snap at some point and start deleting articles away like nothing, before even discussing. This does not concern any of my articles, as anyone is welcome to verify, but those of others which ultimately concerns me, as any missing article is some missing spot of knowledge in others, and apparently 90% of the internet users are incapable of proper searchingSlicky 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose until more substantive contributions —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-17 11:08Z
  11. Oppose Poor judgement. --Mais oui! 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Being an admin is more than vandalfighting. Experience with conflict resolution and Wikipedia space policy issues is important.—thames 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral tho I don't like being neutral, there's an interesting trade-off with this user between being a good watchdog but a limited encylopedia builder. I agree with Proto's comments on reversions being the overwhelming majority of article edits but I do appreciate the other good work and a watchdog specialist admin isn't necessarily a bad thing which leads me to a neutral position. MLA 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'd like to see some more work in the mainspace. joturner 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral would like more content edits and article authorship. Phr 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See Petros471's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • You can view my first (declined) RfA nomination. I totally see that (declining) was the right thing to do then, as I certainly didn't have enough experience to know how to react to every situation that might have been thrown at me as an admin. The extra time since then has seen me encounter a much wider range of people and events (as shown by my talk archives), so I now feel much more confident in being able to deal with the responsibilities of having the admin powers. That doesn't mean that haven't got more to learn, but that's always the case for all of us! Petros471 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Short answer: Continuing to work on WP:RFI, being able to deal with reports on WP:AIV, help with WP:AFD, deal with entries in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, history merges, reverting vandalism, blocking vandals, semi-protecting/protecting pages under heavy attack, unprotecting pages where the previous problem has gone away and responding to general calls for help.
Long answer: To give more detail on when and how I would imagine myself using the admin tools (and the use of them is why I want to become an admin) I've gone through the features at WP:ADMIN, and given my reasoning.
  • Protected pages: Whilst on RC patrol, or if alerted by another editor, I would semiprotect pages under heavy vandalism. This would probably be for short periods- for example if one article was under attack heavy by multiple IPs/new usernames I would apply semi protection. This allows blocks to be applied, without constant reverting of the article (which clutters the page history, and useful edits probably wouldn't get through the constant vandalism/reverting anyway).
  • Deletion and undeletion: I would probably start on the obvious speedy deletes. Of all the articles I've tagged for speedy only one was not deleted (a userpage not created by the user that only contained vandalism. Durin thought it was best to let the user decide if it should be deleted.) If I had any doubt over a possible speedy I would discuss with another admin, PROD or AfD as appropriate. Later I would probably help out with AfD closeout, however I would watch AfD for a bit longer first (except maybe in the most obvious of cases).
  • Reverting: Very useful! I know there are scripts out there- but I never got godmode light to work. Pop-ups is great but still not the 'real thing' with reduced server load/increased speed etc. As a believer in good edit summaries I would only use rollback for vandalism.
  • Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings: I guess if I come across someone violating a ruling I could issue the appropriate block or ordered sanction, however I can't imagine myself getting involved in this.
  • Hiding vandalism from recent changes: Not sure I'd use this.
  • Block and unblock: Blocking vandals would be very handy- despite the large number of admins around it still can take a while to grab the attention of one. I've seen reports on WP:AIV for hours (sometimes) without action, or had to pester admins on IRC. This is obviously one of the admin powers that can cause great harm if misused, therefore I will be sure to seek advice in non-blatant cases, and see blocking (and the threat of blocking) as a last resort.
  • Design and wording of the interface: Can't imagine doing this.
  • Other: I might carry out protected moves if needed (and it was clear that there was consensus to do so). I would probably pick a few pages from Special:Unwatchedpages, however my watchlist is already long so I would be careful to only select ones I was serious in watching to keep it manageable. Viewing the history of deleted pages would be useful in some cases reported to WP:RFI. I also recently came across a copy and paste more, where two article's history needed merging- something that I would be able to fix myself if I was an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Compared with many editors on this site, I am not a prolific article contributor. I am requesting to be an admin because I believe the tools provided will be very useful in the sort of work I do on Wikipedia. I can't imagine my article contributions greatly increasing in the short-term, as I don't think that is where my skills are- I am more able to provide 'support services' to other editors, to allow them to get on with the job of writing an encyclopedia, and preserve their writing from being destroyed. However I have done some article work. In terms of expansion I have taken Environmental chemistry out of article stub status, although there are now section stubs, which I indent to keep working on. I have done some external links cleanup (for example see I Ching), and other general cleanup.
As for other contributions that have particularly pleased me, it is hard to point to specific ones. Any time that I managed to prevent some obscene vandalism being presented to a unsuspecting site viewer, found and removed sneaky vandalism, that a vandal stops after a warning (or better, when someone has been warned and then makes useful contributions). Any time something I do gets a 'thank you', when I've moved something forward, or made someone feel like Wikipedia is a place to stay and make useful contributions. They are all things that please me!
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:There are two things that caused me any stress. The first was when I was pretty new here, I added a link to my own external website on the article Dragon Age. This got me into a conflict with User:Toonstruck (see Talk:Dragon Age, User_talk:Petros471/Archive1#Dragon_Age_stuff, and User talk:Toonstruck). Whilst I later realised adding my own site was wrong (and why!), I was accused of things that I didn't do (such as removing other 'rival' links). This made me realise from first hand experience the importance of WP:AGF and WP:BITE.
The second was the whole 'Dreamguy/Elonka' dispute. I don't really think it is appropriate to go into details here, so I will point you towards this, this and subsequent sections in that talk archive. That whole incident did teach me a lot, including how I think a good admin responds.
The first incident (DA link) was dealt with by use of talk pages, and by seeking outside advice (from User:Evilphoenix, found via WP:MEDCAB - note that page wasn't in its current form then, I used IRC). Understanding where the other editor came from, as well as checking that I was(n't) in line with policy/guidelines helped a lot in getting rid of my stress in that case. It also had a nice outcome as I helped the other editor with some editing questions (like use of talk pages/signature), so I don't think he could have been too mad at me :)
As for the second incident, the main cause of stress was seeing a good faith attempt at trying to help being 'blasted'. That made be realise that not everyone wants help. Therefore I now only try to help people that have clearly asked for it, or where it would appear to be appropriate (for example helping a newcomer fix a mistake that they made because they haven’t had the chance to read all the volumes of help/guidelines/policies). At the time I responded as I thought was appropriate, and then after watching the situation develop to a point where I could be of no further assistance I removed the related pages off my watchlist and stopped worrying about it.
In general I don't really get that stressed by things. Understanding where a user is coming from always helps, as does assuming good faith (if at all possible, and sometimes even beyond), always doing my best to stay civil/make no personal attacks, following the WP:1RR for cases that aren't simple vandalism etc. If it came to it I could always go on Wikibreak, but usually removing pages off my watchlist is the best thing to do if a discussion is getting pointless. Vandal attacks, and the usual run of things aren’t really a problem (hey if they want to vandalise my user/talk pages I'd rather they be wasting their time doing that than be doing the same thing to other users, who may not feel the same way!)
I hope these answers have helped you, feel free to ask any further questions, or ask for clarification! Petros471 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Masssiveego 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For notice, and answer within 24 hours.

1. Are copyright claims legal threats?

No. To quote the official policy Wikipedia:No legal threats: "NOTE: "No legal threats" does not mean, of course, that claims of copyright infringement are not to be made. If you are the owner of copyrighted material which is on Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. Copyrighted material not licensed for Wikipedia (with very limited fair-use exception) is not welcome on Wikipedia.". Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are sockpuppets banned?

It is important to note that a ban is not the same as a block. To answer the question- no there is not a blanket ban on sockpuppets- only the abuse of sockpuppets. The sock puppetry policy makes this clear, however use of multiple accounts is generally discouraged. Sockpuppets may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, or certain others. This is likely to happen when proven sockpuppets continually cause disruption and abuse editing privileges. Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. What is a vanity article?

The vanity guidelines do a good job of describing vanity articles as vanity information presented in the form of an entire "any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author"
Vanity articles are generally ones where the author of the article is either the subject of the article or closely associated with them. This can also apply to companies/bands/inventions etc. A clear example would be something along the lines of: "Subject is a well known student at school name who enjoys playing football", where the author of the article is either the subject or a friend of the subject. These are easy to spot as they are not verifiable, and do not meet notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO. More complicated cases can happen when the subject of the article is more notable. In these cases it would be better to politely advise the author of the importance of WP:NPOV (and related policies), and therefore it might not be appropriate for them to edit that article, but rather give suggestions on the talk page. Petros471 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Petros471_2&oldid=1089910438"