Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tijuana Brass: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
Line 160: Line 160:




:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|Tijuana Brass]]
[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|Tijuana Brass]]

Revision as of 15:17, 2 May 2022

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

Tijuana Brass

Final: 76/1/4 ended 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) – I've been keeping an eye on this editor since we first interacted. He's got a great, well rounded contribution history, (as of this writing, and taking lag into account, it's over 2600 (and growing) as measured via Interiot's tool) and he's shown his ability to remain composed under fire. He shows good sense, a willingness to communicate and work to resolve differences, but doesn't shy away from doing the Right Thing, and he remains true to the 5 pillars, all for the good of the encyclopedia. (A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]... nothing earth shattering, just civil discourse, polite vandal whacking, calm and reasoned RfA talk, and friendly concern for other editors) Plus he likes Herb Alpert, one of the smoothest cats ever. I think he'll make an excellent admin and I'm pretty excited to be nominating him. It is with great pleasure that I bring you this nomination (which has been on ice till the candidate was ready) and ask you for your support. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Of course. Goes without saying. But those of you that know me know I never miss a chance to point out the obvious! ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (yes I will re-sign once accepted) ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (re-signing to show I mean it and that yes, I'm that much of a policy wonk.)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per Lar. Rama's Arrow 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, great contributor, per nom. jaco♫plane 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC
  4. Support Make a great admin...ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  5. Support. Good user.—G.He 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support but... oh no... it doesn't seem like he has helped out on a featured article! joturner 02:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Urp! I missed that!!!! I wonder if there's still time to get Herb Alpert there by the end of the RfA ?? ++Lar: t/c
  7. Support. Seen this one around, no doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 02:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: TB has a different set of philosophies from mine on policy, but he works to help the uninformed and never resorts to assuming that the other person's opinions are worth less than his own. Geogre 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support definitely.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Superstrong Support God, Lar, you always beat me at these things. Anyway, I've known this editor for a while too; he's very civil, thoughtful, and experienced. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support JoshuaZ 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Gwernol 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support without question. -- Jjjsixsix (t)|(review)@ 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom, good answers to questions. Also per [5] and [6]. (Though the second one rightly shows how destructive my own behavior has been.) Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. DVD+ R/W 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Dr Zak 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ¿Pero como no? i.e. yes. Redux 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support despite edit count < 3000 - 4000, based on your advice to User:Zpb52 re: question 5 on his RfA . Cheers, besides, I thought you were one.  :) Dlohcierekim 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per the Community Justice cabal. Computerjoe's talk 07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support-o-rama. Poked around this editor's contributions and didn't find anything questionable. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. DarthVader 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, definetely ok by my book. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Terence Ong 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support Have seen him around quite a bit & must say am very impressed by his work. Will handle the mop well. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, I look forward to this user having the tools to better mediate conflicts and the other things that this user could do to better the project.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. -- Seems ready for further custodial duties. Kukini 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom --Mhking 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, nothing to see here, move along. Proto||type 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--Jusjih 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, sure. --Tone 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, strong contributor. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Willing to learn, a good quality to have. ~MDD4696 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Reserved Support despite the dearth of article edits, and b/c adminship is no big deal, or so they tell me. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Innocent. The Land 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, making all the right choices. And I'd be making the wrong one by opposing this nomination. ;) Royboycrashfan 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Picaroon9288 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Sure! Sango123 (e) 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Penguin support. Per above. Fetofs Hello! 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support DGX 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support based on own positive experience with (very responsible) Tijuana Brass. — Donama 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A little low on edits, but its what you do with 'em that counts in my book. Rockpocket (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Tijuana Brass appears to be able to communicate well with other users, this is a very important trait in an admin. Rje 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC), forgot to sign earlier, sorry.[reply]
  47. Support; sufficiently experienced and able to keep his cool under pressure. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, a quality editor. -- Natalya 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Joe I 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support based on past observation of excellent consensus-building. - Reaverdrop 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support He's a great editor who knows his way around. Besides, I used to listen to the Tijuana Brass when I was a wiseguy and rode around with my crew. Tony the Marine 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Bucketsofg✐ 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Definitely. I've seen this editor around; trust isn't an issue. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Seems like an excellent contributor, as well as a deserving and active member of Wiki society. DakPowers (Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. All interactions have been positive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I have not always agreed with this editor (e.g. in the Hardy Jackson debate I think my views were more in line with JJay's) still, I have never found his tone to be inappropriate or disrespectful. He seems to be a good editor with a long history. Give him a mop. -MrFizyx 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Firm Support A nice funny member. Will be a great admin. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support Very nice user, good contributions, deserves a mop! The Halo (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- definitely --Deville (Talk) 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Looked through the contribs which all look great. I thought Tijuana Brass was quite reasonable with respect to Hardy Jackson. Has my support. -- Samir धर्म 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Merovingian {T C @} 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support good nominate --K a s h Talk | email 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Nice to have some extra help around here. --Shultz IV 06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, we need more admins who stay cool when the editing gets hot. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Support on the bandwagon. Adminship is no big deal and you'll definitely make good use of the mop --james °o 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Has room to improve... but don't we all? ---J.S (t|c) 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, good answers to questions and good contributions. Kuru talk 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, seems to make a pretty good job of being man-in-the-middle of controversial topics while (proverbially) remaining cool. Alai 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Good user. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support per most everything above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support seems a very good candidate. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support of course. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Jude (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I had a negative personal interaction with this user. I doubt he has the temperament to be an administrator. -- JJay 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to this exchange? If not, could you let the readership know via link or diff what you're referring to? It may help others form a clearer opinion. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now, I'm still studying it. I'm concerned that TB is not far enough up the learning curve yet. For example, his messing up the counting for a straw poll at Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism. I've done that myself, but always managed to correct it. Is this lack of knowledge or lack of caring? I'm still studying his edits. Ted 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you bring up Criticism_of_Mormonism, I'll just say that Tijuana Brass has been a ballast of diplomatic contribution in this and other "battleground" articles. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not meet 1FA, but has made active participation in process and RC. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutral leaning towards support. Good user, but I'm quite surprised by the ratio of article edits to edits overall. I've certainly no objection to editor participation in user talk discussions, but it seems abnormally high. Other than that looks a pretty good candidate. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Can't Support, because I have not found this editor to always AGF; can't Oppose, because he is too good an editor., can't Oppose. Raichu 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you say why, please? Thanks, Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Tijuana Brass
Total edits	2902
Distinct pages edited	1364
Average edits/page	2.128
First edit	04:23, May 5, 2005
	
(main)	1204
Talk	200
User	136
User talk	686
Image	8
Image talk	1
Template	22
Template talk	6
Help	1
Wikipedia	532
Wikipedia talk	106
 G.He 23:23, 23 May 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.
A: My interests center primarily around correcting vandalism and mediating in conflicts. In regards to the former, I'd particularly appreciate the use of the rollback feature to revert vandalism, as it greatly speeds the process, and the use of blocks, protects and semi-protects when necessary. Regarding the latter, I anticipate frequently participating in issues brought up at the Admin watchboards; they tend to generate a lot of conflict, and I would like to serve as a neutral voice in the matters there (while having the tools necessary to enforce decisions). I also monitor AfDs from time to time, and would expect to close nominations when appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article of which I am proudest is actually one at Wikinews which grew into a resource for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina — an uplifting example of the immediate impact that a Wiki can have. Here, though, I'm happy with the recent addition of an article on the Samaritan Institute, an organization I've worked with previously. However, some of my most pleasing moments on Wikipedia have been those when I've felt that a contribution I've made has encouraged another editor to take a greater part in the 'pedia; all too often, infrequent editors, whether new, anonymous, or otherwise, are overlooked and their interest wanes, when it takes little effort to welcome them into the project.
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: Typically, if I'm involved in a conflict of opinion while editing, I'll first step away from the article for a while and edit elsewhere. If necessary, I'll ask a few users whose neutrality I've grown to trust to review the issue and offer their advice, and establish some means to come to a consensus in the framework of Wikipedia policies. A kind word goes a long way, and people tend to take things more personally online than they would in person... something that I try to avoid.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, additional questions are completely optional.

4. Could you expand on your answer to question 3, with specific difs if possible?
A. Sure thing. At Criticism of Mormonism, I perceived a POV problem and made some changes accordingly. Another editor reverted me. I contacted him to ask for a discussion on the article talk page, and then asked for some outside comments from trusted editors: [7], [8] and [9]. We then began a dialogue on the article talk page to review the article in detail — one that I momentarily withdrew from due to a move and new job (this is a good reminder to jump back into it, actually). Hope that helps.
5. You are involved in both Esperanza and Community Justice. Could you discuss your work with those projects. In particular, has your work with them given you any experience that would be help for an admin?
A. I appreciate the concept behind Esperanza and am disappointed by some of the conflict that's arisen within it lately. I monitor the Alerts page, where users seeking support when caught up in frustrating conflicts will sometimes add their names (or have their names added), and do my best to drop a line on their talk pages to hear them out and assist in a neutral manner. If this adminship goes through, I'd also seek to take an active role in the admin coaching program when reasonably experienced, a concept that I wish had greater interest on the part of skilled admins.
I see a lot of similiarity between Community Justice and Esperanza; the former is still figuring out its role. It has a number of dedicated users trying to lead it; as I'm not on the recently-elected governing council, I've done my best to suggest ways in which CJ could better define it's aspirations as a Wikipedia organization. In a more informal sense, I try to act as a peacemaker in conflict, as described in other responses above.
That peacemaker/mediator role, to me, is relevant to adminship. In RfAs, sometimes it can be easy to focus solely on the predicted use of specific admin tools without giving consideration to less tangible measures of a potential administrator's duties — those that relate to promoting an enviorment conducive to harmonious, productive article editing. Conflict throws a wrench in that process, so I do what I can to resolve it.
6. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. While I appreciate ShootJar's interest in deterring vandalism, I disagree with his proposal. I feel very strongly about the need to allow anyone and everyone to edit at Wikipedia; the edit tag should only be disabled in rare instances, as it is with the current policy. There are a great number of useful anon and new user edits to articles, and it's a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater to limit those. I also suspect that it would have a chilling effect on the amount of new users signing up.


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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tijuana_Brass&oldid=1085808192"