Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ERcheck: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Runcorn (talk | contribs)
8,425 edits
Runcorn (talk | contribs)
8,425 edits
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ERcheck|ERcheck]]===
===[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ERcheck|ERcheck]]===
'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ERcheck|action=edit}} Vote here] (64/0/1)'''
'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ERcheck|action=edit}} Vote here] (64/0/0)'''
'''Ending 20:30, [[2006-07-30]] (UTC)'''
'''Ending 20:30, [[2006-07-30]] (UTC)'''


Revision as of 07:17, 30 July 2006

ERcheck

Vote here (64/0/0) Ending 20:30, 2006-07-30 (UTC)

ERcheck (talk · contribs) – For me it is a privilege to nominiate ERcheck for adminship. ERcheck has been with us since October 20, 2005. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles. The amount of biographies written by ERcheck has earned him the nickname "Bio Man" by his peers. ERcheck has made numerous contributions to the Marine Corps portal, Military History - WikiProject and is very active in the following areas: Neglected articles, Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol. He is also a active member and participant of United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject and of the Military history WikiProject. The thing that most impresses me about ERcheck is not so much his dedication and edit count (over 13,000) but, the way he handles himself with others. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. ERcheck is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Strong Support as nom. Tony the Marine 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support excellent editor who deserves the tools--Looper5920 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support, conscientious and dedicated editor. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Definitely admin material. --Tuspm(C | @) 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support per nom. Roy A.A. 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yanksox 21:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support seems to be an excellent candidate who has proved his trustworthiness to the community multiple times over and I see no reason not to give him some extra buttons so he can further help Wikipedia hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support per above. Seems trustworthy, great article contributions, a treasure chest of image uploads, and WP: involvement (albiet a bit low recently, but the serious contributions and talk involvement make up for it).Voice-of-All 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support Candidate is incredibly dedicated and would be a great administrator. --Murcielago 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. Alphachimp talk 23:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support astounding contributions. This Fire Burns Always 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Free Support (ok sorry, I watched Free Willy 1,2,3 and now I like whales a lot) -- Tawker 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks good to me. Good luck! --Diehard2k5 | Talk 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, obviously. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 13,397 Supports Absolutely. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Merovingian - Talk 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Su-su-su-su-support- Good contributor. "Antonio Iron d**k Martin"
  21. Support per nom. Go Yankees 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support dedicated editors make good admins abakharev 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. DarthVader 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - refreshing zero thought required vote when our paths have crossed I've always been impressed - Glen 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom. It looks like this user would make a good Admin. Stormscape 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Thought he already was one. 1ne 07:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom TruthCrusader 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support he has proven to be an excellent member of the community and deserves the mop. --Draicone (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support good user. Seivad 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Stifle 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was placed by User:Sti!fIe impersonating User:Stifle. Raven4x4x 12:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I am taking Tony the Marine's word for it. In the RFA's I checked the last couple months I spent more than an hour on each candidate looking through their history. My main concern is that an admin is courteous and encourages others. Although I am fully aware Wikipedia needs all the help it can get to counter vandalism, I tend to initially oppose candidates who are mostly concerned about AIV tools because their approach is mainly to stop others rather than build the encyclopedia and I've seen too many RC patrollers ignorantly abusing newcomers. --HResearcher 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, lots of experience.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support A great contributor! --Siva1979Talk to me 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - no question about that... NCurse work 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support: No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Friday (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Looks like a good candidate for admin status. Good answers to questions below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support absolutely. He deserves the mop. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Why shouldn't I? Great user. Kalani [talk] 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Robert 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Supportper nom --Mmx1 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, without reservations. Sango123 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Ticks all the right boxes ;) Thε Halo Θ 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support per nomination and other users. Go Yankees 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has accidently voted twice. The first vote was made on 24 July 2006. DarthVader 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --JohnnyDemon 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    IP -- Samir धर्म 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Recurring AOL vandal. Vote stricken. Naconkantari 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ERCheck is a good user, so support. Samiraidif 08:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor blocked indef. Naconkantari 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Pile on support. Themindset 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support DVD+ R/W 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support--Jusjih 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 10:29Z
  52. Support Doesn't get much better than this. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. support per nom. ViridaeTalk 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support.  Grue  16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support yes. —Khoikhoi 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:07, 28 July '06
  57. Strong support per above. Take a mop and bucket —Minun Spiderman 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support: --Bhadani 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per above Bucketsofg✐ 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Yeah.—Jared A. Hunt 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom. MichaelZ526 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per nom. Seems like a very trustworthy contributor and I've seen him around. -- Imoeng 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per nom and above. You'll make a great mop-wielder. ShaunES 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  64. Support Seems devoted and conscientious.--Runcorn 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral sorry, contribution list is very bland, I could not be sufficiently critical.--Musaabdulrashid 09:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. never mind, I just had a bad feeling--Musaabdulrashid 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js
Username ERcheck
Total edits 13397
Distinct pages edited 7365
Average edits/page 1.819
First edit 02:33, 20 October 2005
 
(main) 7317
Talk 1626
User 319
User talk 1923
Image 571
Image talk 1
Template 6
Template talk 19
Category 21
Category talk 4
Wikipedia 1021
Wikipedia talk 105
Portal 456
Portal talk 8
  • ERcheck's edit count from VoA's JS
Viewing contribution data for user ERcheck (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 70 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 15, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.88% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 62.65 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 531 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 376 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.76% (88)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 6.8% (340)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 20.42% (1021)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 14.5%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 353 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3041 | Average edits per page: 1.64 | Edits on top: 31.44%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 81.38% (4069 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 5.1% (255 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.4% (670 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 41.22% (2061) | Article talk: 24.54% (1227)
User: 2.48% (124) | User talk: 19.56% (978)
Wikipedia: 1.82% (91) | Wikipedia talk: 1.46% (73)
Image: 4.1% (205)
Template: 0.04% (2)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 4.2% (210)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.5% (25)
Voice-of-All 22:53, 23 July 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: Initially, I anticipate that I will contribute in vandal patrol — monitoring and taking action on WP:AIV. Earlier in my days on Wikipedia, I spent time on RC patrol, but was hampered by the lack of non-admin rollback; now, with rollback privileges, it will be much easier to quickly revert vandalism and warn editors. There are times when I find that it would be beneficial to have additional admin help to more quickly block vandals. I also plan to contribute to in CSD, as there seems to be an occasional backlog that needs a few more admins to assist in clearing.
As I gain more experience, I expect to take on chores in other areas, such as COPYVIO and CAT:PROD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I find the greatest satisfaction on Wikipedia comes from working with other editors — collaborating on articles/projects/tasks. It gives me an opportunity to add to my general knowledge, foster a sense of community, and improve the quality of Wikipedia. For example, after making some edits to a few articles that were part of the Scouting WikiProject, I met User:Rlevse and have had the opportunity to contribute to the article on George Thomas Coker; and receive helpful hints from Rlevse — both directly and from reviewing his Featured Portal. I’m currently assisting on maintaining the USMC Portal — which again, happened though a chance meeting with User:Looper5920 when editing a Marine Corps article. I’ve been recently collaborating with User:Marine 69-71 on a few articles on notable Hispanics, helping with fact finding and references — which has improved the accuracy of the articles and has given me the opportunity to branch out and meet new contributors.
In my early days on Wikipedia, I spent a lot of time on patrolling new articles. Identifying articles for speedy deletion is a good way to the maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Likewise, participating in AFDs has been an area of contribution that I have enjoyed — in certain cases, being able to ferret out hoaxes, or even more gratifying, to expand an occasional article that should be a keeper. (An early example is Dan Rice, which seemed like nonsense, but before voting on AFD, I did a bit of research, expanded the article enough for it to become a speedy keep within an hour of nomination.)
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: I’ve recently found a number of articles / editors that have been the source of controversy. When I find a place that stepping in (directing the discussion to the appropriate talk page/venue) with information on Wiki guidelines or additional information that might shed a new light, I have tried to do such. It can be frustrating to see how edit warring can disrupt the constructive contributions of well-intentioned editors; at those times, I step back, and on occasion, I seek the advice of experienced editors/admins. With the dispute resolution processes in place on Wikipedia, remaining level-headed and following guidelines does work.


Optional question from Lar:

4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, Interesting questions.

  • I was vaguely aware of the Category:Administrators open to recall, having noted it on a few admins' pages. However, I was not familiar with the discussions that lead up to it. I've read the interesting discussion on the talk page and noted that it is a relatively new process with just a few months run time. I am not aware of any admins who have been "recalled". Are there any? I'm in a wait and see mode on this — wanting to see how it works in practice. The underlying question seems to be, "Should there be a process that keeps things in check, rather than have a situation be escalated to the point that an Arb Com intervention is necessary?" I guess I've been on the rather quiet side of Wikipedia — I've not seen any outrageous behavior by admins; in fact, in all my dealings, I've found the admins to be civil and usually quite cordial and very helpful. (That might indicate that, in general, the RFA process works — giving the extra admin privileges to those who can be "trusted". )
  • I was not aware of the "Rouge admins". Interesting concept and amusing reading. It's always nice to infuse a little humor into tense situations. (Though I do wonder whether or not those who could benefit most from it — those who believe in the cabal, believe that the admins are a pack of rabid wolves seeking to devour newbies and POV trolls — would have the humor lost on them, taking an "I told you so attitude". Would I be put in the Rouge admin category? I think it unlikely .... just doesn't fit my personality. But, there are only a few things in life that I will say "never" to.

I know it took me some time to response, but I did want to give it some thought. I didn't answer all of your questions directly, but I hope I addressed the gist of your inquiries. — ERcheck (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ERcheck&oldid=66651807"