Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki alf 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Wiki alf

[edit]

Final (92/1/0) ending 01:07 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki alf (talk · contribs) – What to say, what to say. Well, first this is long overdue. In someways similar to BD2412, he was stubborn about not having me nominate him until January. Well, Happy New Year and here we go! Wiki alf has been here for 6 months (since the 20th of June of this last year) and amassed over 10000 edits, 1000 of which are to the Wikipedia namespace and 5000 to articles! A lot of his edits are reverts (he's active in the Counter-Vandalism unit and recently, the respective IRC channel. But, my experience with him goes back further than this. My first folly with this excellent Wikipedian was here where he asked me about the musical composer Edgar Bainton {(an article he started by the way) and I found out his love of music. He's an all-round great guy and should now be tossed the mop. --Celestianpower háblame 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept. --Alf melmac 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - the nominator's supreme excellence has always astounded me. --Celestianpower háblame 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme Furry Foxy Support on Wheels! FireFox 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Furry Cave Man Support I remember asking him to block somebody a couple months ago, couldn't believe he wasn't one then. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, très bien. —Kirill Lokshin 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Extremely incredulous he-isn't-already? support --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Speedy Support Excellent vandal fighter --Jaranda wat's sup 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - Alf is one of the most level headed Wikipedians I've met so far, and I trust him to become a very good admin. I thought he was an admin when I met him, and I think Wikipedia will benefit strongly from his becoming one. --JoanneB 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support all Furry Wikipedians. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support there are several very good editors running for adminship at the same time as me and this one is one of them. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Robert 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per CanadianCaesar. (Just kidding.) Actually, I've seen a bunch of good contributions from Alf. --TantalumTelluride 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support "Isn't he already?" Great admin candidate. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (See additional question below)[reply]
  15. Very strong support - a very good editor -- Francs2000 01:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems like a wonderful user. Xoloz 02:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good editor Olorin28 02:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good stuff. (Aside: I don't think that sockpuppet box is ever appropriate on an admin's user page. Newbies are likely to be confused by it when they call by to castigate you.) -Splashtalk 04:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and totally agree, it'll be doing a disappearing trick if the mop is forthcoming ;) --Alf melmac 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You've gotta be kidding me! --King of All the Franks 05:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I should make it an oppose because he and that rascal pgk made us wait! lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Its high time! Banes 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support and I honestly thought he was one. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Suppa - I heard about them in the news! -- Szvest 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  24. Support--MONGO 10:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. You deserve it. Mo0[talk] 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support --Chazz88 11:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support excellent vandal fighter, I've seen his reverts all over my watchlist. -- Megamix? 12:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- Just stay away from cats :) -- Shinmawa 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Wiki alf's dedication is unquestionable, 10000 edits in 5 months is amazing, as is the fact that he will make good use of the tools. Rje 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: --Bhadani 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support —Wayward Talk 14:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support unlikely to abuse admin. tools. Izehar 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Full support. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Great dedication and motivation, will be a great addition. -- Jbamb 17:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I Can't Believe You're Not Sysop!Sceptre (Talk) 17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. No problem!. - Phaedriel 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. BD2412 T 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. {{subst:RFA cliche 1}} Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support was sure this user already was one.--Alhutch 21:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support no one opposes? ComputerJoe 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Absolutely! I can't believe he wasn't one. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support! An admirable all-around Wikipedian. Sango123 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support (everythign has been said by now) --Doc ask? 00:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. SUPPPORT! WITH THREE Ps, Sorry for coming so late!! SO MUCH FOR BEING IN THE TOP TEN like you wanted, but I am here, again, Support without hesistation, support, support, support, support!!!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Took me forever to get through that long list of edits, I looked at every one! ;) Experienced editor who deserves the support. --Wgfinley 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support ... he's not? Damn, so it wasn't a rollback button that let him beat me to the revert. Oh, the shame! — Zazou 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Big time support, even though I know this probably means the my ability to revert will be seriously hindered by Wiki alf's new rollback button :*-(. Sniffle. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No brainer. --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Very good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Cliché pile-on support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support great editing record --TimPope 10:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Extreme Melmacian Support!  ALKIVAR™ 11:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. --Syrthiss 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. This is definately overdue. I've seen this user around, looks like a good editor, and makes me mad whenever he beats me to reverting a vandalism. ;) --ViolinGirl♪ 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, and a well-deserved one. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I'm a bit leery of the CVU Admin Syndrome, but my experiences with Wiki alf have been nothing but positive. Well, except for the damn edit conflicts I often get with him when RC patrolling. Durnit. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Positive interaction and good edit summaries. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support yep. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. This is a name I am very familiar with when reverting vandalism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, I though he was already an admin. JeremyA 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, what can I say, he reverted vandalism on my user page ;) - FrancisTyers 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. He's a people alien. PJM 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. KHM03 11:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Full Lemmy Kilmister Support Notable, all round Good Egg! Hamster Sandwich 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good editing record. --Kefalonia 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Thunderbrand 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Definitely long overdue Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, we need anti-vandal fighters. --« Wikiacc » 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, user has been around for a sufficient length of time and definitely seems to know Wikipedia policy. --PS2pcGAMER 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Very deserving of a mop and bucket.--Dakota ~ ε 04:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I first met wiki alf when he helped me on my talk page with a question I had asked. I've since met him numerous times beating me to reverts! delldot | talk 07:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. helpful and useful. Kingturtle 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Johann Wolfgang 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support DaGizza Chat 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support we need admins like Wiki alf --rogerd 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support We need more Wikipedians like Wiki alf, let alone more admins like him. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Could have sworn he was one. the wub "?!" 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support if for no other reason than how many vandalism reverts I've seen from this editor. Well done, give him the tools so he can continue this job. I am another editor who alf has beaten to the revert. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. His mop is long overdue. --Jay (Reply) 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Just jumping on the bandwagon here :)--Shanel 08:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Sir Tan Lee. -- Essjay · Talk 13:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Sorry I am so late, other ongoing discussions have kept me away! Ian13ID:540053 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. WikiAlf is one of the most easy to work with users on the 'pedia! The Wookieepedian 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Will make a fine administrator indeed. Hall Monitor 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - yes, of course! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 10:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Dedication is amazing. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 17:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - definitely.--Bookandcoffee 17:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. -- DS1953 talk 17:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. No evidence that this editor groks the Tao of Wiki. Endless vandal reverting does not, in itself, qualify oneself to be an administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Water-brother, share with me the groking of the ways of the wiki I am an egg in. I am sorry you are unable to see the merits of the work I've been doing as a contributor, general editor, and as a vandal-fighter (that task is endless though my edits in that direction are not). --Alf melmac 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only does he not grope the Towel of Wiki, he doesn't have the Wiki Sense, that only myself, and Kelly Martin, have, which is the sense of knowing who does not Grope the Towel of Wiki. --Jay (Reply) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.

Questions for the candidate
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. I can see from the backlog and the speedy deletions that there is a lot of work to be done, that'll attract some of my attention, though I reckon intervention against vandalism will probably be taking the lion's share to start with until I get into some of the other administration areas. I will also involve myself more in the discussions about policy as my contributions to those have been fairly light to date. --Alf melmac 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I like having started the (still underdeveloped) Winchester Castle and Porterhouse Blue because they needed to be articles and I think I made a reasonable start on them. I like my 4,000th edit, for obvious reasons :) I particularly like Warrior on the Edge of Time because of the way it's still growing without my input, although it's overdue an edit... --Alf melmac 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 not been involved in any stressful edit conflicts. I might make the odd revert to 'sensitive' articles that are having editorial tussles - I've normally realized it and undone whatever I did and beat a graceful retreat. --Alf melmac 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addtional questions for the candidate

4. When should a block be lifted prior to the time placed by another admin, other then to extend the block? (Question added by xaosflux Talk/CVU)
A. A block might be lifted earlier than scheduled when a floating IP is the issue and IP change cannot be forced. Another example might be the need to amend the edit summary (if current practice is correct, that's only an observation, I haven't actually found that in policy yet), which would be unlikely to include an extension to the block. I might disagree with a block and after having contacted the original blocker an agreement has been made to unblock, or there might (this is an area I will be asking for coaching on) be a range block issue, again contacting the original blocker first would be, in my book, a prerequisite. --Alf melmac 01:37, 1 January 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wiki_alf_2&oldid=1080622098"