Gaza Strip and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→'''Comments''': add suggested further reading for this nomination in the comments section |
|||
Line 1:
===[[User:Weyes|Weyes]]===
'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a|action=edit}} Vote here] (18/7/0) ending 16:23, [[30 June]] 2005 (UTC)'''
'''Bureaucrat Statement'''<BR>
[[User:Raul654|Raul654]] and I have assented to nullify the old vote on Weyes and start this as a new nomination, without prejudice. The reason for this action is that there were considerations of voting irregularities that tainted the earlier vote so that it was impractical to properly determine consensus, even with extensions. By "without prejudice," I mean that we are making no judgment whatever on the quality of Weyes' nomination or Weyes as user, and voters should '''not''' take this restarting of the vote as any commentary for or against the candidacy itself. '''Please''' look at this candidacy fresh. '''If you voted before, you must vote again for your vote to count.''' The original candidate statement and the candidate's original responses to the questions follow. Thank you, [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 04:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----
Ok, fine, I give up. A few days ago [[User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]] was kind enough to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Weyes2|nominate me]] for adminship, but I turned it down as I wasn't sure I wanted to commit myself that much. However it would appear that today one of the drains under the information superhighway burst and leaked large amounts of virtual sewage onto Recent Changes, which made it very hard to keep up; if the community approves I guess I'd like that mop you offered me after all. I hope you'll allow me to bend the rules a little and renominate myself so shortly after my previous RfA. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 18:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
===='''Support'''====
#'''Support'''. A good RC patroller who would benefit from the admin tools. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; deserves the rollback button for his work on RC patrol alone. Good contributor. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk) ]] 05:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. His contributions and grunt work far outweigh the (largely removed from context) two points being brought against him. <s>'''Tentatively neutral'''. Was there ever plain comment from ''Weyes himself'' on that "[[User talk:Ozdusters|Ozdusters]]" newbie incident? I don't like all the rhetoric from the last round's opposition, but would like to know his take.</s> [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#:At length, see the comments section of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2|old RfA]]. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 05:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
#::Apologies and noted, I'd not read through the old page's closing comments recently. [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#Support (and as this is likely to get long, I've added headers. I wanted to add support last time, but the file was just too damn long to edit). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 06:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>Ingoolemo</font>]] [[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue><sup>talk</font></sup>]] 06:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
# Hope he makes it this time. Weyes deserves our support. This vote is also not a battleground for policy discussions. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#Support. No undeniable evidence says that I should oppose Weyes' nomination, and I have only had good experience with him in the past. He has done very good work in the WP namespace, and should be given a mop and bucket to carry out this behind-the-scenes work. [[User:Harro5|Harro5]] 06:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Seems to do good work. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 06:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Yes, there are two or ten examples of Weyes having behaved more grumpy than prefered among his thousand dealings with newbies, but it's human and I think he knows when he hasn't been at his best and has learned from them. Anyway, they are very few cases that don't ruin my picture of Weyes as a hardworking, civil and well meaning wikiholic who would clearly benefit from having a mop. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 06:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' once more. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 07:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Same as last time. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. He shows an indefatigable willingness to clean up vandalism and other abuses (such as link spamming). I note some of the worries expressed by [[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] below, and I hope that Weyes will pay heed — but on the whole I think that he'll make a good admin. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Good RC patrol effort, and mistakes made were easily fixable newbie mistakes. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] | [[User:Linuxbeak/Desk|Desk]] 10:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' just like last time. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 11:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''', as before: Notwithstanding valid issues brought up at the previous vote, I have enough trust in Weyes for him to be given admin privileges. [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 11:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#<u>Third</u> time now that I've voted both for and against this candidate (shush, JRM!). That actually means I voted SIX times! Which is pretty sweet, if you ask me, which I hope for. (still on break, btw, just wanted to see how his RFA was doing, and to my surprise... SIX times!). [[User:El C|El_C]] 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- extra support for fighting link spam --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 13:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
#Still '''Support''', as per the last RFA. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 13:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===='''Oppose'''====
#--[[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] | [[User talk:Boothy443|comhrÚ]] 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC), what a farce.
#: What, you mean your opposition? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As per previous vote. -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]] 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' as per reasons set out in my previous vote. -- [[User:Joolz|Joolz]] 07:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' because I still do not trust this candidate's judgement despite the support now and earlier by people whose opinions I respect. I note that Weyes' edit summaries have become more explanatory and I appreciate that. I also admire the good humour which he has displayed throughout this battering process. I remain concerned, however, about Weyes' tendency to remove external links wholesale and the apparent lack of doubt or reconsideration when the invalidity of a link is questioned. Similarly potentially misleading oversimplification in debate worries me. All this was covered in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2|previous vote]] so I will not rehash details here. I still see Weyes as a valuable industrious editor but I do not feel comfortable handing the delete button to someone with these behavioural patterns. I would be happy to support a renomination after a few months of demonstrated discussion before wholesale reversions, informative accurate edit summaries, accurate argument, and consistent courtesy.—[[User:TheoClarke|Theo ]] [[User_talk:TheoClarke|(Talk)]] 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Again. --[[User:Mrfixter|Mrfixter]] 09:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' again. Same reasons as Theo, same reasons as previous vote. I think Weyes needs more time to soften his edges and temper his judgements. --[[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|focused]] 12:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As stated earlier. --[[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] 13:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===='''Neutral'''====
#
===='''Comments'''====
*Everyone should read [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Weyes extended]] to discuss and understand the highly unusual "extend, extend, revote" process used in this Request for Adminship. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|focused]] 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Any new users to this RFA should read [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2]] to see prior arguments in support and opposition, as they are unlikely to be reposted in full here, but are fully relevant to this nomination. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|focused]] 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===='''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 read the page about [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators]] and the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]].)
::'''A'''. I mainly expect to be doing RC patrol, it's kind of relaxing and you can stop and start at any time you want, which works for me. I don't think I'll become a regular maintainance page handler (like VfD, TfD, CfD, Copyvio), though I might help out incidentally if there's a large backlog to clear or something (and I should point out that I think the people that do this are doing a wonderful task at keeping Wikipedia running and are the true unsung heroes of Wikipedia).
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
::'''A'''. I haven't made any major contributions to articles (I'm not good with prose, as the metaphor above amply demonstrates), but I do think [[WP:AIV]] is becoming a useful tool to complement [[WP:VIP]].
:'''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'''. The most annoying conflict so far has been the one over the cleaning up of external links and what is and isn't appropriate (please join in the discussion [[WP:VPP#Wikipedia:External_links|here]]), however as with most of what I do there's no long ongoing discussion and working out compromises to be done, I can take a day off wikipedia without inconveniencing cocontributors and go play outside instead. Usually, when I come back the next day things seem a lot less important.
|