Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Updating archived link |
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 86:
#'''Support''' (Changed from oppose) Per answer to question 6. He knows the difference between a block and a ban, he just slipped up. Everyone slips up once in a while. --[[User:Mschel|<font color="red">M</font><font color="green">s</font><font color="black">c</font><font color="blue">h</font><font color="brown">e</font><font color="orange">l</font>]] 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' The ban/block minor slipup does not worry me in the least. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]][[User:Abeg92/ea|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]][[User talk:Abeg92|g92]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Abeg92|contribs]]</small> 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The ban/block slip-up was a very simple mistake. I disagree with folks voting neutralor oppose solely on grounds that such an error means you will not be a good admin. So much else suggests that you will be a fine an admin. I just can't see making a big deal over this.<em>—[[User:Gaff|<
#'''Support''' - Per the answers to the questions. Since it was just a slip up, no reason to opppose. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]][[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">оr</font>]]</font>''' 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup> [[User:Cowman109/Smile|<font color="darkblue">'''Spread'''</font>]] [[Wikipedia: WikiLove|<font color="darkblue">'''the love!'''</font>]] </sup> 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 98:
#'''Support''' the block/ban confusion (although relatively minor) having been cleared up, this editor is a good candidate, and should do well. [[User:Carom|Carom]] 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The issue appears to be cleared up; otherwise, a good editor. [[User:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#008000">Jmlk</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jmlk17|<span style="color:#000080">1</span>]][[User_talk:Jmlk17|<span style="color:#800000">7</span>]] 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Glad to see your slip isn't going to cost you. You seem to already be helpful to others based on your talk page. I'm sure you'll continue to be a fine resource. <span style="font-family:"'Arial Bold';">[[User:JodyB|<
#'''Support''' <clichè> I thought you already were an admin! </clichè>
#'''Support''' Everything seems good. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Runewiki777|Runewiki777]] ([[User talk:Runewiki777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Runewiki777|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
#'''Support''' Appears to be a good user to be admining. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Why not? THe only reason why people are opposing is because the he confused blocking and banning. Big deal, as long as it keeps vandals away, it works with me. Also his answers to the questions seems good. -[[User:ScotchMB|ScotchMB]] 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 107:
#:<s>'''Support'''. I appreciate the response to Q11. The links he's provided - though to fairly minor incidents - help to show us how he interacts with people in a way that benefits Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe he won't continue to do so as an admin, so I support now. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)</s>
#::I've oscillated a lot here, but I think I've settled at a weak oppose. I'm sorry that what prompted me to swivel back was not Pax's fault, but here's the thing. The fact that this RfA is so easily mired in confusion highlights the fact that his self-nom is so lacking in content. If I was too quick to oppose based on sockpuppet concerns, I was also too quick to support just because he answered my question. I'm sorry for only adding to the confusion. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Supoort'''Nice responses to all questions, good editor should be given a nice mop as a reward
#'''Support''' No one would use SPA socks to support their own RfA - that's just silly. This is clearly a third party trying to disrupt the process. I see no reason not to trust Pax with the tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' The answers are quite good. If you're doing this for the purpose of gaining admin rights to destroy Wikipedia, you're putting up a good cover :) . [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanGerbil10]]<small>[[User_talk:RyanGerbil10|(Don't ask 'bout Camden)]]</small> 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' - Answers to questions are reasonable. Mild concerns re. knowledge of policy but No Big Deal. [[WP:SPA]] accounts do not bother me in the slightest, post-checkuser - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#558; font-family: comic sans ms; font-variant: small-caps">'''A<
#'''Support''' - as someone who uses the heck out of AWB myself. Some of us really ENJOY doing gnomish things, and still believe they're significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Wish the candidate the best. [[User:Philippe|Philippe]] 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#:I hope I haven't upset you with my comments below. To be clear, I value editors who do gnomish things, revert vandalism, and use AWB. It's important work. This isn't a judgement on the value of the user's contributions, which I think is well-established. Adminship isn't a validation of the worth of one's contributions, though. I think Pax is a good editor, whether or not this RfA goes through (and it appears, at present, that it will). '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No problems here. Glad to voice my supprt. --<
#'''Support''' the reasoning of WJBscribe. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Oppose votes don't convince me, in fact all the crossed out ones show me something.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 148:
#'''Oppose''' at this time; not yet confident in this user's understanding and implementation of the more arcane bits of Wikipedia policy, and while gnomishness is absolutely useful, it rarely requires the bit. Maybe another time. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per low Talk page edits. An admin must be more than a vandal fighter - s/he must be experienced in interacting with others. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Nearly 4,000 mainspace edits and only '''58''' edits to article talk. That's way too low. We need admins who've done something other than revert vandalism. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#'''Oppose''', answers to the questions don't convince me that the experience is there, I don't sense confidence [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#Generally not confident with communication, which is so important for admins. '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 154:
*'''Comment''' To me it seems like your standards are a bit to high. All that we need is more admins who will be active and reliable. If that person does not have many content to articles then so what. Also, it is vandal fighters who need the tools the most.--[[User:Sir james paul|James, La gloria è a dio]] 04:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Neutral'''
:<s>'''Neutral''' Was there a simple reason that you typed ban rather than block? You should explain that soon, before the oppose votes pile high.<em>—[[User:Gaff|<
# I am worried about the mainspace contributions, as most of the contribs seem to be AWB edits, and you have a minimal amount of article expansion edits. Apart from that, your request is fine. --[[User:DarkFalls|<big><font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">''Dark <font color="#120a8f">''Falls''</font></font></big>]] <sup>[[User talk:DarkFalls|talk]]</sup> 09:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
#Your explanation seems OK, but I'm worried you might make similar errors in your role as an admin, leading to confusion. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''[[User:Majorly/MU|meet]]'') 11:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 160:
::I wish to withdraw my neutral !vote; Pax has been cleared of all suspicions. [[User:Cows fly kites|Cows fly kites]] [[User:Aecis#Cows fly kites|(Aecis)]] [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Segregation and security|<sup>Rule</sup>]]<sup>/</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Cows fly kites|<sup>Contributions</sup>]] 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#
:''The above adminship 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>
| |||