Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/After Midnight

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

After Midnight

Final: (70/0/0); ended 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to bring into this water-torture chamber After Midnight. He registered his account in April of 2006 and has been editing actively since July of the same year; editing in a balanced manner across the spectrum of namespaces. Some of his most notable work includes categories pertaining to the Miss USA pageant as well as March 2007 in sports and April 2007 in sports. Other contributions of his include vandalism reversion and miscellaneous work in the Template namespace and many AfDs, MfDs, and RfDs. All of his contributions seem are helpful, and — coupled with his account's age and experience — is ready to apply for the noble job of a custodian. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Cremepuff222 - I first met After Midnight on the IRC, #wikipedia-bootcamp, which is strong evidence that he is willing to patiently help new users. He seems like a very nice person on IRC, and conversations with other users show a strong understanding of Wikipedia and its goals. I'm 100% certain that After Midnight will wield administrative tools responsibly (he is a father after all-see his userpage). Like Magnus said, After Midnight has made contributions to the XfD's, templates, and RC patrol, so I believe After Midnight would make a great and productive administrator. *Cremepuff222* 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to be nominated and accept. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been here for just over a year now. During that time I’ve been pretty active, once I got rolling, with the exception of a 2 month break that I took for some personal issues. I’ve seen many things change over that year, personally, professionally, and here on the wiki. I never set a target for when I would consider adminship, other than that I would never nominate myself. Some people mentioned it to me before I took my break, but I didn’t feel that I was ready yet, at that time. Now, with several more months of experience, I think that the time is at hand. I look forward to this process regardless of the result. I’ll try to keep up with answering any questions which are posted, but there are some days when editing at work is not an option, so on those days, it could take me until my evening before I can respond. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I’ve done a fair amount of work in the XFDs, primarily CFD, so I’ll probably work on closing those as one of my primary functions. I also have seen several pages that were moved via cut-and-paste, and I’ve always wanted to be able to help fixing these, so I’ll probably spend some time at WP:SPLICE, not that I’ve noticed much of a backlog there ever. I’ve also been forced to get somewhat adept with templates, so I can help with {{editprotected}} requests on those. I imagine that over time, I will branch out. I do have some history with patrolling and reporting to AIV. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as article-writing goes, I’m not the featured article guy. I don’t think I write great prose, and I’m probably more well suited to "gnome-like" activity. I started out doing a great deal of work sifting through auto racing articles and more recently have been working on pageant articles. When I started on the pageants, I think that there were close to 1000 articles in Category:Beauty pageant contestants and now it is almost down to 100, as I’ve been getting the articles diffused into the categories for the individual pageants. I also spend a bit of time at Portal:Current events/Sports, and am frequently the user who does the monthly archiving there as well as maintaining the {{Current events box}} which is used by several portals. Once and I while, I have monitored the Help desk and Category:Wikipedians looking for help, but I’ve recently discovered the bootcamp on IRC, so now that will be easier to monitor. I would like to think that I am very versatile and have worked in many of the namespaces. I don’t shy away from trying to make an impact where I can and have made some changes to some things that could have been pretty visible if I messed them up, such as the current events box, {{S-hou}} and Portal:Current events/News Browser. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I’ve never been involved in anything that most people would consider a conflict. I have never been blocked and I don’t think I have ever received even a level 1 warning, except those which have been posted by a vandal and then either been reverted or rescinded as error. I try to take great care to chose my words so as not to offend, but on the very rare occasions where I have rubbed someone the wrong way, I’ve clarified my intentions quickly and have no grudges towards anyone, nor do I think that anyone holds one against me. When people disagree, consensus usually finds the clear path. I’ve been subject to the same types of behavior that all users see when they have been here for a while. I’ve had my page vandalized, usually someone else will come along and fix it before I notice. I’ve seen tendentious editors; I try to discuss things with them on their talk page or on that of the article in question. When necessary, I’ve reported users to AIV, AN/3RR, AN/I or RFCU. There is always someone around to deal with things, and since I know that, I don’t really ever need to get stressed. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. A friendly reminder from MER-C - Have you checked the strength of your password at [1], due to the recent compromized accounts?
A: I'm not really keen to type my password into the tool (especially given my current need for sleep), but I am very familiar with what constitutes a strong password (upper/lower/numeric/specials/length) and I increased the strength of my password about the same time that this RFA went up. --After Midnight 0001 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from falsedef
5. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no reliable sources to verify its claims. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?
A. Due to the nature of the hypothetical, I'm not going to get too deep into the questions of who is right or wrong, etc. but I will address this from a couple angles. 1) If the consensus is saying that the "contentions edit" is wrong and they are trying to post an opposite view without sources then we have to consider things such as "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources" and "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". 2) If the consensus is trying to remove the material then we have to consider things such as whether the material is relevant (i.e. the well sourced material may be more appropriately placed on another article) and any interplay between attribution and NPOV. In either scenario, if talk page discussion has not resolved the issue then other parties should be involved. WP:30 and WP:RFC and WP:MEDCAB are all options that should be considered. Hopefully the issue has not degraded to the point where WP:3RR is an issue and that a truce has been achieved so that no protection is required. I know that's a bit of a long answer, but hey, that's what you get with hypothetical situations. --After Midnight 0001 12:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Stammer
6. Concerning your reply to Question 5 by falsedef, could you explain what you mean by "exceptional source"? Are "exceptional sources" qualitatively different from reliable sources? Stammer 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Sorry, I should have provided a link. I was quoting from WP:RS and meant it as this. --After Midnight 0001 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Simply south
7. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 14:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Secondly, i have no idea why most of the question is bolding or in italics. Fixed. Moreschi Talk 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Overall, I think that I have done a good job here. There are always things that we can each do better; I am no exception. My life experience has taught me that it is best not to live with regret. When I have erred, I have acknowledged my error to myself and to the others involved, to the best of my ability. Since none of those errors have been great in the grand scheme of things, it has been pretty easy to move forward from each of them. Certainly, I would like to be able to add more content to many of the articles that I have created as stubs, but I am consoled by the fact that there are many other editors here who can do that in my absence. --After Midnight 0001 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/After Midnight before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Well, I thought he was an admin, but apparently not. I think I will drown in RfA's if people keep up this nomination spree. bibliomaniac15 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as co-nominator. *Cremepuff222* 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I applaud the consistency of the edits. the_undertow talk 00:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Won't abuse the tools. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Should have done this awhile ago. Jmlk17 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support with my pants on: (ask bibliomaniac if you want to know where the joke came from) As nominator. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even want to ask. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's from an RFA. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I remember that now! Heh, heh, heh... :-) *Cremepuff222* 01:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Although it's before midnight, I'll still support this user. He's demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and it looks like he could certainly use the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support only if he changes his name to 12:01. John Reaves (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Clapton Support! well to be technical jj cale support. ~ Arjun 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Haeyupppp Grutness...wha? 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I did not find out till a few seconds ago that he accepted. I would have been number 3 if I had known. Anyway, here is my support. --Random Say it here! 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support--Húsönd 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A no-brainer. Xiner (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I see his great contributions all the time. A fine candidate. --Mschel 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Looks like a good candidate for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Enthusiastic support -- Y not? 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Most certainly. Daniel Bryant 06:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support has always impressed me -- Samir 07:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support looks good. —Anas talk? 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. It's not even noon yet but I'll support anyway. >Radiant< 09:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, it's too late here to come up with a time-related joke. Eh, will that one do? :) – Rianaऋ 09:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support - yes, nice chap, will do well. Per nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems like an excellent editor--St.daniel talk 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Great edit summary usage, great contributions to the Project, I see no reason to oppose, good luck to you! The Sunshine Man 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Will make a great admin!! --SunStar Net talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. A top editor, good luck! Majorly (hot!) 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support -Damn Iam late :).. wow this editor actually listened to me and is now up for RfA..One if not the best Editors On Wiki..Has contributed to everyproject and has the potential and ability to use the tools wisely..----Cometstyles 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great user, dedicated to the project, very experienced. κaτaʟavenoTC 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Default. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Excellent editor with contributions across the board, good answers to questions, seems to have a firm grasp on what's going on. I couldn't possibly not support this candidate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Looks good and am confident he will do well. JodyB talk 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. It's all gonna be peaches and cream if he gets adminship. I'm confident he won't cause talk and suspicion, nor will he give an exhibition. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support- Good answers, and shows great dedication to the project- would make a great admin Thunderwing 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I particularly like his reasonable answer on the password question. DGG 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support keep on ramblin'. The Rambling Man 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, consistent editor. --Phoenix 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good answers and solid wikignoming, but do give article writing a try: you might be surprised to find you enjoy it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support in agreement with Xoloz. Acalamari 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Great editor (good answers to questions too). — Wenli 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support experienced and understands policy well. falsedef 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I've dealt with him before, and he's always been good with me! - NDCompuGeek 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I'm seeing nothing especially evil, adminship is no big deal. Why not? The candidate is most probably not crazy. Moreschi Talk 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - good editor, should be just fine as an admin - Alison ☺ 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Excellent editor. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. The third sentence in Moreschi's comment (#45) inspires a lot of confidence in the candidate. ;) If anyone wants the real behind why I'm supporting ... well, after reading After Midnight's answers and looking through his contributions history, I can't think of a single reason to oppose. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. – Steel 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Real96 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Terence 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Long overdue. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good luck!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Hope you enjoy your mop. --Bachrach44 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support wholeheartedly. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support – WjBscribe 02:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Best of luck, enjoy it. Philippe 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: A little late, but user has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent. I don't see anything wrong with this user. Should be a great assest as an administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support John254 00:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Zaxem 07:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Good candidate. Captain panda 13:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support excellent candidate. WooyiTalk to me? 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  65. Support. Good, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Slade (TheJoker) 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support if you were a nacho, I would dip you only in the finest salsa. --Infrangible 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support it is my pleasure to support this nomination. After Midnight has been an invaluable contributor to all sorts of articles relating to beauty pageants and is fantastic to work with. He is always a fair voice on any issues where there is disagreement between editors. I believe he would be an excellent admin. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, good editor, I hope would be a good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Rettetast 19:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/After_Midnight&oldid=1089910907"