Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Black Falcon

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Black Falcon

Closed as successful by Cecropia 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC) at (82/0/0); Scheduled end time 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon (talk · contribs) - I am honored to be a part of Black Falcon's nomination for adminship. Black Falcon made his first edits to Wikipedia in mid-2005, and started contributing on a regular basis in November of 2006, and has amassed a very considerable contribution history. In the handful of significant interactions I've had with him, I have been struck at his insight into how Wikipedia works and how it should work, and also at his extremely constructive manner of discussion. The more admins we can have like him, the better. Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon (talk · contribs) - I am delighted to join in this nomination. Black Falcon has amazing versatility, working in policy discussions, XfDs, WikiProjects, vandal fighting, detail for templates and articles, and substantial mainspace edits. He's even able to be productive with such contentious articles as Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. I have never seen him make a foolish move. DGG 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another co-nomination - I have a great deal of respect for Black Falcon's overall dedication to this project. To cite one example of his diligence, I remember in recent weeks on WP:MFD that he listed a dozen inactive Wikiprojects, and offered carefully worded reasons for deletion instead of just saying "Delete - inactive." He also listed several dozen items, I can't remember what exactly, in a mass nomination, where he could have just said, "Here's a few, and the rest are at (some link)." Black Falcon's work ethic makes him the perfect addition to our team of backlog busters. YechielMan 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and again thank my nominators for their show of trust. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Black Falcon and I would like to be considered for adminship. I have been actively editing since late November 2006 and have a good grasp of our policies, guidelines, and processes. I spend quite a bit of time on Wikipedia and feel that I could contribute more and more efficiently as an administrator. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 30 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 would initially help out with those tasks with which I am familiar (see below). Over time, I would branch out into other areas as needed.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am not a featured article writer; most of my mainspace contributions consist of improvements to low- and medium-quality articles, many of which I encounter at AfD or in Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. See, for instance, my edits to Abduction of Russian diplomats in Iraq (diff), Ed Rudolph Velodrome (diff), New Utopia (diff), and Reformed Mennonite (diff). That said, I have started over two dozen articles, of which I am proudest of Afrobarometer, Andrew Moravcsik, Karbala provincial headquarters raid, and The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (not necessarily in that order). Finally, I am currently working on List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics, which I hope to turn into a featured list. So far, I have taken the article from this to this, but it still needs some reorganisation, a lead paragraph, additional descriptive content (a "Notes" section or column), and probably a name change ... so, there's still a little way to go.

In the Wikipedia namespace, I do a lot of work to streamline processes and projects by, for instance, organising maintenance categories, nominating for deletion inactive/redundant pages, and other wikignome tasks. One of the more time-consuming things I did involved creating and populating Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by country and Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by U.S. state. I was motivated to create the two subcategories after the main category had become populated by nearly 300 pages, making it virtually inaccessible to new users.

Finally, I recently ventured into the Portal: namespace (though I was aware of it long before, it held little interest for me). I began working on Portal:Africa a few days ago and intend to nominate it for featured status in early June. It still needs quite a bit of work but I have, thus far, automated the rotation of the featured article and picture, added a "Recent events" section, and made numerous other cosmetic and substantive updates and improvements.

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 been party to few conflicts with other users and none have been serious enough to require formal dispute resolution. In fact, most were resolved within a few hours. I can really think of only one worth mention, regarding the article Special Task Force. I became involved with the article in February after selectively merging back content that had been forked off elsewhere. The brief (just over 24 hours) dispute took place in early April and was about the phrasing of one particular sentence and started with this edit by Snowolfd4. After going back and forth a few times between several different versions and discussing the matter on the talk page, we were able to arrive at a compromise version that addressed the concerns regarding neutrality raised by Snowolfd4 and my concerns regarding accuracy/original research. Since then, I have begun editing other articles related to the Sri Lankan conflict and Snowolfd4 and I are currently intend to collaborate on improving another Sri Lanka-related article.

Oh, yes, there was also a misunderstanding between myself and Kim Bruning in late April, but that was cleared up in about an hour. Here is all that happened.

If I ever do become stressed, I would just remind myself of the reasons why I edit Wikipedia: I like the idea behind the project and I find editing enjoyable. If, at some point, editing becomes overly stressful and unenjoyable, it's best to take a break ... anywhere from a few hours to a few days. However, on the whole, I am not that easily stressed.

4. Optional question from After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Please discuss your philosophy towards deletion of pages in the User namespace as well as the procedure that you personally have followed for same.[reply]

A: I suspect that your question was motivated by my proposed deletion of the userpage of User:Skraz, who has been inactive since 2005. My personal thoughts on this matter have changed somewhat in the past week in response to discussions (on talk pages, at MfD, and at WP:AN/I) regarding the deletion of the userpage of a user with thousands of edits who recently changed to a different name.

In the past, I decided whether to nominate a userpage (or subpage) for deletion based on two factors: the appropriateness of the page's content and whether the editor is currently active. If the editor is inactive, I also considered the length of time that he or she has been inactive. I have since begun considering two other factors. The first is whether a page has more than just a few incoming links. If it does, I will not propose its deletion unless it contains objectionable content or there is some other reason to do so. The second is whether the user ever was really active, assuming that he or she is currently inactive. Deleting the userpage of an inactive user with only 2 edits is probably uncontroversial. Deleting the userpage of an inactive user with 2,000 edits is significantly less so. Thus, in retrospect, I disagree with my proposed deletion of User:Skraz's userpage. In a way, I now think about userpages what I do about redirects ... if they're not problematic and not entirely useless, it's probably better to leave them. I hope I have answered your question in sufficient detail.

General comments

• See Black Falcon's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Black Falcon: Black Falcon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• (Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers) In reviewing this editor, I was mindful that he and I had past disagreements. I've attempted to separate myself from those and treat with him dispassionately. I've reviewed a significant number of edits to talk pages in different namespaces, and have been generally pleased with a number of comments he has made. However, I have significant concerns regarding this user's stance on civility vs. his actual practice. His stance; civility is important (see his userpage, under "On editors"), being uncivil is sufficient reason not to support a nominee [1], and WP:NPA should never be ignored [2]. Yet, this nominee verbally assaulted another editor after he made a reasonable and polite suggestion [3] in which he referred to this posting as "misrepresent[ing]", "insulting", "spiteful" and (the part that ties these attacks to the editor he's responding to) "not something I would have expected from an editor like you"[4]. Not surprisingly, this generated fairly heated discussion (see all of it [5]).
• My opinion on this was further cinched by this post commenting on David Gerard. Most chilling was him suggesting he stop posting, referring to his posts as "arrogant".
• While this nominee more often than not keeps a level head, I am quite concerned that the heat he will come under as an admin will inevitably result in him creating more problems for the project than him being an admin would solve. --Durin 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as co-nominator. YechielMan 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I've been waiting some time for this nom. bibliomaniac15 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I've run into this user multiple times on XfD discussions and have always been impressed by the contributions there, displaying a firm grasp on policy. Easy support. Arkyan • ^(talk) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - a very good editor and his contributions to XfDs are marvellous and deserves the mop..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Everything I've seen from this candidate is positive. RfA cliche. G1ggy! 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Cliche #1. James086^{Talk | Email} 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support definitely. I've been very impressed by Black Falcon's good judgment and his belief on the need for consensus and a productive civil environment on Wikipedia. He'll make a great admin and mediator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support While I've had a few minor (ahem!) disagreements with Black Falcon in the past, he's always acted impressively throughout. Confident he'll do a great job as an admin.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. I first remember Black Falcon from a disagreement on an AFD-DRV-AFD cycle of List of tall men. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to exhaust his patience (or if I did, he didn't show it). I've found that he gives thought to detail before acting, and reacts calmly to criticism. I have no worries. ··coelacan 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, strongly. Is a very reasonable user. Majorly (talk | meet) 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Total support. I find BF's contributions to be consistently well thought out and constructive. I consider him to be the best kind of Wikipedian.--Kubigula (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, as nominator. Mangojuice^talk 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Seems like a great nomination and user. Gutworth 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Seems well rounded and competent. JodyB _talk 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, good editor. Everyking 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, I don't see why he would abuse the tools. I've seen a lot of good-standing editors lately applying for adminship. Sr13 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Sean William @ 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Seems to be an excellent user, great edit summaries made it easy to look through contribs, and even a fancy little table to answer Q1! Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support no problem. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support for the consistently sound and thorough reasoning in deletion discussions. –Pomte 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Maybe now {{prod}} will have some power. And I've never seen a Q1 answer like that. Whsitchy 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Tried to support earlier, but wasn't working. More than happy to support now...should be a good transition to sysop. Jmlk17 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Thanks for the thoughtful answer to my question. I have some follow-up, but we can catch up later either via usertalk: or on IRC. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. I've seen Black Falcon all over the project and thought he was already clicking admin buttons. A good fellow and a dedicated volunteer gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Kla'quot 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support (per Noms) Get on it. Dfrg.msc 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. PeaceNT 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Default support per nom. —AldeBaer 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Seen him around Wikipedia, and everything looks good. Nothing bad in review of his recent contribs.. --DarkFalls ^talk 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Diverse editing and a real need for the tools. Pedro |  Chat  09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support seen him around. Excellent user, good answers, and a real need for the tools. —Anas ^talk? 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support without reservation. Great user, deserves the tools, needs the tools, etc. Black Falcon has done and will do excellent things on WP. -- Kicking222 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, No reservations. Good answers to the questions. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I have seen you multiple times at XFD and I never saw anything bad, I like your edit count and the variety across the different namespaces, best of luck! --The Sunshine Man 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I have come across Black falcon in numerous Sri Lankan conflict related articles and I can say with 1000% assurance that he/she has always been neutral, to the point, cordial and sticks to wiki policy. Black Falcon deserves to be an admin long time ago Taprobanus 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support For his clarity in understanding difficult issues with detail communication to others[6].Lustead 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support I thought Black Falcon was already one. :) Acalamari 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Happy to add my first ever RfA comment and endorsement for someone who seems to have contributed thoroughly wherever I went. --Tikiwont 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. SupportRlevse 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Definately someone to support. Captain panda 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support - Black Falcon's comments at AfD and RfA are always well-reasoned, and <cliché>I assumed s/he was already an admin.</cliché> Definite support. Walton^Assistance! 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong support an excellent editor with a full understanding of our policies - will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Mostly from personal interactions - A knowledgable, civil user with experience. WilyD 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Very good editor, will certainly be a good administrator. --Carioca 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support I don't think that there's a doubt in anyone's mind that he will make a superior admin, including mine. hmwithtalk 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support a good candidate to help clear those backlogs! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong Support The candidate is a dedicated wiki-dynamo of seemingly endless energy, whose mophood will benefit the project as greatly as anyone's ever has. Xoloz 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Will this editor cause damage as an admin? :) Nope. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Sensible person who'll do the admin roster proud. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. I believe the list of avian admins is rather too short at the moment. >Radiant< 08:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Chensiyuan 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Everything looks good here.--Isotope23 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. On the basis of the good work I have seen from Black Falcon, most notably at WP:AFD and (especially) WP:RFD, I am satisfied that he would be a good administrator. WjBscribe 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, no problem, good luck and good work. Carlosguitar 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, lots of good work especially at AfD EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - Excellent editor with heaps of diligent work on xfD. Kralizec! (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support--MONGO 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Do not believe he will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Moral Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for bureaucrat clarification: does this cancel out my immoral support? ··coelacan 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :-D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

61. Support, not that it's needed, but I've dealt with Black Falcon before and been quite impressed. We don't always agree, but he's always been considerate and civil in my experience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Yeah, right on. Good head on his shoulders. Riana ⁂ 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - Definitely an asset to the project.--Danaman5 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Very good asset to be an Admin. Keeps cool head and acts very civil. Works for the better of the wikipedia community as a whole. Good luck Watchdogb 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Just like the silent bird of prey, Black Falcon swoops out of the night to save the world from the treachery of the Purple Buzzard and the Biege Canary --Infrangible 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Great answers. You'll do fine and, like Danaman said, you're definitely an asset to the project. --13² 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - From his conduct and experience, I thought he already was one... SalaSkan 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support There is nothing else I can really say that has not already been expressed by others here, so I will add to the support pile-on. --Ozgod 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. yes plz. --- RockMFR 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. It's unanimous so far, must mean there's no reason to oppose.--Wizardman 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I have a generally positive impression of this editor, and my review of his contributions corroborated my impression. JavaTenor 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support I wanted to nominate this user a while back, but I've been amiss in my other WP duties lately as well. Xiner (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support From other's comments, and answers to questions, I can tell that this user would be a great admin. (lemonflash)^(t)/_(c) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Trusted, experienced user. utcursch | talk 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Very Experienced very trustworthy. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Deli nk 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Its nice to see Black Falcon here, users a strong editor and will use tools well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - good answers and excellent track record. Should make a fine admin - Alison ☺ 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Strong Support I've seen him around, very respectful and shows a great attitude - A Raider Like Indiana 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support As above. Yup, all good. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:02, 6 June 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.