Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ground Zero

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ground Zero

Final (29/2/0) ending 18:41 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero (talk · contribs) - Winner of the Barnstar of National Merit. Joined wikipedia in May 2004 as Kevintoronto. As Ground Zero he has made approximately 4500 edits and as Kevintoronto he has made 3800 edits. Ground Zero has focussed on Canadian articles and has patrolled against vandals on an ongoing basis. --Homey 18:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and am honoured by the nomination. Please see comments below. Ground Zero

Support

  1. Homey 18:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excellent editor, - SimonP 20:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground Zero has made significant contributions to Wikipedia through his edits, his vigilance and his community spirit. Would make an excellent admin. Sunray 23:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I don't believe the criticisms in the "oppose" section are accurate or valid. Kevin/GZ has consistently shown good judgement as an editor, and has been scrupulous in the pursuit of accuracy. He probably should have been made an admin some time ago. CJCurrie 02:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (added comments: 22:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Support. A good, positive, pleasant communicator on talk pages, this user has made a subtantial contribution to the wiki as a whole through a diverse range of edits made. Shows good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and procedure. Wholeheartedly support; Ground Zero shall make an excellent admin, I'm sure. --NicholasTurnbull 03:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Graham 06:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Ground Zero. El_C 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:04
  11. Support (assuming he accepts, of course). As the awarder of said Barnstar, I have seen and appreciated the contributions he's made to Wikipedia. Zero has made a lot of contributions to Canadian articles: he has done a lot of "behind the scenes" maintenance work as well as content edits to contentious political articles. I think he can be trusted with the mop and bucket. --Deathphoenix 06:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Glad to give Ground Zero my first RFA support. I am certain that he is trustworthy of the admin tools. He is already active in vandal patrolling and is often seen, both in foreground of Wikipedia writing articles, and in the background mopping up, talking out, and working on the structures of WP. In my experience, he is courteous and shows good judgement and patience in dealing with others. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Thank you for bringing my mistake to my attention. Acetic Acid 19:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Ground Zero has been a tremendous boost to many a Canadian article serving as an unofficial "administrator" of large projects already with great success. - Jord 19:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support We need more vandal patrolling.Robert McClenon 21:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Willing and ablre member of the community. --Celestianpower hab 22:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Slac speak up! 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I like the fact that he concentrates himself in a certain area .. Canada in this instance. --Chris 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Zhatt 01:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support even though he's a tory ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Mindmatrix 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Kurieeto 18:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- DS1953 04:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  27. support Pedant 07:02, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  28. support Flehmen 18:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A person who is so dedicated to his country and Wiki deserves my vote Tony the Marine 05:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Tends to treat Canadian pages as his own personal property, seems to oppose the notion that Wikipedia is free to edit. I don't think this user would use admin powers wisely. Astrotrain 13:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think he can be neutral when acting in an offical capacity. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly opposed

# Didn't answer the questions. Will reconsider vote if questions are answered. Robert McClenon 17:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He hasn't addressed this nomination at all yet. It's most unprofessional to keep others waiting this long. Acetic Acid 19:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to support.


Neutral

  1. Neutral - He hasn't either accepted or answered the questions. I think he's probably a good candidate and so long as there's nothing in the questions that makes me think otherwise, I'd gladly support. --Celestianpower hab 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now glad to support. --Celestianpower hab 22:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate

I have taken a couple of days to review the material for administrators so that I know what I am getting into. I did not think that it would be appropriate to accept the nomination before getting a better understanding of the responsiblities involved.

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 administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I regularly monitor and participate in the VfD pages, and would be willing to help close out the discussions there. I also do a fair bit of vandalism patrol, and would like to be able to do quick reverts on mass vandalism like the one that I reported last week here.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Progressive Conservative leadership convention, 1967, Progressive Conservative leadership convention, 1983 and Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership conventions, 1985 are articles that I created substantially myself from newspaper-based research. I am also proud of Eritrean-Ethiopian War, an article about important events in African history. This article filled an egregious gap that I noticed when converting the Algiers Agreement article from the text of the agreement in to a Wikipedia article (after transwikying the text to Wikisource.
Finally, I am proud of my consensus-building on the question of formatting of Canadian elections tables. After a long period of disputes on this issue, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867, and made a proposal to address the problem. I invited editors who had been active on those pages to participate in the discussion, including those whose views were opposed to my own. I also posted a general call for comments at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. The result of the discussion was the rejection of my proposal, and the selection of a different standard format that accommodated the concerns of all parties. Once that proposal was implemented, disputes over formatting came to an end. This format became the basis for the table on United Kingdom general election, 2005.
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. Yes, I have been in conflicts, and I try to learn from each one both about my own behaviour, and how to handle difficult editors. After a conflict, I try to figure out how I could have handled the situation better to avoid or mitigate conflicts. I believe that most difficult editors can be turned into constructive contributors with gentle guidance such as pointing them in the direction of Wikipedia policies and indicating how their behaviour may not be consistent with those policies. Where the matter is a difference of opinion,such as at Template talk:Canada, inviting other editors to comment through RfCs is a useful way of determining whose approach should be taken. Most editors will accept the vox populi. If I'm not on the right side, then I acknowledge that and bow out.
Ground Zero 14:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ground_Zero&oldid=1138650352"