Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RasputinAXP

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.

RasputinAXP

Final (51/7/2) ending 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RasputinAXP (talk · contribs) – I feel that RasputinAXP is a great candidate for adminship. He is a very friendly user, and has over 3000 edits, including 700+ in the Wikipedia space alone. He basically was a one-man show in getting the Wayne Gretzky article up to featured status, and he is a great user at the Ice Hockey WikiProject. He is definitely a worthy candidate. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept my nomination. More blood for the Blood God, I suppose. ;)  RasputinAXP  c 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, make him a rouge admin! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I agree with BorgHunter -- Tawker 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, with the perfunctory "I thought he was one already". Level headed and I appreciated his contributions to hockey related articles. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support having had a look through his contribution history. Ra Ra, RasputinAXP. —Whouk (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Yeppers, this one is a shoo-in. Go get them, RasputinAXP. JIP | Talk 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support JoshuaZ 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, A good editor for long time. Shyam (T/C) 21:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support, No comment. This user's contributions says it all. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Will make a fine admin. DarthVader 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Borg ;) — Deckiller 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, I am the slowest nominator ever. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Funnybunny (talk/Vote for this policy) 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom, good answers to questions, and good contributions. (Though, for a second, I saw that he edited Campbell Conference and thought he was editing Cowbell Conference. You gotta have more cowbell.) --Elkman - (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Highly unlikely to abuse the tools by misadvising the royal family and getting himself assassinated--wait, where was I? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Contribs history shows a lot of maintenance work, VfD activity, etc. Plus, reasons for opposing did not convince me. Ergo, support. Redux 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,224 articles and ~1448 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 06:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom, definitely worthy is right! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good answers, not likely to abuse tools. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Terence Ong 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Richardcavell 11:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support- User is to be trusted.--Adam (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - --blue520 12:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Jusjih 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good answers to questions. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, like, totally.  Grue  16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moderate Support because of the good answers - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, good answers and good work on the project. Royboycrashfan 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Unequivocal support. No doubts whatsoever on this one; a solid and thoroughly reasonable Wikipedian. Can I vote twice? Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Robert 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Changing from neutral; assuming good faith. --TantalumTelluride 02:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Yes Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've had several positive experiences with editor. Good-natured fellow. Xoloz 03:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Keep it up. (^'-')^ Covington 03:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. SorryGuy 05:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Fine contributor. _-M o P-_ 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Joe I 07:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Slapshot support he shoots he scores. An upstanding editor. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --StabiloBoss 12:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Bit of a deletionist, and I wasn't completely happy with how our first encounter went at the time but I've changed, he's changed, we've both improved our understanding of how things are done here, we've talked offline, and I am happy to support this candidate with no reservations. Fine nominee. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - haven't run into him, but a perusal of his edits suggests good work to me. --Deville (Talk) 21:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Cleared for Adminship I like what I'm seeing. --Pilot|guy 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support; frequently see him around, always impressed. Aquilina 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, yes. Proto||type 12:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- JamesTeterenko 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Solid work all around. PJM 12:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support looks good └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Good man, worthy admin. michael talk 12:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support; good editor, and I'm impressed with his work and comments on AfD. MCB 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose based on the answer to question number 4. In the dispute as to whether administrators should have more say over the content of an article than their subordinates, I side with the administrators. I support candidates that subscribe and openly espouse this position. --American Saga 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of banned User:Zephram Stark.[reply]
  1. Oppose RC patrolling mentioned as a reason for needing the tool, but only 3 edits to WP:AIAV. Also a lack of warning messages on user talk pages following reversion of vandalism causes me concern about whether the user's approach to dealing with vandalism is well balanced. TigerShark 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, at least until you get that image out of your signature. Proto||type 12:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support after concern addressed. Proto||type 12:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Due to concerns raised by TigerShark and Proto. Needs more experience dealing with vandals using the proper procedures. And there is no good excuse to violate WP:SIG. If sig concern of Proto is addressed, I will switch to neutral or support. JoshuaZ 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose In researching his work, I agree that he needs more experience dealing with vandals, AFD's and other types of research in general. Perhaps another 6 months to a year before another consideration? Almost Famous 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose -- Another unreadable, silly sig. Need more maturity. John Reid 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose uneven CSD work, looking over the contribs I see a pattern of marking things for CSD and having other editors and admins come along and remove the tag...improving the article, prodding it, saying that it's not a CSD etc. Also seems to have a misunderstanding of what the nonsense critria means. [1] [2] [3][4] I think an admin should handle deletions better than this. Rx StrangeLove 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reluctantly oppose While I think this user is a good editor, and given the number of support votes will probably become an admin and probably a good one, I'm just not comfortable with giving this user the power to speedy delete. I have the sense (and since I can't see the deleted edits, don't have much way to examine the record), that the user would be too aggressive in speedy deleting vs. using AfD and {{prod}}. I have some reservations regarding my concerns about judgement and discretion that I stated below, but it is the issue of aggressive deletion that has swayed my vote to oppose. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OpposeAgree with User:Doug Bell. Quick fingers to delete is a serious issue that I myself have encoutnered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)
    Comment - has about 20 edits, 2 days old, created nonsense article Timothean religion yesterday which was deleted by User:Naconkantari and then pestered him about it, has gone and voted "oppose" on abouot 5 RfAs today, mostly citing "vandal hunting reduces the fun of wikipedia" - supporting vandalism.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His edits are questionable and he may be a pain to admin, however, his reasons are legit. Almost Famous 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Concerns over POV and aggressiveness, as above voters. Elrith 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while there are images in his signature, as it is a wasteful of server resources and makes pages load unnecessarily slower for many readers. Jonathunder 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now;I will most likely change to either support or oppose before this closes. While s/he meets my admin standards, I do have some concerns regarding his/her labeling on his user page of a Wikipedia email he received as "Hate Mail"—it doesn't indicate an understanding of the difference between hate and disagreement, something that is important in an administator. I'm not sure how to regard someone who has had almost 1 in 4 of his edits deleted (due, I'm sure, to heavy involvement in AfD, but still...). I'm also biased against disruptively formatted signatures. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reading it a couple of times, I'd tend to agree that the e-mail went beyond disagreement mail and entered the spectrum of hate mail. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly here. The email listed only discusses RasputinAXP's actions, and does not make any comments about RasputinAXP, nor does it contain anything even mildly resembling a threat—it simply lacks any of the criteria of hate mail. Further, by including the email with the email address of Pairaalia, RasputinAXP has disclosed otherwise private information in a public forum. I don't think this reflects well on points of discretion in addition to my previously stated concern regarding judgement of hate vs. disagreement. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on issues of discretion, "Just because YOU don't understand it" and "You need to stop trying to make this your own website." go beyond the commentary of disagreement. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unreasonably broad—and unsupported by the article you referenced—definition of hate mail. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Not really convinced to support yet. I might make a decision later. Moe ε 20:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning towards support. --TantalumTelluride 03:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to support. --TantalumTelluride 02:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Due to concerns raised by TigerShark. JoshuaZ 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC) JoshuaZ 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) back to neutral since sig concerns have been dealt with. Still concerned over TigerShark's concern. JoshuaZ 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See RasputinAXP's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Image removed from my signature.  RasputinAXP  c 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to address the concerns listed above regarding my user page and my 1 in 4 edit deletion rate. The labelling of Pairaalia's email as Hate Mail is done with tongue firmly in cheek. The email was in response to my tagging an article he wrote about his school friend Jason Taylor as either nonsense or nn-bio. I'm used to having things dropped in my Talk page regarding speedy deletes, but getting an e-mail was pretty amusing. I have removed his email address though; poor form on my part. In regards to WP:AIAV, I've only posted there when, as according to policy, they haven't stopped vandalizing articles. A large portion of my RC and New Page patrol involves either small reversions by anon IPs or tagging articles for speedy deletion. Interiot's tool shows that before the disconnect between the toolserver and en-wiki, I had 1001 deleted edits. Since deletion logs are now restricted to admins, I have no way of telling you how many of these edits were speedy deletions, but I would gather it's near 100%. I watch pages I'm involved with closely, and as far as I'm aware I haven't had any article contributions deleted. I've been using the experimental prod process a lot more lately; it gives original authors more time to come up with references or at least provide some semblance of notability. It leads to a better encyclopedia for everyone. If that's going to be held against me, that's up to the individual editor.  RasputinAXP  c 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Aside from New page patrol, patrolling the Recent Changes even more closely and increasing my vandal watch, I'd be more than happy to help with NPOV disputes. I'd also be able to help with a lot of janitorial duties, such as those I've dubbed Double-move redirects with Twist. I'd also help out in closing AfDs, since that's where I do a lot of hanging out anyway.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Certainly the drive to make Wayne Gretzky a featured article, despite his wife's best efforts to sabotage me. It was a lot of work and I'm glad it finally made it to FA status thanks to the input of the editors there. The ones I'm even happier with are articles I found on the Requested list: Muney Tsenpo, Undine Smith Moore and Crimson Route. The article on Mrs. Moore was both a personal connection (I've performed several of her works in concert) and a desire to include more information about important but lesser-known African-American classical composers.
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: Where do I start with this one? Unfortunately I've been in some contentious edits over a few hockey articles. Most recently was an argument over one line in the Wayne Gretzky article: Born in Brantford, Ontario, Canada, Gretzky, nicknamed "The Great One," is regarded as the best player of his era and is considered by many to be one of the greatest hockey players of all-time. After that discussion petered out, I created a proposal and took up a straw poll to find out which way we wanted to go with the article. The current revision has the best sentence we could settle on; it's NPOV and referenced. I feel it's omportant to keep cool in situations like that, especially when emotions run pretty hot over something like one of the greatest hockey players ever.
The other situation I unintentionally got into was the quest of double-move redirects. WP:HOCKEY policy, in accordance with standard en-wiki naming policies, avoids the use of diacritics when naming articles. For examples, there's a list on my DMRwT page. It eventually became a problem that wound up in a few places.
Despite my interpretation of the conventions and guidelines, I finally decided to bow out of the conflict, because the ad-hoc standard of the Swedish and Czech editors to rename articles wasn't likely to end. I focused my efforts elsewhere until tempers went down again and went about my business of editing articles and patrolling recent changes.
4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield or compromise. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee?
A: I'd continue to try and get to a middle ground with both parties, even if they sound like they won't yield or compromise it's rare to actually have a situation where one party or the other would completely fail to see the other's side. If push came to shove I'd side with the new user, though. Everyone was a newbie once, even Jimbo.
5. Given the objections at WP:SIG, how do you justify the use of an image in your signature? --TantalumTelluride 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: The Gadsden flag has some meaning to me. I'm not wedded to it in any way, though. I didn't use it in my sig until February 19th (see User:RasputinAXP/Sandbox), having flirted with it last August for about 5 minutes. WP:SIG is a guideline, but if No Images in Sigs becomes a policy I'd deep-six the image; I'm likely to remove it anyway. The color clashes with the rest of my sig. ;)
The above 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/RasputinAXP&oldid=1146677360"