Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staxringold 2

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.

Staxringold

Final (77/0/1) ended 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Staxringold (talk · contribs) – James has been a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, first editing in August 2005 with his inaugural new article David Mann Bike, and has since become a much-valued writer on Wikipedia. Need proof? See Hopkins School, today's featured article (May 30) and the first ever high school article to be featured on the Main Page, which he built from nothing to an FA. He nominated himself for adminship last December, but with only three months experience and a still-growing knowledge of how the WP-namespace worked, this was unsuccessful. He is now more involved in this regard, and has been a part of policy debates. Adminship should be no big deal, and Stax has been around long enough to know an admin must be rational and logical in their approach. With that said, I happily nominate him (and doesn't it feel good to be nominated; I was too impatient and just tried three self-noms). Please look at his work in editing, his approach to the processes, and his level of experience in passing judgement. Harro5 06:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! Staxringold talkcontribs 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. Harro5 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme support. I can't say enough about this candidate. We first met on opposing sides of an AfD and have grown to be great friends! He's a great Wikipedian who both has a firm grasp of editing and procedure and has fun while doing it. Having worked with him at The West Wing and Cheers, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School, he is a consummate Wikipedian. Give him the mop! — Scm83x hook 'em 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Wow! DarthVader 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Great user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Valued editor with an FA ; more than 5800 edits in less than one year; potential good vandalfighter. JoJan 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seems experienced, rational and easy to get on with. All the things we want in an admin. Kevin 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support np! Computerjoe's talk 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I beat the nom support! (Not really, but I've always wanted to say that.) Seriously though, good editor, excellent work in several different namespaces. Steveo2 11:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. He looks ready to get his own broom. Mostly Rainy 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support-- passes 1FA, more than adequate time and edits, but I see no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Matches WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Time on project and experience on the compositional and peer reviewing side are very strong. Geogre 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Hopkins School really says it all. Suntiger 12:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom and for editing the first high school article to make it to FA. --Elkman 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Good editor. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Appears to have improved considerably from the time of his first RfA and now seems a well-rounded editor. -Splashtalk 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Edit-conflicted yet-another-thought-he-was-already support. RadioKirk talk to me 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support; experienced Wikipedian who has demonstrated an ability to work with others with civility even in stressful situations. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, dedicated and conscientious editor. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support--Jusjih 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Just the sort of editor we need as an admin: hard working and civil. Rje 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SupportGood track record on Wikipedia with all-round contributions. --Wisden17 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support (With the disclaimer that I know him in real life) JoshuaZ 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sure. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Trustworthy. ~MDD4696 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, user is familiar with Wikipedia processes and has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Lapinmies 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --digital_me(t/c) 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Absolutely Support. I see Jim in the library (I'm also a student at Hopkins) and this will certainly not go to waste. He does stuff on Wikipedia I wouldn't even have thought needed to be done (all good stuff, e.g. Hopkins School) Good Luck! --CTwikipedier 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Kaisershatner 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I like this user...courteous and hardworking. --Osbus 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Very hardworking, no evidence of hostility or potential for abuse. Great job, and keep up the good work! —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:49 UTC
  38. Support. Seems to be a knowledgeable, hard working user. --Danaman5 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Joe I 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support ForestH2
  41. Support this courteous and hardworking editor for administrator responsibilities. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Jaranda wat's sup 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, Yup. Deizio talk 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. All my interactions with him have been positive.--ragesoss 01:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Excellent editor. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Merovingian {T C @} 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, very involved. Royboycrashfan 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support This is probably a first.. a Hamden Hall student supporting a Hopkins School student in something. Anyway, I have to say the Hopkins page making it to featured article status has inspired me to work as much as possible on our Hamden Hall article, and the courteous way he has dealt with vandalism from a school IP impressed me. Although I haven't had any personal interactions with this user, I strongly support him. --Kazushi 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support #50 and sad it took this long. Edit-conflict: Okay, 51. SorryGuy 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. We should encourage more editors like this one to wield the mop. Silensor 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. A solid, positive contributor worthy of adminship. Zaxem 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support! Kukini 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Stax of support here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Strong candidate, will be a good admin i'm sure. Rockpocket 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support – good editor – Gurch 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Great guy --Fir0002 www 11:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support; well-balanced contributions. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Jay(Reply) 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Seems reasonable. Captainj 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Massive Support Staxringold is a great editor and will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Good work.--MONGO 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Will be excellent administrator. DakPowers (Talk) 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support nice guy from what I understand. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Answer to 3rd question made me nervous at first, but Staxringold seems to have changed, and it was an honest answer. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. He looks like a good and knowledgeable editor. I liked his honesty in answering the questions below, his obvious familiarity with the article-writing side of things (it's why we're all here), and the fact he already has the support of several editors whose judgment I trust. Pity about the CVU thing, but nobody's perfect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Passed Diablo Test. Anwar 13:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Good user. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Another shoo-in. Sarge Baldy 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, obviously. SushiGeek 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. --Rory096 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - A very good contributor, that writes very good articles. Afonso Silva 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Evenprime 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I have only interacted with this user on one article, and am rather indifferent about the experience.[reply]

Comments 

Username Staxringold
Total edits 5936
Distinct pages edited 2255
Average edits/page 2.632
First edit 00:26, August 23, 2005
 
(main) 3680
Talk 246
User 136
User talk 350
Image 423
Image talk 1
Template 153
Template talk 42
Category 13
Wikipedia 799
Wikipedia talk 79
Portal 9
Portal talk 5
 G.He 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 16:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Staxringold (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 197 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 16, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use (last 539 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 19.42 (for last 500 edit(s))
Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.6% (180)
Unique pages edited: 1955 | Average edits per page: 2.56 | Edits on top: 7.38%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 25.96% (1298 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 51.12% (2556 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 8.48% (424 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 14.44% (722 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 61.16% (3058) | Article talk: 4.3% (215)
User: 2.54% (127) | User talk: 6.3% (315)
Wikipedia: 13.54% (677) | Wikipedia talk: 1.4% (70)
Image: 6.9% (345)
Template: 2.56% (128)
Category: 0.2% (10)
Portal: 0.14% (7)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.96% (48)
  • See Staxringold's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • I have moved this to ...2 since it is a second nom, and using the original title of a first-nom is both confusing and non-standard and breaks linkage from RfA archives. I've correspondingly moved ...(archive) back to its original title. -Splashtalk 13:03, 30 May 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: As a member of the CVU I would continue working to fight vandalism when I encounter it (while thinking about what to work on I monitor the RC, but an easier process makes for better vandalism hunting). I'm also a large fan of article clean-up such as rewriting articles for spoilers, tense, short paragraphs that can be merged, oddly formed sentences, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The articles I'm most proud of are probably those recognized by the community as they imply other people are enjoying what I've written. Cheers went through a solid FAC process where I fixed all explained complaints IMO, and is quite a nice article. I'm also quite proud of Hopkins School and the status it has achieved, hopefully helping lay the groundwork for the other great editors from WP:Schools to bring up great school articles.
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: I was a bit green around the edges in my early editing days and I did get into some arguements early on with other users, the general complaint being I used slightly harsh language. This was the major reason for my first RfA's failure. I feel as though I have learned and grown as a Wikipedian, and am now worthy of the power and responsibility adminship implies. As an example of this Scm83x, the user who originally pointed out instances of my newbie biting and unkind language in the first RfA, has now become a close Wikibuddy of mine.
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/Staxringold_2&oldid=1140384152"