Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Picaroon9288

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.

Picaroon9288

Final (62/0/0); Ended 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon9288 (talk · contribs) - Picaroon has been among us since March, and has been making a remarkable work, in particular on African-related topics, where he is involved with WikiProject Nigeria . Among the things I most appreciate in him is his commitment to article quality and careful sourcing, which brings him to make use of inline citations also for stubs and short articles. This can be seen in the articles he has created (John Nyathi Pokela, Bayajidda, Daura and others) and in those he has expanded and sourced (Hutu, Asha-Rose Migiro and endless stubs). His manners are of striking friendliness and politeness; indeed, in the Editor review he requested in early October, his ability in dealing with other users was commended, and this is no less true now. As for a concern that was then raised regarding his few wikispace edits, it should be observed that especially since December his edits in that area have considerably increased. For all these reasons, I feel that Picaroon would make a great administrator, and can be trusted of not abusing the tools.Aldux 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Aldux. I accept. Picaroon 21:56, 30 January 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: There are a variety of tasks I'd like to help out with.
  • Helping non-admins with the editing of protected pages. Specifically, fulfilling requests to be found in
    WP:ERRORS
    with backlogs of four hours and have had my own protected edit requests (I'd say I make two or three a month) sit for days - others have no doubt waited longer. I'd check out WP:ERRORS whenever it pops up in my watchlist and take a look at the category at least twice a day.
  • Closing xfds and carrying out the results of the discussion, be they deleting, redirecting, merging, or whatever. I spend the largest portion of my XFD time at Categories for discussion, seeing as it has a large backlog and needs more people than it has to help form consensus on what to do with a categories, but I also regularly comment at articles for deletion. I consider myself to understand deletion policy and have a good amount of experience in both areas so, as an admin, I'd close afds and cfds.
  • Updating Template:Did you know. I've had four DYK's, and keep an eye on Template talk:Did you know, commenting on hooks (noms) and giving the articles themselves copyedits. Nishkid64 seems to do most of the updating during the time I'm online, so I'd be ready to help share the load with him.
  • Deleting articles with expired prods in Category:Proposed deletion. I interpret the proposed deletion system as being for articles which I don't think meet the criteria for speedy deletion but will nevertheless be uncontroversial deletions, and don't need to be afd'd. I always use afd when I'd like to garner multiple opinions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Aldux got most of my favorite articles in his nomination. The one I'm most pleased with is Bayajidda, a character from the mythology of the Hausa people, which I hope to see labeled as a good article some day. (However, I've exhausted the google hits - I think I've clicked every single ghit for "Bayajidda" and "Abuyazidu" - so I'll probably have to adjourn to a library to continue my expansion.) I also like the work I did with Hutu (a Central African ethnic group), which was nearly totally unreferenced and had POV issues before I came along, and Đuro Kurepa (a Yugoslav mathematician), which I found as a sub-stub in CAT:CSD and nominated for DYK a couple of days later.
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: The only incident in my time here which caused me a real amount of stress was one back from early April, long before I was addicted or active. A friend of mine registered an account and created an article on a not-whatsoever-notable subject, and saw it deleted via the CSD process. He must have copy&pasted the text, because, after its deletion he asked me to recreate it with my account (I can't recall how he knew I had one, but I had registered mine fifteen days earlier, so I probably mentioned it in casual conversation). Anyways, about an hour later (judging by the times in the deletion log) I reposted it, and saw it speedy deleted less than three minutes later - by the same admin. He left me a {{
test
}}. This was a reasonable assumption, albeit incorrect, seeing as we had indeed posted the same text only an hour apart. This got me a bit incensed, and I responded with a rather incivil "Yaaawn. If you say so."
Needless to say, I've long since apologized, and my initial wariness of Wikipedia's administrators has vanished. This incident taught me the importance of assuming good faith and making sure not to bite newcomers. The admin is reasonably active in evaluating rfa candidates, so, out of curiousity, I'm not going to mention his username and see if he remembers me!
All my other interactions which could be considered as having been stressful were minor and unremarkable; as opposed to edit warring, I start a discussion on article and user talk pages, and this has nearly always solved the problem.

Optional Question by PTO:

4. Suppose that two users have been edit-warring on an article. Both are avoiding 3RR by slowing down their reverts. However, the two have been edit-warring on the article for over three weeks. The page has already been protected once before and the edit-warring users were warned, but the warring has not stopped. How would you handle this?
Well, I assume you mean that I'm playing the role of an uninvolved party; had I been editing the article myself, I would make no blocks or protections. Anyways, if they've been revert warring but have been avoiding
WP:3RR
, which is that edit warring is disruptive, is as bad as violating the letter of it, which is the numerical statement about reverts. After this, I'd set to work on drafting a compromise version in the above-mentioned sandbox. Once they returned from their blocks, I'd ask them what they think of the compromise version and whether this version is acceptable. If they both find it reasonable, then the problem might be solved. If one or both dislike it, I'd again warn them not to revert war on the article but instead work together in the sandbox (with blocks of inreasing length for continued edit warring). If this doesn't reach favorable results, I would, depending on the situation, suggest mediation, file an article rfc, or ask several other editors whose judgement and neutrality I trust to give their input.

Optional questions from —

talk • contribs
)

5. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
A: The five pillars are things that the community has identified to be very important to our goal, which is writing a free encyclopedia, giving it away, and letting everyone who wants to come join us. The pillars can be looked on as a condensed version of Wikipedia's policies, but also have a significance of their own - in that they are easy to read, remember and link to, and hard to misunderstand. In matters other than encryption, has simplicity ever been a minus?
6. Why is
wheel warring a bad idea
and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: While admins are, in theory, just users who are trusted not to misuse special buttons (and are therefore given said buttons), they are looked up to by many, especially new users. When admins, often seen as the "face of Wikipedia," wheel war, they make the whole project look hypocritical - we always stress that discussion is better than revert warring, yet our sysops can't refrain from revert warring with eachother? That's pretty disheartening. The key step to avoiding wheel warring is discussing the issue. This can lead to insight on the other admin's or admins' actions and could lead to you seeing the situation in a new light.
7. Who has the authority to
ban
users?
A:The community, the arbcom, Jimbo, and the board. This seems a pretty simple question - were you looking for my views on banning or something?
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support beat the nom :p, but seriously great user, I trust him/her ~ Arjun 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Him. Picaroon 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Excellent editor, will use tools wisely. Imageboy1 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good knowledge of WP policy. Will not abuse tools. RfAs have become too conservative recently, so I wish you luck in this one. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I like the answers to all of the questions. My contribution analyzer crashed twice looking at your contribs page :D. PTO 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No, I'm afraid that I don't recall you without specifically referring to your Talk archives :-). I can't see any problems with your contributions. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support - Excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support A civil and knowledgeable user, I have no doubts that this user will become a great administrator. Oh sweet, I'm mentioned in the response to Q1. I'M FAMOUS! Nishkid64 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support don't see why not. Seems to have a reasonable amount of experience and I don't see any civility or POV problems. The fact that he says that he wants to help out on
    WP:CFD is also a plus since as he said it has a huge backlog. I also think the fact that he contributes to African-related articles is a plus as those types of articles tend to be ignored.--Jersey Devil 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Support Great user.--Húsönd 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support qualified candidate.-- danntm T C 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Party Time!
    |Review
    )04:49, Wednesday, January 31 '07
  13. Support, courteous user who will benefit the project.
    Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Support per excellent answers and contribs – PeaceNT 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per PeaceNT. The Rambling Man 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, excellent answers. Can trust this user with admin tools. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support: nice contributions and nice answers. You remain a well balance between a good editor and a potential admin. Ther's no reasons to oppose. Causesobad --> (Talk) 09:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support, will be a fine addition to the ranks.
    ► 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. Supporting excellent candidate. S.D. ¿п? § 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Sounds like a reasonable and experienced candidate. Coemgenus 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Terence Ong 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm not
    Mailer Diablo but I do approve this message! :) Great candidate. ← ANAS Talk? 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. I'm Moreschi and I approve the messages of both Mailer Diablio and Anas Salloum! 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Some great content contributions and I've noticed his useful edits on
    WP:AFR-related project pages. I occasionally get called in for admin tasks on Nigeria-related pages (Nigeria seems to get way more vandalism and spam than other African country pages) and it will be great to have a resident Nigeria admin who actually has some content knowledge. Also, nicely thought out answers. - BanyanTree 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Support. WJBscribe 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Consistantly active, seems like a good user, has done some good work, and the answers are pretty good as well. No reason to oppose.Ganfon 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per all above.
    Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Support as nom.--Aldux 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Michael 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. wat's sup 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Support Candidate looks good. No problems here so Give-em-the-mop.TM JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Wow! Someone wanting to slog through old CfDs? Gets my support instantly for that. I'm sick of the backlog that I would clear if I had the energy, so promoting this user would only be a good thing ;) Best of luck to you. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support. The candidate's answers show great intelligence and familiarity with the Wikipedia system, and a friendly, consensus-building attitude. The desired tasks of adminship in the first answer are somewhat off the beaten path, which is an additional reason to endorse him. YechielMan 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support sounds very good Johnbod 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support like the answers to the questions.--John Lake 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I see no problems, should be a good admin. James086Talk 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Extreme Support A fantastic candidate for admin. Two thumbs up! --MikeHunt35 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support —
    (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  40. Support I really wish someone would answer my question 5 more expressively rather than saying, "The five pillars are really important." I understand that answering this completely could be lengthy, but understanding of the five pillars is mentioned on the adimistrators reading list as something a candidate should already know along with the
    talk • contribs
    ) 20:56, 22 June 2024
  41. Support Seems like this user will be an excellent candidate, strong answers to all questions.
    addict 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support- per all above.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, a highly competent wikipedian. Mallanox 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support He deserves to be an admin, and good answers on the questions for candidates. Daniel5127 <Talk> 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Friendly, smart, industrious... let's give him the tools.
    IronDuke 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  47. Support. Looks like one of the good guys. BlankVerse 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. Kncyu38 12:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support.--Rettetast
  51. Support. --Slg
    n (page - messages - contribs) 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  52. I've seen him around, have no problems with him, he'll do well. Support--Wizardman 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Good answers (and the answer to Malber's
    WP:5P question seems fine to me, and better than most), a clear rationale per Q1, and a solid track record. What's not to like? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  54. I've only really noticed you since this RfA began, but all the contributions of yours that I've noted seemed well-informed and sensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Sound policy knowledge and attitude.
    Bubba hotep 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  56. Support I've seen this editor doing good work. -Will Beback · † · 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per nom and question answers. VegaDark 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Well answered questions, and is trustable. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Pile on support!
    Somitho 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Support absolutely; a user with contribs on the rise, enough experience in all spaces, and so on. A bit on the inexperienced side, but a good candidate. — Deckiller 12:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A better understanding of the project.
    T/C) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Strong Support --"Support" because he'll make a good admin and "strong" in appreciation for his WikiProject Nigeria work; Nigeria's twice as big as any EU member and under-represented, article-wise. --A. B. (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is - I don't think any of the supreme court justices have articles. (Alternatively, they may just be uncategorized and misspelled...) For the record, this rfa should have been closed an hour and 6 minutes ago, so the above support is in after the line. However, I might be so bold as to say it doesn't really matter, and that I have no objections to it remaining! :-) Picaroon 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Extreme Oppose sorry, but we don't need admins with that attitude. --Disregard this vote, I confused this user with another candidate (the one who admitted to being a vandal). Sorry about that. Changing my vote to support. See above.MikeHunt35 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "very new users" may not !vote. 4 days and 23 edits is not enough. Also this is in the neutral section, not oppose. See also this user's contributions, possible sock? James086Talk 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are. The bureaucrat will decide what the comment is worth. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK the user changed their comment. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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/Picaroon9288&oldid=1088715625"