Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexNL

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.

RexNL

final (47/7/5) ending 11:46, January 28, 2006 (UTC)

I have ran into this user when he was reverting vandalism to my talk page and have seen him on RC patrol before. He is already active in Dutch Wikipedia as Rex, with almost 50,000 edits there. He has been editing English Wikipedia since May 2005 and has amassed 8679 edits[1]. He has been diligently reverting hordes of vandalism, especially in the last few weeks. He uses Godmode Light script to revert vandals more quickly than most users. I have not seen any negative or irresponsible behavoir on his part, and although his article talk edit level is somewhat low, his talk page if filled with users aknowledging his good deeds. Although many of his edits are reverts, with 5778 distinct pages edited, he obviously keeps an eye out for every article, it is like this guy is everywhere at once :). Each admin focuses on certian areas, and we can certainly use another admin that is willing to put in time each day to keep junk edits of Wikipedia. He also adds interwiki links to numerous articles [2]. It is time to give this dedicated vandal fighter the mop and the bucket.

T|@|ESP 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks for your nomination, I accept. RexNL 11:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Pleased to be the first one to Support. Excellent choice of an excellent janitor. Tom Lillis 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support a good, hard worker. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support; he has mainly done vandal fighting, where the features of an admin may help him (and the project) much. - Liberatore(T) 13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support; always working.--Urthogie 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; I do not see him abusing the tools; interaction with him has been good; keep running into him on RC patrol. Given his answer to Q.1, I believe he is clear as to why he needs tools and what tools he would use. He clearly mentions that he'd be diversifying activities as time progresses - which is what I like to see in admins. hence, this vote --Gurubrahma 13:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support He has the time, the edits, the temperment, and he's a janitorial sort, which is what admins are supposed to be. I'm not sure what more one could asked of him. Xoloz 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. —
    T
    • 16:37, 21 January 2006
  8. Support as nominator. Although he does mainly reverts, he also does other things like interwiki links (which a lot of people are too lazy to do). He would be mainly a janitorial admin, and I trust him, so why not promote? I see nothing wrong with a dedicated janitorial admin to fight of the hordes of vandals that come everyday.
    T|@|ESP 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Support Wow... He has beaten me to so many reverts I thought he was already an administrator! Will be very helpful with blocking vandals. --Lightdarkness 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good vandal fighter --Jaranda wat's sup 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. He is clearly both experienced and an excellent vandal fighter. I see no reason not to give him the vandal hunting tools. Rje 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, will make an excellent admin. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. αίδεια* 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. King of All the Franks 03:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --
    e Ong 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Support Very helpful in vandalism irc channel and in wikispace. - cohesion★talk 06:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Everything looks fine.--MONGO 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: we require administrators with different "talents" and "flairs", and his 50,000+ edits in Dutch Wikipedia indicate that he has the talent and the flair. --Bhadani 12:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, form my personal interactions, I trust both the nominator and the nominee. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, massive recent spike in activity might be a cause for concern if it wasn't for all those edits to the Dutch WP. I can't seem to get away from this user when on vandal patrol- he keeps on getting there first! Also meets
    Petros471 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Support, give this guy the rollback button! - ulayiti (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, Is not a hot head, deals with vandalism calmly and quickly. Already has a minor rollback feature and does wonders with it. Give him the full rollback and he'll revert vandals even faster. tv316 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    #A late, damn I forgot to vote for him, support — Moe ε 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Oppose. — Moe ε 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support if he has proven himself on another language Wikipedia, I see no reason not to trust him here.  Grue  07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strongest support. One of the most rational and mature vandal fighters I've seen on here. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support RexNL is a beast ;) Jacoplane 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I like to think that I'm a fast rvv'er, but RexNL often beats me to the punch. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I have crossed his path a number of times while reverting vandalism, and he is fast and fair. Also, being an admin on another wiki bolsters the idea that he will not abuse his privileges. Avi 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Excellent work, experienced in the Wikiway and his vandal fighting is machine-like. He'll be a great addition.
    Rx StrangeLove 00:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I'm perfectly fine with an admin doing only vandalism reverting, nobody can be perfect. - Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support excellemnt vandal fighter
    Benon 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. Support - enthusiastic, hardworking wikipeadian, I am also pleased with his answers abakharev 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as per nom; very diligent indeed! --Thorri 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support very reasonable and devoted user Tbc2 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Friendly, reasonable user who is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Giving RexNL the ability to block vandals will be a good thing for Wikipedia.--Alhutch 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support great vandal-fighter, unlikely to abuse the tools. More project participation would be nice (as others have mentioned), but I'm confident that will come with use of the mop. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, very quick at reverting vandalism. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - does not seem to have any issues with users, does do a great job of catching vandals / accidental edits - having access to the block button would be an asset to the WP community Tawker 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Pete.Hurd 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Tough decision, but I trust him. --TantalumTelluride 06:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support ran in to him after he reverted vandalism to my user page today! Seems a good vandal fighter and unlikely to misuse admin tools. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Sceptre (Talk) 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, definitely. Mushroom 10:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support one of the better admins at nl.wikipedia. Already very effective at en.wikipedia. gidonb 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support - doing good work; admin would make it easier for him. Some slight caution along the lines of Pgk; trust he would use his powers cautiously until familiar with them William M. Connolley 16:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose For now, undoubtedly a good vandal fighter, but the vast majority of his edits have been this month. Project space edits appear limited to this month. Although he does a lot of vandal work (and was rapidly responsive to requests to warn users as well as rolling back), I haven't seen him list anyone on
    WP:AIV, put together I don't believe he currently had a good enough working knowledge of the policies and processes required to be an admin --pgk(talk) 12:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose. Wikipedia: space (Project space) edits are an important factor in an admin since that is naturally where most admin work is or stems from. Recent surge of activity is encouraging, but it suggests experience of enwiki policies etc is limited to a pretty short timeframe. More expereince on enwiki is needed, and more experience in more parts of enwiki, too. -Splashtalk 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Eeek. Everything was done this month! Pschemp | Talk 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry, I just saw your edit count and you made over 7,500 in just this month! Although I like your enthusiasm towards vandal fighting, I can't vote support knowing all you did was revert vandalism. I'm not completely sure that your up-to-date with Wikipedia policy too. I would like to see more RFA/AFD/TFD/CFD votes. Although I will support in the future! — Moe ε 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose -- I would like to see this kind of activty over the course of a few months, rather than a few weeks. Also, Wikipedia adminship is not just about vandal fighting, so I'd like to see more edits along with those reverts. --Zsinj 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose - little or no experience of en.wiki policies; only actions have been to clear vandalism. If he can manage 7,500 reverts without needing the rollback button, he can probably manage without it a few more months until his participation in areas other than anti-vandalism has improved. Come back in a month or two with increased participation in other areas, as you seem sensible enough.
    t c 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    He would be able to block recurring vandals though, which could prove useful.
    T|@|ESP 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Oppose I saw you reverted some vandalism, and I see your name all the time. I came here with the intent to support, but with the vast majority of your edits this month, I don't think you are clear on policy yet. And 10,000 edits in one month suggests that you might burn out. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's got 50K edits on the nl WP since Feb 2005, how does that possibility that he may burn out make him a bad risk? If he stops we'll have lost an asset, if he's not an admin we'll have lost an asset... What greater good does denying his applicaiton serve? Pete.Hurd 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
U see your point, but he still hasn't had enough time to familiarize himself with policy. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I agree with Pgk on this one.
    R 15:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Neutral yes a very good vandal fighter, but I am not sure whether he has edited enough articles yet since I see mostly reverts in his contributions. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Pgk's oppose.
    T+C) 07:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral per Moe Epsilon --
    話)|(郵便) 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Neutral While you are getting in a ton of edits, most all of them have been in the last few weeks, most of them look good, and I edit conflict you often on RCP, but would like to see other types of editing as well.
    CVU 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments

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
Since I have done (and continue to do) quite some RC patrolling, a "real" rollback button would be very welcome, as well as the possibility to block recurring vandals. I also come across many pages that should be deleted immediately (see my answer on question 6). Instead of marking them for speedy deletion and let somebody else to the job, I'd rather delete such pages myself. Apart from that, I'm not expecting to do a lot of other administrator tasks in the short term, though I will likely diversify my activities as time progresses. In particular, I believe that semi-protecting pages that are continuously being attacked by vandals can sometimes be necessary, but since I know such an intervention is often controversial, I'll be very careful in doing so.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
For me, this question is easier to answer for Wikipedia in general than for the English Wikipedia in particular. I used to be a very active contributor to the Dutch Wikipedia, and I created three new wikiportals, a lot of new articles, many templates (like the
click
-template) and redesigned the main page there. On the English Wikipedia, I didn't create a lot of new articles yet and the majority of my edits have been vandalism reverts and manual interwiki additions, which might be a little less apealing to the average user. Nevertheless, I think those edits are essential and I have to admit I'm pleased with my three anti-vandalism barnstars.
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?
I've not been involved in large conflicts, although differences of opinion always occur when working on a community project like this. I remember that in my first days on the English Wikipedia, I was very ambitious and changed the layout of the taxobox slightly. This change was reverted quickly and a little dispute with another user followed. However, after some time I learned that communicating changes is important and since then, the only "conflits" I have had were with vandals. Not surprisingly, my user page has been a popular target for vandalism.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{
bv
}}?
A. I use {{test1}} mainly for new users that are clearly experimenting with Wikipedia (like adding random characters to an article) and for mild vandalism. I don't really like to use {{bv}}, because it tends to set a threatening tone. However, I sometimes use it for severe vandalism after an ignored test message.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of
WP:3RR
.)
A. Since this is a sign of a non-resolved content dispute, the first thing I would definately do is contact the user to find out what his/her motivations are. Hopefully negotiation about a possible solution for the conflict will follow. If this does not work and the user keeps reverting the article, a more serious procedure may be necessary, as described on
WP:DR
.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under
AFD
instead?
A. I would only choose for speedy deletion if there is absolutely no doubt that the article meets the criteria of
AFD
.
7. How would you apply
NPOV
to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. Writing an article on a controversial subject from a neutral point of view can be a challenging task, because tendentious or ambiguous formulations will often lead to disagreements about an article's neutrality. Two basic principles are very important to me: (1) facts should never be removed from an article for the sole purpose to make the article less sensitive to criticism (i.e. no censor), and (2) writing a NPOV article does not mean that different viewpoints on a subject or idea should not be mentioned.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. First I'd like to say that in general I don't get frustrated very often; otherwise it wouldn't be a good idea to keep working for the project. However, there are a few things that frustate me sometimes, the most important being recurring vandals. Every time I do RC patrolling, I have to deal with users that continuously vandalize pages and do not respond to any message on their talk page. Although I try to assume good faith for all contributors, some users make this presumption very hard to believe. Another thing that annoys me sometimes is the reckless use of copyrighted images. Some users have the tendency to assume that every image they can find is "fair use".
9. There are a positively astounding number of edits for this month alone, and a staggering amount on nl. Do you ever use a bot for your work? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk • contribs) . (D'oh.)--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A. No, I never use a bot on my regular accounts. I have a separate bot account on the Dutch Wikipedia (RoboRex), with an even larger amount of edits (185.000+). The recent increase in my number of edits on the English Wikipedia can be explained by (1) my shift from the Dutch to the English Wikipedia, and (2) I've done quite some vandal fighting in the last few weeks, which naturally results in a large number of edits.
10. From RexNL's talk page, reposted here in case anyone else is interested:
Out of interest (I've already voted on your RfA, and can't imagine your answer to this will have any effect on it, which is why I'm asking here not there) do you mind saying why you have shifted from editing the Dutch Wikipedia to the English one? --
Petros471 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Petros, there are a couple of reasons for that. First of all, the English version is far more complete than the Dutch Wikipedia and it has a far higher number of contributors. Therefore, the quality of the articles is generally better, and I already used the English Wikipedia extensively as a reference. Also, I like the more "professional" way of working here, e.g. the emphasis on the importance of verifiability by means of citing sources, the clear guidelines and procedures, etc. Such things are less developed on the Dutch Wikipedia. Finally, there currently is not such a good atmosphere on the Dutch Wikipedia, caused by some internal disputes between admins, and repeatedly conflicts are arising in the "kroeg" (the Village Pump).
I don't mind if you want to move this question to the RfA; it may give other users some insight in my motivations. RexNL 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RexNL&oldid=1082478512"