Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlevse 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.

Rlevse

Final (58/2/6); Ended 02:25,

27 February 2007
(UTC)

good articles process. He declined adminship a little over a month ago, but said that he would reconsider at a later time. I believe that Rlevse is a fantastic editor and would make an outstanding admin. BigDT 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Co-nom: Another one of those guys that I can't believe is not an admin yet. Has contributed extremely strongly to the artcle space, having worked on 7 featured articles. He's also very active especially in anything havign to do with Scouting, and has a great balance in mainspace, Wikispace, and talkspace edits. His 24K edits don't hurt either. Okay, so this is the same thing I said over a month ago. He would've been a great admin then, he'll make a great admin now.--Wizardman 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.Rlevse 02:13, 20 February 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: Blocking vandals, helping editors in disputes to settle them peacefully, help editors who need to learn about tools and procedures, closing out afd's and cfd's. I am also am wikiadmin on our mediawiki server at work, so I have some real life experience at this. I used to revert vandalism with VandalProof but now use popups.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Anything dealing with the ScoutingWikiProject, which I helped found in Jan 2006. At the time we were discussing it, there was nothing better than B-class and we were just a group of informally associatied users with common interests. Now we have a much better structure and organization, one featured portal, one featured list, 10 FAs, 3 A-class, and 5-GAs. Articles I'm especially pleased with are
List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
. One thing I think I am especially good at is proper referencing, for which I have received several requests for help. I also use wikisource and wikicommons.
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: Yes I have. They were mostly cases of not understanding wiki policy and procedure, which I tried to explain. I think admins have to be held to a higher standard, such as to always stay calm and neutral. I will abstain from any case involving the Scouting project or its articles or that I am otherwise involved in. I will always endeavor to remain calm and neutral.

Optional questions from —

talk • contribs • game) 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

4. Do you think that Jimbo's thoughts on adminship being no big deal still hold true today? Do you agree?
A:Actually, I see both sides of this. It's not a big deal in that admins aren't special, they're just users with certain technical features attached to their accounts. It is a big deal because without admins, the administrative side of wiki will come to a grinding halt--someone has to do the admins' tasks and admins are users who have been recognized by the community as editors in well above-average standing who will go the extra step to improve wiki and be fair.
5. What is just one reason
temporary full-page protection
should be used?
A:Per the policy, the first listed reason is: "Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war."
6. What is
neutral point of view
" is? Do you agree?
A:According to the page you cited, WP:NPOV, his view is "According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Yes, I agree, articles should be balanced, present alternative views and be neutral in tone. This is why I support "controversies" sections in articles. Within the ScoutingWikiProject we have an FA on BSA controversies Boy Scouts of America membership controversies.
Additional Questions
7. One of your noms BigDT has this to say on his user page:

Adminship ought to be easy come easy go. I will support the RFA of almost anyone who will list themselves at Administrators open to recall. Similarly, if there is any question whatsoever, I may oppose anyone who refuses to be listed.

What's your attitude? Albatross2147 08:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:I think the policy is a good one and I am wish the percentage of admins listing themselves at Category:Administrators open to recall was bigger. If I do become an admin, in all likelihood will list myself there. As for BigDT's own statment, I'm sure he's basicially saying a prespective admin's willingness to be listed there is a major factor in his vote.
8. You are obviously a keen member of the BSA and wish that organisation and scouting (at least as you perceive it) in general to be seen in the best possible light. How do you intend to manage complaints which might be directed to you in respect of material that may be critical of BSA/scouting? How do you justify your claim that you would be fair and NPOV? Some people say that people who are members of an organisation (especially someone who is so involved as yourself) should refrain from editing articles in respect of those organisations as this is analogous to a manager or director of a company editing a company's own article which is clearly improper. Will you recuse yourself form future involvement with BSA/Scouting matters on Wp? Albatross2147 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: See
WP:COI
. This policy is designed to combat the articles-for-hire business. Since I am a Scouting volunteer, I have no financial gain whatsoever from writing wiki articles. The COI policy was not intended to apply to organizational memberships. Think of it this way, should botanists, say of the Australian Botanical Society (or its equivalent) not write articles requiring expertise on plants in Australia? If we follow your proposal, no one involved in Scouting should write Scouting articles. There are at least two other wiki admins I know of that are members of Scouting organizations who help write Scouting articles--so wiki precedent also does not require me to abstain from Scouting articles, so I will not recuse myself from helping to write Scouting articles. That being said, I've already stated above in my response to q3 that I will abstain from participating in any article or wiki issue in an administrative aspect, not just Scouting ones, in which I am personally involved.
9. You say that you support "controversies" sections". I have looked closely at the one you nominate as a good example of the genre. One might say that the tome in that article whilst not strident is hardly neutral as it presents the BSA in an almost entirely positive light with any mention of issues such as the failure of the organisation (in common with scouting in other countries) to take positive action in respect of pedophilia/child protection until the latter part of the 20th century not mentioned. This sort of material seems to have been carefully excised out over a period of time. What would be your attitude to the inclusion of such material? What would be your attitude to the removal of extraneous material such as the Scout Oath and Law which are available elsewhere? What is your opinion of a feature of the editing history of this article with dozens of edits being done by one editor who does many in one day (often within minutes) with sometimes the same material (or substantially so) being deleted, added, and moved around? Albatross2147 03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The article Boy Scouts of America membership controversies is an FA because it presents both sides, the oppossition and support views have sections of roughly equal size. Sometimes this article does get heavily edited and in the case of disputes, the editors involved should first try to work it out on the talk page. As for the BSA, this is not the time or place to debate the BSA. If you have a question about me, I'd be happy to answer it.
Comment on Answer: I used the article as an example - I don't want to debate the BSA, but you have answered the issues raised. Albatross2147 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as co-nom.--Wizardman 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as second nom --BigDT 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - The proof is in the pudding, not on the packaging. I've seen many people make all sorts of promises when a quick look at their contrib log indicates that they will not do whatever they promised. Rlevse's edit log speaks for itself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support; he's really not one yet? Kirill Lokshin 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. I have been working with this editor for over a year. He will make a great admin. I suggest it is more a question of WP needing this editor to have the tools, than this editor needing the tools. He will use them wisely for the benefit of Wikipedia. --Bduke 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Your question answers don't really indicate a huge need for the tools, nor indeed, does your nom. However as you have shown yourself to be trustworthy is see no earthly reason why you shouldn't have them, even if they are only used occasionally it will be to the benefit of the project. ViridaeTalk 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Strong double nomination. YechielMan 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support definitely. His work and dedication is outstanding. Forget the answers, they aren't everything (I'd have to agree with Blnguyen on his point). He's trustworthy, level-headed, and is a great candidate for adminship. - Anas Talk? 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Great contributions as an editor, and no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. Coemgenus 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.
    WP:FAC, I always saw Rlevse reviewing articles insanely carefully. His carefulness and patience will make him an excellent sysop. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support, good editor, unlikely to abuse tools.
    Ong 恭喜发财 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support. Great editor.--Yannismarou 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --Tone 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't care if he needs the tools or not. He is clearly trustworthy, and if it helps the user, it helps Wikipedia.
    ► 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Support per nom and above comments.
    Talk to me 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Support. Great contributor.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support As per above comments.--Alabamaboy 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support We should give the tools to responsible users who will will use the tools at least once.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support an active user on FAC and a good editor. Rlevse knows policy well enough. Very impressive article writer, Wikipedia needs more of those that can do as well as he does. Darthgriz98 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A simply excellent editor. Nice work with the ScoutingWikiProject, that is something to be proud of. Congratulations on all that you have accomplished here.
    es2221 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Support. PeaceNT 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -
    Talk 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Rlewse has shown himself to be a commited and effective editor. I have absolutely no reason not to trust him with the tools; it is clear that he knows our policies and conventions. Rje 12:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I don't equate simple answers to poor ones. Justified desire to be granted admin tools, good editor and he seems to understand the role of an admin. Good luck. NeoFreak 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Support; proven record more important than idle answers. He knows his stuff and his edits prove it. For RFA, homework is much more important than the final exam. Cool Hand Luke 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I worked with him on promoting
    Good Article status and he was prompt in his replies and his writing is good. Having looked at his edit history he seems an all-around good editor. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support This one is a no brainer. Excellent user who deserves the promotion. We'd be lucky to have an admin this dedicated.--Looper5920 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support agree with Looper5920, he should have been one a long time ago.Sumoeagle179 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support looks well qualified.-- danntm T C 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Full Support, zealous editor with good global view on topics. And he says twice that he'll endeavour to stay calm and neutral, so that'll keep him on his toes (TIC). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  34. Support changed form neutral. Upon more review and other's comments, I think Rlevse would make a good admin. Plus, we need more admins. John Reaves (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--MONGO 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:16Z
  37. Support. I've only seen good things from this editor. Marskell 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — yet another article writing candidate; I'm liking this trend. — Deckiller 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I support you, too. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --jergen 11:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strongest Possible Support (how in the blue blazes did I miss this??) would have been my pleasure to nominate him. Rlevse is an awesome contributor with a strong character and kind heart. Rama's arrow 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support The nominee is ready and well suited for the tools. Agent 86 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Definitely support —
    (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  44. Support good all rounder (not that that's what I look for, but it's always a plus :)).
    Review
    )    23:24, Saturday, 24 February '07
  45. Support. Of course. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support John254 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. The question is why isn't he an admin already. :) Kyriakos 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. wat's sup 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  49. Support. Trustworthy, from what I've seen. I couldn't agree with Proto more. - BanyanTree 02:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Amazing contributor to Wikipedia is so many ways — from creating articles, to improving articles, to bringing articles to GA and FA status, to collaborating with other editors, and so much more. Admin tools will give him one more way to contribute. — ERcheck (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. WjBscribe 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support definitely good enough for me to support. James086Talk 13:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - per nom -- Tawker 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - per nom. Anyone who can be even-handed and NPOV when editing BSA articles will have no trouble doing so elsewhere on less controversial topics! —SaxTeacher (a good old Owl, too) talk 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - per nom. I think Bduke and Darthgriz98's responses to Albatross2147's concerns below about American-centrism reflect well on the candidate's neutrality and conscientiousness. (I especially liked the one about editing in British English: edit on Wikipedia long enough and you may end up writing in some sort of Brit-Yanklish regardless of nationality. Color/colour -- I can't keep them straight anymore). --A. B. (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I see no reason to oppose. Dionyseus 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Opposes don't really concern me, and everything else looks good. Nishkid64 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per poor question answers --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may ask, how are his answers "poor"? I thought they were succinct and to the point.--Alabamaboy 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Oppose - far too pedantic. Very limited world view ie, US-centric.. Inflexible. No sense of humour. A deletionist who would not be afraid to impose his views all over Wp. Albatross2147 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather serious comment to make without any sort of evidence. Do you have any? -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who quite freqently edits and expands world scouting articles and uses British English when appropriate I don't see how that has merit, could you please give some examples? Darthgriz98 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As coordinator of the Scouting WikiProject, Rlevse has taken a strong lead in preventing a US-centric approach there where the majority of participants are from the USA. He has strongly encouraged participants from other countries. I see no evidence of him being a deletionist either. I think your view is just flat wrong, and like Amarkov, I think you need to present some evidence. --Bduke 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His attitude to the inclusion of material that he does not feel "fits" into articles (especially those he has been involved with) is highhanded. He reverts without any attempt at conciliation or consensus - and I am talking about non-controversial/contentious material here. Further his membership of BSA means that he brings along a significant amount of ideological baggage. Some of the ideology of the BSA is at odds with that of (mainstream) scouting organisations in other countries. (Note I am a member of one such organisation and we would not countenance what some would say the homophobia of the BSA.) Note also his overt Americanism as in This user is proud to be an American and farcically This user is proud to speak AMERICAN, not English. Wearing your heart on your sleeve is acceptable in an editor. I am not so sure that this is the case in an Admin. Albatross2147 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This dispute appears to be about whether
    WP:CIVIL. Your comments here, and on Blnguyen's talk page are over the top. --BigDT 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Seeing as your sense of humour includes referring to people of mixed ethnic descent as
    mongrels (see block log), I feel that your judgment of the candidate as lacking in humour is unreliable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Further tangential discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rlevse 2. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:20Z

Neutral

  1. Amazing edit count and impressive article writing. However, your answers were unimmpressive. Great editor, but can you show me your need for the tools? Also, you may want to improve your minor edit count. (45% for minor edits.) Captain panda In vino veritas 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Token neutral. I can't support someone who intends on closing AfDs and CfDs despite participating in so few, but you've by far demonstrated policy knowledge. Just please don't start closing controversial XfDs right after you pass. Oh, and what is sourcing experience doing in your answer to Q1? -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing, put in wrong spot. Sorry.Rlevse 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning toward support; pending better answers to his questions.
    Yuser31415 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Neutral changed to support I've dealt with this editor peripherally and can attest that he certainly a great editor, and is well versed in policy and guidelines. My issue (too) is with the questions and the lack of explanation as to why he needs/how he'll use the tools. So I'm neutral pending further elaboration. John Reaves (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I can see no real need for the tools so, like John Reaves, I shall remain neutral until something moves me. The Rambling Man 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I agree with the above regarding XfD participation; user doesn't seem to show much participation in adminship areas, including those mentioned in Q1. Vandalism-fighting is quite rare indeed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now because of the following incoherent, puzzling and uncivil text on your user page: "Wiki+ editors who are knowledgeable and helpful, research tool; Wiki- too many articles on video games, game characters, etc on Wikipedia, vandals and "wikiNazis"--the deletionists/category name zealots, cabalists, etc." People who go on about
    nazis on Wikipedia are not usually the ones who apply for, or obtain, adminship. Could you please explain this? Sandstein 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually, thank you for catching that. I have removed it as it was a holdover from once when I got very frustrated and I forgot to remove it.Rlevse
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/Rlevse_2&oldid=1079095421"