Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feydey

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Feydey

edit

Final (46/4/7); Ended Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:02:35 UTC

Feydey (talk · contribs) – He has been a great well-roudned editor since arriving in March of 2005. Especially active in copyright issues (which he could do an even better job if he were an admin), he has over 15000 edits with a great balance between mainspace, wikispace, and talk edits. He is active in many Wikiprojects as well as in XfD, and I have no reaon to believe he would not make a great admin. Wizardman 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks Wizardman for the nom. feydey 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started out 2005 in wikipedia working on NP, general article editing, voted on Speedy deletion criteria, participated on VfDs and CPs. In 2006 moved to fighting vandalism; participating in wikiprojects, portals and working with NIs; as participation to NP and Afd decreased (and mutated to XfD !voting). Started using AWB, popups, and engaged in RC patrolling. Throughout my wikipedia time I have contributed images here and to commons. Lately I've been creating geographical articles, Great Craggy Mountains being the last. I'm content with my articles (see below) and patrolling RC for User, Portal pages vandalism and tagging new images.

I believe, that in every situation/conflict, friendly discussion is the key to resolving conflict, by pointing to applicable guidelines and policies; whenever that fails, the solution is to consult others. I will try to resolve them to the satisfaction of both parties. I will thrive to improve and maintain Wikipedia according to the rules created by the consensus of the community.

My RfA slogan :D 

You damned fools. You can either vote for me for mayor or you can go to hell. John Wentworth

(the previous quote is meant to be humorous, and users should AGF, not NAM, nor quote other acronyms and NPA the candidate for this)

feydey 00:00, 4 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 voters:

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: I expect to close backlogs in CP, CSD especially those involving images; and less XfD's . I am prepared to protect (semi, full) articles and templates if needed (f. ex. the recent vandalism relating to FAs on mainpage). Also with the tools I would be able to delete duplicate images, instead of burdening CSD. I'll be blocking vandals spotted on RC (avoiding Quatar's IP), and intend to assist at WP:AIV.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Writing historical articles like Great Flag Debate, biographies like Norman Lloyd, creating lists like this, contributions to WikiProjects like Canada collaboration, WP:BOOKS and its subpage WP:BOOKS/Non-fiction article, maintaining and getting Portal:Literature to FP status (and maintaining several other portals, like Portal:Beer), also my first article Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra still looks good. For my major contributions and edits see my user page.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you believe other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: No I haven't, seriously, there have been rare conflicts, a recent one, a) my rm of text was rv, I questioned it on the talk page, and resulting in a thinking period, and then this. B) on ext. links and copyrights here. My involvement with new uploaded images and related issues has meant that I got my fair share of insults. They don't create stress and how can I take them personally when I don't know them personally!? For images related discussions (see my talk archives; like archive 2) relating to (fair use) image uploads see for example this. I have been annoyed by the user page attacking vandals and in the future will continue to warn and report them (and if sysoped also then block). I'm not involved in articles that come into conflict e.g. Armenian Genocide etc., so I haven't been in any lengthy debates (reason for a low mainspace talk count).
I have made mistakes, but I rarely make the same mistake twice.


Optional questions from Iced Kola

4. Under what circumstances would you place a longterm or indefinite block on an expierenced editor?
A: Depends on the situation and editor. feydey 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. If you encounter a dispute in which users are being incivil torwards each other, how will you try to make everyone remain civil and follow the dispute resolution process?
A: Concentrate on the issue and try to resolve the dispute by involving other users. feydey 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

6. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?
A: No easy answers here i guess. I have little idea how severe spam on WP is. Should we be examining these issues more? feydey 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from 219.75.39.68

7. How much pay do you expect from wikipedia?
A: Whatever Bill Gates gets. 219.75.39.68 You had questions or was this a copy/paste thing? feydey 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Just H

8 There is a huge deletion debate, at least 200 participants. 1/3rd want to keep. 1/3rd want to delete. 1/3rd want to merge, but they can't agree on where to merge. Tempers are rising. What do you do?
A: I will first ask them to calm down. Then i will ask read everyone reason and try to get a consensus. If I still can't firgue out what to do, i will keep it. feydey 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Previous comment made by User:219.74.116.134. I would query users to examine the merge target, remain calm and I would wait for the deletion debate to run its course. With time a consensus for the debate should arrive. feydey 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from TonyTheTiger

9 I am a bit curious how you got over 15000 edits while having only 3 articles that you have expended over 20 edits on (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Feydey&site=en.wikipedia.org). Could you please comment on your experience further and the significance of your contributions to your answers in #2? I ask because I am beginning to pursue a WP:FA and WP:FL in an effort to become a better editor. Currently, my edit counts on these contributions are 135 and 99. Obviously, there are many ways to contribute to WP. However, since you refer to featured content please comment on your experience at pursuing high quality content. TonyTheTiger 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • As some users are not impressed with the answers to the optional questions, think that the answers are too short or were simply frightening, I would like to elaborate on my answers below. I would like to first stress, that all the neutral and oppose comments are fine and I don't want to pressurize users to change their vote with this comment.
When accepting this nomination for adminship I spent several hours going through my contributions, condensing my 22 month tenure on Wikipedia to a timeline of my input, major contributions and conflicts. All this to give insight into my experiences and motivation. I further hoped that users evaluating my abilities and actions would browse my talk pages and at least some edits to get a picture on my commitment to Wikipedia. All this to minimize the amount of optional questions. I was fully prepared to answer any specific copyright and images relating questions concerning my edits, having worked a lot on those. As the questions 4+ appeared I was determined to answer them clearly and to the point. As much as some !voters base their opinions on these questions, I still gave short, condensed answers, while avoiding giving hypothetical answers and writing long essays. Here are some clarifications on some issues.
As a candidate I am uneasy answering hypothetical questions on blocking experienced editors and dealing with deletion debates where: "Tempers are rising". I could have quoted passages from relevant guidelines or policies like, WP:BLOCK, WP:DR, WP:CIV, but I felt that Users evaluating my contributions would assume that after contributing to Wikipedia for 22 months I would have knowledge of these policies (or the lack would show as blocks or as debates on my talk page). So I clearly commented on blocking: "[It] depends on the situation". I'd stress, that if I'm given adminship, then blocking experienced editors will not be my first action. I assume, that I would start by giving out clearly indisputable blocks (say IP vandals) and following closely discussions on WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ARB, commenting and following actions taken by established admins before considering placing a longterm or indefinite block on an experienced editor.
Question 8. was very open ended and it is unclear if it concerns admin action on closing the debate, getting the debaters to agree on the merge or to step in to quench tempers. I didn't start to make assumptions on the debate and gave a general answer, without extrapolating to any unsure conclusions in a hypothetical question. Also I would again put emphasis on the issue of immediately after sysoping not starting experience needing actions like closing disputed, huge deletion debates, (recent GNAA DRV, WP:ESP MfD) or blocking admins. I would always act on consensus built by consulting others.
Next the question concerning spam. The question implies that the amount of spam has risen alarmingly. I am aware of the meta:Spam blacklist, I haven't ran into any major discussions on the effect of spam, so I gave an honest answer: "I have little idea how severe spam on WP is". The question possibly wishes to get comments on WP:EL, and WP:RS, but as I have had little experience dealing or discussing on major spam and WP:EL (one comment on WP:EL talk page), I concluded this question with the suggestion to contact me on this issue if needed.
During my time here I haven't had any messages of not having "a fair command of the English language". Also I am confident that I interpreted the CSD:G1 correctly when rm. that db tag - I see that neither the observer nor any of the other editors and admins have rv. my edit. I'd note that the last notices on breaking policy are on my user talk archive here and here. I'm sorry that these clarifications grew to a lengthy comment. I explicitly tried to avoid writing long comments which, while giving a better picture, would lengthen the page improperly. I apologize. feydey 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom. --Wizardman 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A good catch, Wizardman. =) Although, I would like to see more editing as admin. Wikipedia will now be your life. So, you must now maintain an average of 250 edits per day, and no AWB cheating like Rich Farmbrough. Nishkid64 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yay! Definitely. :):):):):)JorcogaYell! 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per usual quote about non-admins... ;) --Majorly (Talk) 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support strong image fighter Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per general goodness. It's nice to have admins who can understand image stuff past "delete because nobody objected to IfD". -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Another candidate who accepted at 0:00. :D SD31415 · SIGN HERE 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Definitely, he knows a lots about image stuffs in Wikipedia. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support looks like a good admin material. Alex Bakharev 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. DGrimshaw 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Argyriou (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Solid nomination, excellent editor, could use the tools, and will use them as intended. Agent 86 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and good luck. Wiki is Freaakky. 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned user Jaranda wat's sup 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Your very first edit? Was it difficult to find this page? John Broughton | Talk 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support One of the first editors I encountered on Wikipedia and was always fair...not to mention the contribs. to back it up. Seems like a prime-admin. candidate.Ganfon 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per nom--Eva bd 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Resolute 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Nice quote, btw. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Terence Ong 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looks like a good admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Certainly. >Radiant< 09:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support good candidate. ← ANAS Talk? 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I think you're well qualified and have a good amount of experience in diverse parts of Wikipedia. You should answer the questions above more thoroughly, perhaps, if only to avoid a backlash from the people who are pissed off about that sort of thing. Coemgenus 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. - crz crztalk 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I've seen this user around, nothing I should worry about. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. --teh tennisman 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Naturally, --Docg 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support -- giving this user admin tools will be a benefit to the project. Jkelly 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support impressive. Looks like another great addition to the crew -- Samir धर्म 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks ok to me. Wikipedians are often a wee bit odd, but humor sometimes helps in resolving rough discussions. :-) Yaf 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support of course. Yuser31415 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Kusma (討論) 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - i'll never forget a favour. And the nominator says it all, really. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support; I trust users who are evasive answering the questions. Better to state your true opinion or dismiss the useless questions, rather than regurgitating the same "correct" answers from 100 previous RFAs. Ral315 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Seems eminently qualified and reasonable. IronDuke 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support John254 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Mega-support I thought Feydey already was an admin. I used to work with him quite a bit with img copyvios, and he helped and advised me a lot. He has an excellent understanding of policy. And, as always, attracting oppose votes for doing Good Things shows the candidate's maturity in dealing with problems. Declining him the mop is declining the community of an experienced, mature, trustworthy admin. The JPStalk to me 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Proto::► 12:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- good temperament for handling controversies (although I disagree with the AfD answer -- sometimes consensus never emerges, in which case "no consensus" is the right answer). --A. B. (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Joe I 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per cut of jib ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, thoughtful and competent, will be an excellent admin. NoSeptember 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Like 99% of our fair use policing admins you police the fair use but don't know our FUC thoroughly your self, I also worry with the possibilities of you going rogue (I've watched it happen to much when supporting fair use policers). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof? Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Making stereotypical assessments of users isn't really helpful here. Can you elaborate? Nishkid64 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean rouge. -- Renesis (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rouge is one thing. Rogue is another. Going rogue is very bad. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I'm sorry, but someone as evasive as you have been in the questions is not someone I can trust with the keys. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Your question answers frighten me, particularly your apparent I know it when I see it attitude toward what warrants long-term blocking. You should be able to some idea of how you would go about making that decision. ~ Booya Bazooka 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, despite fair command of the English language and good work on the Project. That said, I'm not comfortable with parts of your answers above—I especially share the concern of those who have voiced unease regarding your apparently somewhat cavalier attitude toward WP:BP. Tomertalk 02:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning to oppose. Your administrative and editorial work is very creditable. But I'm unimpressed by your answers to the questions. They're sometimes evasive and generally poorly written; administrators are expected to have a fair command of the English language because they need to communicate with other users a lot. Also, some of your very recent edits just leave me scratching my head: declining to speedy obvious patent nonsense, making a very odd talk comment (although I don't know the context). Please take no offense, but you just come across a little... odd for an admin candidate. Sandstein 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the speedy was on a user page, and there is context on the "odd talk edit" if you look at (Francis') talk page and user page. At best you could argue that edit as "Wikipedia is not a chat room". Just throwing that out there so you know the context. --Wizardman 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards the speedy: WP:CSD#G1 also applies to user pages, that's why it's criterion G1, not A1. Users have some latitude with regard to their page, but not (I suppose) for nonsensical obscenities. Sandstein 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. I wasn't impressed with the answers to the questions. Just H 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Answers to some questions were too short. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Leaning toward support but I don't like the answer to the blocking question. However it is very different to blocking people without any useful contributions which is what most blocks are so I'm not opposing.
  5. Neutral leaning toward oppose. The answers to the additional questions make me hesitant. James086Talk | Contribs 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral on paper, a fantastic candidate, sadly, upon further investigation, this candidate appears to lack knowledge of policy, a random sampling of the past 500 WP-space edits show Wikignoming [1] and simple !voting on XfDs citing little policy [2]. The questions were your real chance to show you know policy but the answers are terrible, weak, and evasive. The answer to the Spam question posted by Eagle is especially worrying, for someone with a mass of WP space related edits, you show little or no knowlege off WP:SPAM, WP:EL or WP:C. I am, however, prepared to Support the candidate if they can expand their answers to the various questions (not just the Spam one) and show a true knowledge of policy. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral leaning to oppose. Worried by answers to questions, especially Q4. Surely the candidate can at least provide an example of a situation where such a block is appropriate. I look forward to any further clarification. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:10, 5 January 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/Feydey&oldid=1088716067"