Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvocativeIntrigue: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion! (9/12/4) Ending 13:51, 2006-08-09 (UTC)

EvocativeIntrigue (talk · contribs) – EvocativeIntrigue is a very awesome user. He has been extremely helpful, to different users, helping out a lot. I also noticed him being on a lot of "high regard lists" which proves him to be a good user. He has also been extremely well editing articles, and, I would assume he has a lot of trust —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. The RfA even ends on my birthday! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:23, 2 August 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: I recent-change and new-page patrol quite frequently, so the admin tools would be incredibly useful. I also participate in AFD and MFD, where admin privileges would be of particular use, as well as Administrator intervention against vandalism, where I suspect the privileges afforded by adminship would be of great use in removing the backlogs that occasionally occupy the page.

Also of interest would be the requested moves page, and I would continue to monitor the help and reference desks and to participate in the Birthday Committee and Esperanza and edit articles of interest.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I have contributed quite heavily to a few articles, including Mountsorrel, Leicester Grammar School and Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight, the last of which is a great favourite of mine: I hadn't even considered editing articles about American history, but researching it engrossed me! I'm mostly a Wikignome, but once I start expanding/copyediting an article I tend to get obsessive until the article is as complete as I can make it.

I'm also proud of my community contributions- proposing a games template for the Esperanza coffee lounge and creating it, and creating a few templates for the Birthday Committee.

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've not had any edit conflicts as far as I can remember- there's too much love in this user for any conflict to last long! The guideline I live by on Wikipedia is assume good faith: most users are here to help the project and edit wars slow progress and help no-one. I've found a little civility goes a long way, and I see encouraging editors of all abilities and interests as a great way to ensure the project continues to develop for the better.

I come to Wikipedia to relax- to read articles of interest, expand others on topics I have knowledge of and meet people from other cultures. If a situation gets me tense, I get up and make a cup of tea- I am British, after all.

There's no user I dislike: vandals are an inconvenience, but a small price to pay for an encyclopædia anyone can edit.

Comments

• See EvocativeIntrigue's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• EvocativeIntrigue's edit summary usage with Interiots Edit Count Tool

Username	EvocativeIntrigue
Total edits	3374
Distinct pages edited	1670
Average edits/page	2.020
First edit	21:17, 5 May 2006
	
(main)	825
Talk	189
User	465
User talk	1289
Image	4
Image talk	3
Template	15
Template talk	7
Wikipedia	529
Wikipedia talk	47
Portal talk	1

Added at 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.

• I've only managed to find one of the IPs I registered under here, but will keep looking. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong Support as nom —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mild support. Though a civil, helpful contributor, Evocativelntrigue needs some more experience in certain areas. --Gray Porpoise 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Won't abuse the tools. — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:06, 02 August '06}
6. Support I am happy to support you, the number of usertalk edits you have shows that you are capable of communicating. However, more experience is needed. Whilst supporting you in adminship, I am presuming you will work hard to get this experience. However, the way this current RfA is going, I would suggest that you withdraw your application for now, and try again in about 8-12 weeks. Seivad 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - seemed reasonable when I helped with/asked him about his signature. I very much doubt him abusing the tools. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Sure, maybe you don't have as many edits or time as might be needed to be considered "experienced", but I think that you've done an absolutely wonderful job for the Birthday Committee, Esperanza, and other articles as well. I wish you good luck, even if this RfA doesn't pass. Keep working; you'll do well. Thistheman 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I've had excellent experiences around EI. Although he's new here, and, admittedly not perfect, I don't really see any significant issues standing between him and adminship. alphaChimp ^laudare 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Good user, a fellow penguin, manager of fish catches (last 2 were a joke). GangstaEB help me improve! 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Your 530 or so Wikipedia space edits are almost entirely to Esperanza's coffee lounge. This, coupled with a relatively short time on Wikipedia (Less than 3 months) suggests inexperience. Also, the vast majority of your mainspace edits are marked as minor, and again, your user talk edits are RFA congratulations or Esperanza related Happy Birthdays, rather than article related discussions. While Esperanza is nice, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encycopedia, and your involvement in that (both article editing and process/policy related things) is, I feel, somewhat limited. -- Steel 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • I did edit as various IPs for 2 months or so before registering (see one of the first messages in my archive), but understand your concerns about 'inexperience'. I have made contributions to the community, but felt no urge to join policy discussion where a concensus I agreed with had already been reached- it is, after all, not a vote but a discussion of ideas in general.

     You mentioned the Wikipedia space edits being mostly 'congratulations', but I have made considerable efforts to many articles, including those mentioned above, but to other articles too- most recently to Myddle.

     As I said, I am a Wikignome, so my edits will be 'mostly minor', but I don't see how this affects an adminship: surely you should be looking for quality rather than quantity? I recent-change patrol more often than I edit articles on a grand scale due to time constraints, so adminship's privileges would be appreciated, and recent edits have had to have been limited due to other commitments such as a holiday and work.

     If you go further back in my edit history, you'll see that a lot of my user-talk edits are warnings for vandalism, or a 'welcome' rather than a warning )in an attempt to sway a new user experimenting with Wikipedia to edit responsibly), as well as discussion of edit and articles (in particular Russian Air Force). You may not have seen these as I tend to spend an hour or two at a time (when I have it) doing a particular task, so my edits appear in blocks of similar tasks.

     I also agree that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encycopedia, but what makes Wikipedia special is the community aspect, so encouraging others to continue editing and engaging with them is almost as important as editing articles in my opinion.

     I feel that I am a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, including great participation in Esperanza, and that adminship will allow me to undertake tasks I may not have otherwise considered, including greater participation in policy discussion, as well as allowing me to undertake current tasks with more ease.

     Thank you for your explanation of your opposal- it's always interesting to see something from another viewpoint!

     EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • I appreciate your long and well thought out reply, but I stand by my points. With more experience (both in terms of time and RC/xfD participation) I'm sure an RFA in a few months would go well. -- Steel 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Steel. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   He still seems like a very nice editor, even if he hasn't made that many main space editor, hes still an excellent helper, anyway, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Indeed, the Wikipedia space edits are quite limited to one area, as Steel said. I find the usage of the minor designation overdone significantly. And also, I noted that you had a fair-use image on your page quite recently. However, you're nothing but friendly; I just think you need to become more familiarized with a few things. Perhaps in October. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • I was unaware of the policy on fair-use images at that point, and I don't see the barrier to adminship created by this: I did not replace the image, but did feel it could have perhaps been handled more civilly. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     • Who do you think was incivil: me or you? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • Sorry, I should have clarified that- I think I was less civil than I could have been, but when I reviewed the relevant policy there was an option to request the image be removed- at the time I felt your direct removal was perhaps unnecessary, but it was efficient! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose not ready yet, sorry. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose too new and per above - and per signature, which you ought to shorten significantly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Sorry, I think you're a great guy, but you've not been around long enough. Please do contact me if you fail with this Rfa and then are nominated again in a few months time, as I'm fairly sure that (at the rate / quality you're currently working) I'll vote in favour. Sorry again. --Dweller 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Esperanza's great and everything, we've run into each other quite a bit at the coffee lounge, but I would like to see some more non-Esperanza-related Wikipedia edits. Also, you mentioned vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a bit more of that as well. I'm sure if you follow everyone here's advice, your next RfA will be a landslide. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Fails two of my criteria (200 maintalk edits, 1000 mainspace edits). Please stick to it, and reapply in a couple of months, I'll be happy to support. Themindset 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose for three reasons: most WP edits of his concern EA, the article edits are not enough (in spite of the excellent total number of contribs), and, besides, he has only been here for almost three months. Wait until next year to renominate. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weak oppose I like the user's responses to the RfA questions (although the nomination itself leaves much to be desired), and I also like his enthusiasm. In fact, there's a great chance that the user would put the admin tools to good use. However, with so few mainspace edits (and so many of them pertaining to Esperanza), I absolutely think EI needs some more experience (not as far as calendar time, but as far as actual editing) before he should be an admin. -- Kicking222 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Once you factor out Esperanza and other social activity, doesn't appear to have that much experience with the encyclopedia. Don't especially trust the nominator. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose too new Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Not just now. Sorry, you are a great editor, but a bit new and you want to help at AfD as an admin when your last AfD edit was a month ago (me thinks). I don't feel you require admin at this time but beg you stay and keep Esp going. :) Try again in a few months and you should pass.--Andeh 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • I only participate in AFD when my suggestions would be against current concensus, but have probably been more active in WP:MFD recently. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     • If you vote on things you agree with, it can speed up the process. There are alot of AfDs at the moment which need dealing with.--Andeh 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Does not meet my 5-month requirement and I think this RFA is a bit premature but I have seen this user around Esperanza and seems like a good contributor. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • I appreciate there may be some concerns about the time I've spent editing here, but I have addressed these above- in summary, I did edit as an unregistered user for some time (2 months) before registering. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not sure per both votes so far. I won't state my reasons now because they have already been added by these two and last time it was an edit conflict. :) $ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-T|ε|C|L-) 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Gain more experience but your presence here is deeply appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]