Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ClockworkTroll

ClockworkTroll promoted as ClockworkSoul
final (48/3/1) ending 05:00 20 November 2004 (UTC) I want to nominate ClockworkTroll, a very pleasant and hard-working Wikipedian who has been frequenting the site increasingly, since the end of July. He/she has done a lot of work in the welcoming committee, but has also been active in several other fields, such as the article space (biology, chemistry mostly) and votes for deletion doing both content and grunt work. The number of edits a bit more than 1550 (many of them template welcomes). Though the number of edits in the article space is not that high, CT has shown an excellent understanding of Wikipedia's policies and WikiLove principles. &mdash; David Remahl 05:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I humbly accept, thank you. I spend a great deal of thought and effort helping to integrate newcomers and have recently been promoting the underused barnstar system, and proposed a new Exceptional Newcomer Award. Only about one-third of my edits are inside the main namespace, and I enjoy the editing, but I've been hearing a number of comments from newcomers that makes me feel that there is a great need for "people people".
 * The contest winners have been announced, and I put in my request for a username change. ClockworkTroll 06:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (now ClockworkSoul - thanks sannse!)! Effective immediately, I'm copying my user and talk pages to their new locations, and doing all my editing from this new account. Question: at the risk of sounding presumptuous, at the end of this poll, can I have adminship applied to this new account? ClockworkTroll 06:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (ClockworkSoul 06:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * Yes, there's precedent for that. I think you should ask one of the developers to transfer your user history and such. Too bad, in a way. I understand people's objection to a user named anything-troll, but I though ClockworkTroll wsa cute imagery. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) David Remahl 05:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) (nominator)
 * 2) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 05:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Antandrus 06:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) Good choice.
 * 5) MattTM | talk 06:07, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Acegikmo1 06:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Mackensen (talk) 06:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) --Francisco Del Piero 10:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) CheekyMonkey 11:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I'd prefer he change his username before becoming an admin, but wouldn't require it Tuf-Kat 11:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) PedanticallySpeaking 15:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Despite, or perhaps because of, my previous conflict with CT (see below), I support his nomination to the ranks of adminship. - UtherSRG 15:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) toffelginkgo 16:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * User has 13 edits; may be a sockpuppet. --Lst27 (talk)  17:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm certain he's a real user. He sent me some interesting dinosaur biomolecular abstracts. ClockworkTroll 18:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Considering CT's friendliness with new users, it is not unexpected that they want to support him/her. &mdash; David Remahl 18:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Purely for the sake of conservation of pronouns, I'm a him. :)  ClockworkTroll 18:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) This user does great work. Unfortunately, this user's username is not so great. I will support if and only if the username is changed. As it seems that it will be, count my vote as support (conditional on a username change).  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   16:49, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Elf-friend 16:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Good user. Andre ( talk )A| 17:50, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Impi 20:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm impressed with the willingness to change username in response to community concern.  With that and the other work CT does, I'm happy to support. -- sannse (talk) 20:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't really care about the username; it's fairly obvious that he's not another of 142's incarnations. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Definitely. A Wikipedian by any name still edits as sweet.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) We shouldn't judge people by their username. Support. --Lst27 (talk)  00:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Pity you have to change your name for it Shane King 01:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) * I want everybody to please understand that I'm not changing my name because I was forced to: I'm doing because it's practical. Had I really wanted to, I probably could have managed to keep it and still survived the vote, but the reaction I see from a sizable minority shows to me that it would have been a small albatross around my neck. It was my decision to change my name, and I don't feel forced or coerced in any way. ClockworkTroll 02:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) ** I don't think you were forced to, and I think it's great that you're willing to listen to people's concerns. I was just expressing sympathy that you're changing a long held username, I know people can be pretty attached to their nicks. :) Shane King 03:05, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, with or without a change in username. Geez, people, there's nothing WRONG with a username like ClockworkTroll. I could understand your concerns if he had an offensive username, but this is ridiculous. Chill a bit, OK? -- Schnee 02:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Isn't this the third or fourth user that's been opposed solely because of his/her username? ugen64 04:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) I'm not that concerned about the username, quite frankly. Mike H 09:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Geni 17:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, with any username. There's nothing wrong with the username unless it describes the user accurately, which it doesn't. And how many people has it offended? Bart133 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Alkivar 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) I'm very impressed with how he has handled the username question. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) * Which part: the rationality of my decision, or the whole contest thing? ClockworkTroll 00:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) **Both. Gracious and clever. ;) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) *** Oh, dear, now I'm all blushy! Thank you, Aranel. By the way, Sarah is my sister's name, and one of my favorite names overall. ClockworkTroll 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) I intend to remove my support if he doesn't go for User:LikeClockwork. ;-) func (talk)  01:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) 172 05:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. And keep the name. --jpgordon{gab} 05:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Support regardless of username. --Slowking Man 06:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, as Slowking Man. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 12:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) I love the contest idea :) dab 15:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Support (providing the username is going to be changed which as I see it will)&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:56, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Changing name may be best option but ought not to be a stumbling block and wouldn't affect my vote. Mattley 19:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) Very strong support. User shows maturity (despite his username, and he shows even more good judgement when he showed why he wanted to change his username). An excellent choice, and I strong recommend others support him. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) Geogre 04:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Just to add my name to the list, because I hate to be a non-juror after I proposed BillyGatesGruff as a user name. I had concerns about time on project (not edits), but I'm going with my instincts and my experience.  BillyGatesGruff (or FluffyKitten (another name I suggested)) has shown himself to be dangerously sane.  We need that.
 * 32) * I'm left wondering exactly what "dangerously sane" means, though I do have some evil ideas! As for the name, I'm torn between the equally brilliant FluffyKitten and ClockworkTrout (please don't be sad, Func: LikeClockwork is a definite runner-up!) ClockworkTroll 04:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. A name I'm used to seeing and associating with good edits.  Initial concern over time on project was overcome after checking the edits made to talk pages.  This user is mature, trustworthy and works well with others.  I trust he'll make a good admin.  SWAdair | Talk  04:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. A name change would be good though. -- FirstPrinciples 02:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) I don't know you but, I do know some of those who have voted in your support and I trust their judgement. Keep on doing your best for Wiki.Tony the Marine
 * 36) I hadn't seen much of his work till now, although I had of course noticed the name. By itself (i.e. without the disruptive behavior of other troll-named accounts) the name does not concern me, even for an admin, and in fact I sort of regret the name change, as I think this would have been a great opportunity to defang the epithet "troll". But under any name, ClockworkTroll has over the course of this discussion clearly demonstrated good sense and ability to work with the community, and earned my trust as an admin. --Michael Snow 17:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) Vote of support. Requesting a name change as a condition of adminship seems a bit ostentatious. GRider 19:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 38) I'm not even going to mention the name change... Damn! Fire Star 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 39) Sarge Baldy 04:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 40) Full support given name change. --mav 17:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. If anyone wants to be an admin so bad as to change their name becouse of a couple of people who happen not to like it then... Well, he should be one. (plus the Name the Admin Candidate contest was a load of laughs :)) --TOR 20:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 42) * I wish somebody had thought of it sooner, but I should have called it the "ClockworkPoll". ClockworkSoul 23:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) While I respect welcoming new users, I'm not of the opinion that those are particularly important in evaluating for adminship. As of the time I checked, they have 1583 total edits – User talk: 665 (mostly welcomes), own User: space 103.  I also note that almost immediately after hitting 100 edits on Sep 18, began participating in VfD. Around Oct 9th, user started welcoming people, and quickly amassed over 1250 edits since that date (one-half of which are welcomes).  This may be unfounded, but I worry that the user's progress is too "fast-tracked".  Username is not appropriate for someone who wants this position of respect.  -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC) (edited)
 * 2) *Certainly understandable, and I readily acknowledge that my weak point is my number of edits. However, whicle I understand your logic, I don't completely agree with you that articles are the life blood of Wikipedia. While it is true that articles make up the body of Wikipedia, the mind (and soul) of Wikipedia is the users. Newcomers have, in my observation, been somewhat underserved and thus they have been a large part of my focus. ClockworkTroll 06:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *Yes, articles aren't everything. Most of my edits now are directed to non-article pages. My edits to articles tend to be few and consist of adding large amounts of text that I write off-line. --mav 08:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose. Great user, not the best name. See comment below. --mav 09:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Concur with mav. Inappropriate username for an admin. Ambi 10:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) * For those that oppose on the basis of my name, I have decided to change it. Please visit the Name the Admin Candidate Contest. ClockworkTroll 16:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) ** I think there are enough rational and level headed individuals here who value your contributions regardless of your username. This reminds me of the bastardization of the term hacker.  Ultimately it is your decision to change it, but please know there are several people here who have voiced their support for you and your current name which you apparently have established quite a positive and well-received history with. GRider 19:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ** Thank you, GRider. Indeed, internet troll does share a history that bears some similarities to the word hacker, but I'm not prepared to re-educate anybody that has an unflattering idea of what "troll" means. One must choose one's battles wisely, after all. Love it or hate it, this is how language has always worked: old worlds become saddled with new associations, and new words are adopted to fill the void. Rather than stubbornly cling to the nostalgia I hold for my old name, I've decided instead to come up with a new word to replace the old, and by my efforts imbue it positive associations. ClockworkTroll 02:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I would've supported if you called yourself a troll, because then everyone would watch you carefully, and then we wouldn't have to worry about you, so I'd feel secure in supporting under that name. Everyking 06:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * I have heard enough to know that at least some people will have a strong reaction to the name "Troll" - and that's too many. Therefore, I have decided to change my name regardless of the outcome of this nomination. Changing my name from a name that I've had for so long is difficult (and a little painful), so I decided to look on this occasion as an opportunity for community support: I created the Name the Admin Candidate Contest! The name that I like best (while passing acceptability standards), will be my new name! I invite everybody to vote here.

Questions for the candidate
 * I anticipated that someone would take issue with the username. But, as CT pointed out when I asked him/her about adminship, he/she is as far away from a troll as one can possibly be. I don't think there is a policy prohibiting usernames including "troll", even though I know it has been discussed. &mdash; David Remahl 06:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If my name is a major sticking point, I can agree to modify it. I have a history with it, and like it immensely, but I'm open to discussion. ClockworkTroll 06:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not an admin name - imagine trying to hold the ring in a heated dispute with it.Charles Matthews
 * Although not ready to oppose, I am very bothered by the username. While I agree in principle that troll is a perfectly good English word, the problems with real trolls, and real trolls who call themselves "Troll", are serious enough that having an admin with this name could really send the wrong message. Very Verily  07:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that you have had problems with real trolls who call themselves "Troll": I definitely wouldn't want any admins running around with the name "TheFascist" (if you'll forgive the hyperbole). I'm sure that you can understand, however, that it looks to me as though I'm being judged purely on the basis of my name, and not as much by my actions. I'm sorry my name offends you, but that is most definitely not its intent. When I first chose the name for a MUD character in my teens, I was looking around my room and saw a windup monster toy that my parents gave me when I was much younger, and ever since then I used the name "ClockworkTroll" -- I don't even think the current usage of the word "troll" even existed at that time. ClockworkTroll 08:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood. I'm not judging you based on your name; in fact, I'm not judging you at all.  What I'm judging is what the effect will be on Wikipedia of having an admin named "ClockworkTroll". Very Verily  09:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Troll in the context of an online community is a slur for somebody who wants to disrupt things and tear down the community. Thus I find such a user name offensive by connotation since allowing it may implicitly mean we allow such conduct and therefore don't care about the community or our work. But from what I have seen, ClockworkTroll is trying to do the exact opposite of what trolls do. Thus I would like to see a name change to something less misleading before I can add my support. --mav 09:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So we give up our one chance to influence the meaning of "troll" in a positive direction ;-). No, I do welcome CT's initiative to choose another name &mdash; indicative and typical of his/her perceptiveness and accommodating attitude. &mdash; David Remahl 17:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, everybody should have the right to choose whatever username he/she likes. --toffelginkgo 16:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) (who never would change his username).
 * As I mentioned in my vote above, I like the user but am concerned about the username. The first time I saw this user, I had to look over the user's contributions to check that this person was not a vandal/troll. I am glad to have found that this user instead does good work, but the name nevertheless presents a problem: it prompts editors unfamiliar with the user to check over the user's work. As an admin's username, the username would become especially unacceptable. I see the user's explanation for why the username was chosen, and I do sympathize. It's unfortunate that the word "troll" has taken on an additional negative connotation; however, because on Wikipedia, this negative usage of "troll" is actually the most common one, it causes trouble and should thus be discouraged in usernames. "Offensive" username? In the context of Wikipedia, it is exactly that. We've had too many real "trolls" who deliberately put the word "troll" into their username.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   04:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I must confess I am somewhat at loss (a feeling mixed with a certain disappointment) as to why some Wikipedians take issue at a mere username. Note that the name "Troll" predates both the Internet and wiki/forum trolls and has many meanings beyond the ones you all seem to assume. --Phils 22:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word "troll" does predate the Internet, as I and others who opposed on the basis of username noted above. However, the fact remains that in the context of Wikipedia, the newer definition of "troll" is used more often than the older definition, and hence is problematic.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   10:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment about the answer to the last question below. I think that is an excellent strategy for conflict resolution. I've tried applying it today pretty successfully. It was a great reminder of the "assume good faith" and general wikilove guidelines. Just wanted to thank CT for sharing it. &mdash; David Remahl 00:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. That means a lot to me. I find that in an argument having to repeat back what I just heard short-circuits the normal tendency to just wait for a pause so I can talk, rather than listening to what the other person is saying. It's a common-sense technique that I had to adopt under pressure. ClockworkTroll 00:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I must admit that when I first saw CT i thought that he was a troller. It isn't an issue though since xhe plans on changing it. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
 * Those who have an issue with ClockworkTroll's username: trying going around telling everyone that someone isn't a fish! Then see how things go. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. First let me make things plain: I would like to have administration priveledges, I really would. However, I really just see them as a means to better fill my role as a dedicated member of the Wikipedia community. In a nutshell, I'm looking forward to actively using any and all admin priveledges that may be granted to me wherever they are most needed (without prejudice). That being said, one of favorite things to do when I'm not writing and helping newcomers is acting as a vandalism hunter-killer. Also, I've more and more wanted to become involved in arbitration; the enforcement power can only serve to make me more effective at this often dirty job.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favorite articles to date are photosynthesis (as part of WikiProject Science) and sarin (which is part of a greater chemical weapon project for which I created Template:WMD/Chemical).
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. As a software developer, I often served as a team leader. In this role I had to manage many different people with many different opinions, often when hopped up on caffeine and working way more than any person should ever have to. In this "trial by fire", I learned a simple skill for defusing most conflicts: be calm, repeat what you just heard, and only then do you say what you think. I used this technique when I had a brief conflict with UtherSRG over content for wolf. My initial approch is here, and his response is here. Most of my namespace work is on articles that others have ignored, so that is my only real WikiConflict.