Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feco

Feco
final (19/4/1) ending 20:13 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Feco has been here since late March, 2005. In that time, he’s contributed nearly 2600 edits; 1250 to article space, and the balance to a variety of Wikipedia areas. See Kate's tool report of Feco's edits for an up to date tally of his activities.

Feco has waded knee deep into controversial issues without hesitation, such as Wal-Mart, Agricultural policy, and FairTax, among others. In these articles, he’s been calm, rational, and open to discussion on all points. In addition, I’ve seen him change his mind when presented with reasoned arguments contrary to his stated view. I encourage everyone to have a look at his contributions in Talk:Wal-mart and Talk:FairTax for examples.

I believe Feco has demonstrated calm leadership by example in all of the discussions we’ve participated together in, and in additional discussions that I’ve taken the time to research prior to this nomination. He’s also proven willing to back down from confrontation to find another way to address issues when others disagree with him. He appears to be truly committed to finding a neutral point of view for each subject he tackles.

He’s also authored and contributed many graphs and charts to the project, primarily concerning topics of economics and finance, an area where we sorely need willing editors to expand our coverage.

I would encourage only a little more complete use of edit summaries. (On talk pages, on article pages, he almost never fails to use them.)

Overall, I think Feco is fully deserving of access to the admin toolkit based on his contributions to date. Un focused 29 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted. Feco 29 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support for reasons listed above in nomination.  Un focused 29 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Feco has also done a lot of work sorting finance articles into subcategories. Maurreen 30 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 07:03 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 30 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:08 (UTC). An authority in his field.
 * 6) Support. A very good user. Understanding of policy is far more important than pure edit-counting and month-counting. Nine months is a bit much to ask for (I have only four!). Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Quality over quantity always. [Liked this entry a lot]--MONGO 1 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
 * 8) Seems fine. JuntungWu 1 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, a great contributor. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Dwain July 1, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. A very good contributor. I'm most impressed by his ability to work on controversial articles and not tread on too many toes (eg. Wal-Mart), and his civilised communication with users over talk pages. Harro5 July 1, 2005 23:06 (UTC)
 * 12) 'Support- would make great admin, impressed by tact and diligence! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 2 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Three months might be a bit early, but I'm impressed. utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:31 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Open-minded and reliable user. Sango  123  July 2, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - By all means. Great admin material.  +sj  +  3 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. As someone else who has had run-ins with Argyrosargyrou, I appreciate how hard it is to remain even-tempered. 3 months is plenty of time; particularly given the amount of material contributed. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Many examples of good behaviour and enough real edits to understand how things work here gets my vote.  -- JamesTeterenko 5 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Rangerdude 5 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
 * 19) Andre ( talk ) July 6, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. He has not been here long enough. Potential admins should have been contributing for at least nine months first.  Denelson83  1 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Three months is not long enough for me. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. What's the rush?  Will consider after more time. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Great contributor and seems to have good interpersonal skills, however, three months is a little too early. In case nomination fails, will support in the future. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Neutral
 * No accepto, no voto. But even if he did, I don't think I can vote confirm on someone here only three months. --Golbez June 30, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
 * 1) Will be glad to support once questions are answered. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC) Changed vote to support; see above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  2 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Comments
 * Regarding those who say oppose because it is "too soon" or similar; please read the examples I've posted in the nomination, then explore the rest of his contribution history. Feco has consistently demonstrated maturity well beyond that of many who've been here far longer, including many administrators.  I looked through most of his contribution history before nominating, and haven't found anything to suggest he wouldn't be careful with administrator tools.  Make your own decisions, but I nominated him because he's already proven his good temperament and civility in some of Wikipedia's more controversial topics. -- Un focused 2 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)


 * Likewise Feco's work in a highly specialized field has been impressive, demonstrating patience and maturity, in articles were sometimes conspiracy cooks abound. Nobs01 2 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
 * About Feco's reply to question 3, to clarify: Argyrosargyrou has not yet been banned, as the RfAr against him is not yet closed. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

''Apologies all for my delay in posting here. I managed to lose from the preview window my first stab at responses. Since then, work has not been kind. With a little luck, I can re-post everything in approx. 10 hours. Feco 30 June 2005 20:50 (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.)


 * Vandalism&mdash;many of the money & finance articles I work on are frequent targets of search engine optimization spam. Links to GetRichQuick.com suddenly appear in the articles due to the prevalence of words like money, return, wealth, etc. This helps boost GetRichQuick.com's Google rank. Access to the global rollback tool would make removing bots' linkspam much easier.
 * Copyvios&mdash;I use Google to spot check passages of articles that appear suspicious. I'm also familiar with the fair use tests, which are helpful in deciding whether or not Wikipedia can make good-faith claims of fair use. As an admin, I would be able to take a more active role on WP:CP, especially in regards to assessing claims of fair use.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * (relevant edit comparison) The Criticism of Wal-Mart article has since been merged into Wal-Mart. I did extensive work on pre-merge Criticism in April 2005 with the goal of improving the article's readability. The article prior to my work had some useful section titles, but organic growth of the article led to paragraphs about topic A inappropriately placed under topic B's title. I created new sections to house misclassified text (where appropriate) as well as removed obvious POV problems.
 * (relevant edit comparison) Agricultural policy as I found it focused almost entirely on subsidies, which are only one element of agricultural policy. The article also had similar organization problems as Criticism of Wal-Mart, with text placed under incorrect titles or related content spread across multiple sections. I attempted to fix organization problems and added stubs for other elements of agricultural policy.
 * (relevant talk section) I ran across a dispute on Money from WP:RFC. I worked collaboratively with other users to develop a new intro that better summarized the key elements of the article.
 * 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?


 * (relevant user talk section) This user was blocked as a vandal after deleting large chunks of Wal-Mart. I suspect that the revert/blocking cycle escalated very quickly due to the user's unfamiliarity with wikipedia. I attempted to open a dialog with the anon user to see if he/she could become part of the community. I strongly suspect that this user subsequently registered as User:Izanbardprince. I have attempted to continue the dialog on Wal-Mart's talk page.
 * (first chronological comment) (second chronological comment) (third chronological comment) I was involved in a copyright dispute with User:Argyrosargyrou (who subsequently has been banned for one year). Despite personal attacks, I ultimately removed the copyvio tag after my research indicated that the other user was correct in this instance.