Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Femto


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Femto
final (13/6/7) ending 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

– Femto has been a dedicated Wikipedian over the past year and 6 months, with over 3000 edits and lots of anti-vandalism work. His user page is very short, but from his talk page, it seems that he is able to avoid getting into revert warring. --unforgettableid | talk to me 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm honored and accept the nomination. Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as per the nomination statement I wrote above. --unforgettableid | talk to me 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. — Wackymacs 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as a fellow male European, erm, I mean, looks OK given account age and contributions.  J I P  | Talk 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Juppiter 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Intelligent and willing to edit articles that most Wikipedians want no part in.
 * 5) Support see rational. --Edivorce 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 3000 edits a definite dedicated user Mjal 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]] Wish I'd be. My first edit was mid-2004, the 6 months only refer probably to the fact that I'm well beyond the nomination threshold. You'll have to reconsider that vote. Femto 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, Experience should not be a bar to gaining adminship. All a user needs to do is earn the trust of the community.  As I see no votes which actually call into question whether that trust should be given, I support. Adminship is no big deal, therefore experience of Wikiprocess is noreason to dismiss somone. Hiding  talk 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, we've had candidates with less experience, so why not? WikiFanatic 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, no big deal. Proto t c 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, no ethical problems with the user and has a committment. "Not enough experience" stuff is smth I never understood in such cases. Obviously not a newbie. As such, ethics and committment is all that matters. --Irpen 06:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, lack of experienc with WikiProcess.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Radiant, who has gorgeous new signature! Incidentally, I'm sure Femto will make a terrific admin soon -- just wish for a little more learning time. Xoloz 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Radiant. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification I'm not concerned about the amount of time spent here, but with only 60 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, I'm concerned that you are not very familiar with Wikipedia policy. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Needs more edits in wiki namespace, sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 23:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Xoloz. Just too soon. --Aaron 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Important comment: Three of you have voted "Oppose" because of an error I made. I wrote "over the past 6 months" in my nomination, but I made a mistake and should have written "over the past year and 6 months". Femto, I have corrected the error and wikimessaged the three people who opposed on time basis. I apologize for my mistake and hope it does not ruin this nomination for adminship. --unforgettableid | talk to me 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose not enough participation in WP space yet, but will likely support a future nomination with more experience there. Jonathunder 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral until more project/process experience (56 edits to project namespace).  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:35Z 
 * 2) Neutral Editing project pages more often will be better.--Jusjih 04:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Would like to see more Project related editing.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Not sure yet. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral lean toward oppose, as per the oppose votes limited activity in the project namespace, otherwise all seems in order. --pgk( talk ) 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per above (due to lack of project namespace edits).-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutralrepeat abovePschemp | Talk 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral. Not going to vote against you but see Radiant's oppose comment. haz (user talk) 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Femto's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



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.
 * I don't expect many changes from my usual routine: browse the watchlist in the morning until the dog demands its rightful attention, then come back whenever there's time and do what I feel like doing until the theobromine and caffeine run out. Only that it then would also include pages like Requested moves and Administrator intervention against vandalism with which I'm familiar so far. Or do a page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Images and media for deletion now and then. — Your typical back row backup and maintenance admin who is good to have around. There were several occasions where I thought "That account has to be blocked now, why can't I do it?". Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The chemical elements data references for WikiProject Elements, which previously relied upon single, not-easy-to-check datapoints copied from external websites. Also the set of isotope pages (example isotopes of uranium). Other than those and some little things, I think I'm better at judging the edits of others and weed out the bad ones, rather than creating brilliant prose myself. Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * If a dispute is about factual content, when I'm right, I'm right. I can and will prove it with cites that will outlast my opinions. If a dispute is about opinions, in increasing order of probability: I hold out debating until I run out of arguments, receive support from someone else, or step back and find something better to do with my time, since I'm not the fastest writer of English content. Following that pattern, one recent content dispute of mine was talk:group 3 element, shouldn't get worse than that. If I seriously irritated anybody else, sorry, I don't even remember it as that bad right now :). Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.