Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fvw

Fvw
'''final (15/9/2) ending 21:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nominated by Evercat. Good egg, lots of anti-vandalism.


 * I definately accept, thanks! --fvw* 22:11, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Evercat 21:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Cribcage 08:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Brianjd 08:33, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ugen64 04:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I feel a kinship with Fvw. We patrol together. Woggly 12:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) dab 14:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 01:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Bart133 03:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Seems ok. - RedWordSmith 03:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) From my somewhat limited experience wtih Fvw on the RC patrol front he seems great. Just lay off on the VfDs a bit though... Zachlipton 07:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Does good work. Sietse 20:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) As a regular VfD reader I agree with Fvw's assessment below. Fvw does list a lot of articles, and although there have been a few that were borderline, most were clearly worth listing, and you have to look at it as a percentage. Shane King 23:32, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Ferkelparade &pi; 09:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) It might be good for Fvw to be more cautious about vfd, but this isn't a big deal, imo. So long as he wouldn't speedily delete articles outside of policy, it doesn't bother me. And he certainly doesn't seem too new to me. Are these the only objections? Support.    – Quadell (talk) (help)   05:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Regular contributor only since October 13 (prior to that a total of about 50 scattered edits). Gzornenplatz 06:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Mike H 06:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 16:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Too new. Nothing personal. --Improv 20:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Much too new, too many ledgit articles put up on VfD that turned out to be keepers.  Five minutes of forethought saves hours of peoples' time on VfD. --ShaunMacPherson 07:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My listings for VfD have all (well that's not strictly true, there were a few which were indeed mistakes and I immediately withdrew as soon as this was pointed out) been according to the guidelines of What Wikipedia is not. If your complaint is with the VfDing of Boyfriend, I still contend that all of it that was there at the time of VfDing was dictionary material, though admittedly about 56% of the people voting thought it should be kept anyway. Still, if the vote gets that close to 50-50, I don't think it's fair to claim the listing as abuse. Also, it should be pointed out I've listed a great number of articles on VfD in the course of RC patrolling, most of which have passed near-unanimously; there's bound to be a few you disagree with. I don't think I have a worse than average VfD track record if you look at the ratio of accepted to unaccepted, instead of the number of unaccepteds per person. --fvw * &dagger; 10:22, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Not an editor I'd be comfortable with allowing to speedily delete articles. I disagree with Shane, I'm afraid. I think you should only list articles you are sure should be deleted. Yes, Fvw listed some obvious vanities etc, but it's my belief that deletion policy is aimed at not hanging the innocent rather than rewarding those who execute a few of the guilty. I'm particularly alarmed by Fvw's listing "Kirkegaard Associates" as a candidate for speedy deletion while it was still under discussion on VfD. Dr Zen 01:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is your issue with the fact that I listed that specific article for speedy deletion or that I listed an article on VfD for speedy deletion? --fvw * &dagger; 03:13, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Actually, both worry me. Sometimes there is a rough early consensus to speedy an article on VfD, where it is clear that it has been incorrectly listed. This was not such a case, as is indicated by the consensus to keep it! I am very keen on consensus and unilateralist actions make me unhappy. However, I do appreciate the hard work you have done in patrolling RC. Dr Zen 04:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I admit, in hindsight, the article wasn't a CSD candidate by a narrow margin (though I do think single-sentence+link articles should be CSDs, but that's a discussion for another day). However I do not see any problem with marking articles as CSDs if they are in fact candidates for speedy deletion per WP:CSD; This happens a lot, just look at all the red links on WP:VFD. --fvw * &dagger; 04:43, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose! this IGNORANT FOOL wanted to delete the Lil Jon article. because Lil Jon, MULTI-PLATINUM CRUNK LEGEND, is somehow "not notable." what the fuck? this playa-hater should be BANNED, not promoted. BrowardPlaya 08:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you have a look at the VfD page you'll find my reasoning for putting the Lil Jon article up for deletion was " Lots of nonsense substantiated by broken or irrelevant links ", which was exactly what the article was at the time (something everyone seemed to agree on). Also, please keep in mind wikipedia has a No Personal Attacks policy. --fvw * <SMALL>&dagger;</SMALL> 18:12, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * 1) With respect to the Lil Jon VfD either fvw didn't bother to check the edit history/old versions or didn't bother to check about notability -- both of which should be standard prior to listing on VfD.  Everyone makes mistakes but combined with the other objections raised I must oppose.  CryptoDerk 05:03, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * When I VfDed Lil Jon it had no edit history, the hoax article was created in a single edit (I suspect the undeletion restored history of previously deleted articles of the same name too). At later points I have readded the VfD header because voting was going on at VfD and not having a VfD header while it's being voted on is bad form. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL><SMALL>&dagger;</SMALL> 05:32, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Even if you first came across the article with this version  as the only one and no other history, my point is still valid.  If you weren't familiar with him then I presume you would do a search on google and verify his notability and the fact that the article was erroneous, then replace it with a stub or send it to cleanup.  On the other hand, if you were familiar with him, you'd immediately  pick up that the article was erroneous, then replace it with a stub or send it to cleanup.  From my perspective there should be absolutely no way that an article on Lil Jon would ever end up on VfD.  The deletion policy confirms this as the aforementioned version doesn't meet a single criteria for deletion, but meets the criteria for sending it to cleanup or pages needing attention.  Regardless, as stated above, this isn't the sole reason I voted to oppose. CryptoDerk 06:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article you linked? It's a string of untruths supported by a couple of broken links. If I'd known Lil Jon at the time I still would have VfDed it: It doesn't provide any basis for the creation of an article, a blank article would have been a better start. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL><SMALL>&dagger;</SMALL> 06:18, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't fall under any of the criteria for VfD. You're either unfamiliar with relevant policies or are purposefully not following them.  Furthermore, in my opinion, a poor article (about a notable subject) shouldn't be an impetus for deletion but improvement.  Replacing the article with a stub saying he was a rapper would have been adequate and would have been one less entry on VfD. CryptoDerk 08:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * WP:DP is not complete (nor is it intended to be; If everything that should be deleted could be listed, voting would not be necessary). The closest suggestion in the DP (for "inaccuracy") is revert, which wasn't applicable as it was a new page. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL><SMALL>&dagger;</SMALL> 08:43, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * We don't vote on VfD because the deletion policy doesn't cover enough but because there is a need to attain a consensus on whether it applies to particular pages. Dr Zen 23:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, and sorry that I have to. To keep this area neat, I have placed my reasons for my vote under the "comments" section.  SWAdair | Talk  09:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Good user, but not enough experience. I will support if he is renominated in one month. (User:Lst27, unsigned)
 * 2) Too new. Sorry. Support with more experience.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1598 edits as of now. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Have found semi-regular edits back on June 13. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was only here a month before being sysoped... Evercat 22:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * One year 7 months and over 2000 edits...that's not enough experience!? Brianjd 07:13, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
 * Vanishing/scarce edits for months pretty much counts as a big break - I'll surely support with another month of regular editing. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 05:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He/she seems to have been editing regularly for a couple of months now. Brianjd 11:56, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Why I voted to oppose at this time: I've seen him around and I can tell you Fvw has done a helluva lot of good work.  I've acted on a lot of the speedies he tagged and took notice of this relative newcomer who is clearly dedicated to getting rid of vandalism.  Still, he is too new to active editing for me to support.  Also, after another user opposed saying "Not an editor I'd be comfortable with allowing to speedily delete articles," he seems to be going overboard trying to convince people that he can be trusted (chastising other users, calling on the Village Pump for adherence to the CSD rules, etc).  Also, while his RfA was under consideration, he took a total of ten minutes to vote support for all five of the other nominations that were listed at the time he voted.  That is two minutes each to click the appropriate links, investigate and ponder their contributions, and type the reasons for support.  I love the amount of good work this user has been doing, and I do hope that he eventually becomes an admin, but I cannot support until I am more sure of his temperament.  SWAdair | Talk  09:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't particularly care (yet) what the CSD criteria become, my problem (which my speaking out on was indeed as you guessed sparked by the criticisms I've received here) is that for the correct operation of this place the rules apparantly need to be broken; This in my view is a recipe for disaster, so we need both clarity and enforcement of rules. Please don't get the idea that my post at the village pump was a bid to convince people I care about policy. I think that is clear enough from my edit history, and anyway at the time I started complaining about the current CSD system the outcome here was already clear.
 * Anyway, thanks for your kind words, and I hope to see you here again in a month :-). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL><SMALL>&dagger;</SMALL> 13:00, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)


 * So some people disagree with deleting some of the pages he listed on VfD. Well isn't that the point of VfD? I don't consider that a very good reason to oppose someone's adminship nomination. Brianjd 06:25, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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. I've been helping out over at WP:VFD and Special:Recentchanges lately, and though I don't intend to spend as much time there as I have the last couple of days I do intend to keep helping out. I'll probably try to do my part in janitoring WP:VfD, Copyvio and such too, we'll see how it goes.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Most of my contributions have been small, evolutionary changes; My most recent significant input into a single article constellation was in pretty much recreating List of elements by boiling point and List of elements by melting point. And even though this probably makes me a very bad person, I must admit to having a certain amount of glee in finding my user page vandalised for the first time by someone whose vanity I VfDed.
 * 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. I haven't had any significant stress over vandalism issues, they always get straightened out in the end anyway so you might as well snigger and revert. Sometimes people who work within the guidelines but seem to have utterly different goals for wikipedia can make me less than happy, but they're perfectly entitled to work towards what they see as the best goal for Wikipedia and in the end I don't see this becoming a big problem.


 * --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 22:11, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)