Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GTBacchus


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

GTBacchus
Final (41/1/0) ending 05:02 December 21, 2005 (UTC)

– This is a self-nom. I've been a Wikipedian since January, 2003, but wasn't very active for the first year or so, due to travel, life, etc. I now have about 5000 main namespace edits (albeit many of them minor - stub-sorting, fixing wikisyntax, etc), and I've become quite familiar with Wikipeida's policies and customs. I think I'm a good Wikipedian. I fight vandalism, and I'd been doing manual rollbacks for over a year when I realized that administrators have a button for that, and that's how they can do it so quickly. I do a lot of work in stub-sorting, which, for me, tends to branch out into wikifying and expanding articles on one hand, and participating in AfD discussions on the other hand. If I am given the administrator mop, I will use it to fight vandalism, to close AfDs that have reached 7 days, and I suppose it might come up that I would block vandals, but I don't really see that as a major activity for me. I tend to be more of the mind that if you talk to someone as a human being, and give them more respect than they're giving themselves by vandalizing or trolling, then they'll either rise to the occasion or else go away. Maybe I'm an optimist. I believe in Wikipedia; have I shown through my participation that Wikipedia should believe in me enough to give me keys to the janitor closet? I really have no idea how this RFA will go... rather than ramble any further, I'm going to answer those questions now. Thanks for reading what I have to say, and for considering me for an admin position! GTBacchus(talk) 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom; so yes, I accept.

Support
 * 1) NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 05:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dog goneit NSLE beat to the punch support on this one :-D Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Well articulated answers and a process-oriented approach grab my support. --Gurubrahma 06:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.--Shanel 06:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Let's not keep him from his dream of using the rollback button :) &laquo; Lord  ViD  &raquo; 06:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support looks fine to me.--MONGO 09:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, and yes, that intro change is decent writing. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support should be a fine admin.Gator (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, experienced, seen him around and he seems sensible. Proto t c 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support good editor --rogerd 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, very experienced, deserves admin features - Wezzo 17:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support --Duk 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support! BD2412  T 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Izehar (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) King of All the Franks 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Checks out to be good. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Everything looks fine here.  xaosflux  Talk / CVU [[Image:CVU2.5.PNG|16px]] 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) 0918 BRIAN  &bull; 2005-12-15 07:47
 * 20) Conscious 08:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Seen him around the place. Would be a great admin. (Smerk)
 * 22) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Appeared several times recently on my watchlist and all his work looks solid: I'm sure he'll be a good admin. -- Ian &equiv; talk 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Good guy. Need them. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support if the only opposition is reliability of participation. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I've seen his good work around, easy to support --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Hope to keep seeing this users edits in my watch list. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28)   the wub  "?!"  00:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - For his Don Quixote efforts to bring some sort of sanity to BC/BCE edit wars. FCYTravis 01:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. An excellent contributor. Sarge Baldy 07:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support: some editors can't spend all day, all year online (see Zodrac below). But great (friendly!) work. jnothman talk 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) support another goody. Grutness...wha?  23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - Seen him around. Good! Garion96 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support - Consistent work in WP:AFD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 11:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. I think that there's a tendency to underestimate the value and importance of things like stub-sorting and wikifying.  Nor should a constant presence be a requirement; people have other responsibilities that get in the way.  What's more important to me is a willingness to help the project, and I think that GTBacchus has definitely shown that. Revived 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Only recently did I come to view this editor's work here at Wikipedia, as a tangent from a topic of mutual interest. He will do well with Admin tools and powers. I have no worries in supporting this proposal. :) →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, will make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Looks fine. --Kefalonia 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Support, should do well. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - I was going for support on this one due to the wonderful intro, until I checked his summary . Sporadic?  Not "really" active?  A good amount of edits in July, huge amounts in October, and a good amount in November.  Reliable?  Probably not.  Basically this is a newbie in disguise.  Looks like he will be good, but just too new for me, and too sporadic. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *The ridiculousness of this oppose vote is hard to match. Maybe Boothy could come back and give it a try? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-15 07:47
 * 3) **No personal attacks, and yes, I also removed your harassment on my talk page. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I am drawn to backlogs, and I've kept an active Wikiprojects template on my userpage for some time; as an admin I would consider it my job to continue that work, but that's not really about sysop duties. Ever since reading about the rollback button, I've daydreamed about being able to fight vandalism that much faster.  I also would be interested in helping to keep AfD running smoothly, by closing discussions and enforcing consensus, when there is any.  Meanwhile, I'll keep stub-sorting, and in that task, I often encounter nonsense articles, copyvios, and the like.  I've gotten pretty good at spotting such things, and it would be cool to be able to deal with them myself, rather than having to bother other admins about it.  Isn't there a big copyvio backlog?  I'd love to get after that one...


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'll give you two specific one and two general ones:
 * i) I think I write a decent encylopedia introduction. Check out this difference in the Mason-Dixon line article; I think that's some decent writing.
 * ii) This new article creation was my 187th edit. I couldn't believe the article didn't exist yet, and then I couldn't believe how much fun it was researching and creating it.  That's about where I got hooked on Wikipedia, I'd say.
 * iii) I'm proud of my stub-sorting. That might sound silly, but what I'm most proud of it for is that I do more than sort stubs.  I try to look at each article, do the obvious pieces of Wikifying, and possibly even do some research and add facts, if it seems accessible to me.  I like to leave a stub article, not just sorted, but in a presentable state for the next person who finds it with a search engine.  One never knows how long it will be before an actual expert comes along and makes it into a full article, so I try to minimize the bad aspects of its stubbiness in the meanwhile. Example
 * iv) Again, this one may seem a little odd, but I'm proud of my batting average in AfD. I've nominated quite a few articles there, and to my recollection, only two ended up not being deleted.  I take this as an indication that my ideas about which articles should be removed are pretty close to the community's consensus ideas (insofar as that consensus exists - don't mention schools!)


 * 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. Sure, I've been in some edit conflicts. A couple of times, I've managed to intervene in edit conflicts and get both parties to clarify where they're coming from, which can only be helpful.  I'm reminded of an article called Negative right, where there was a silly revert war going on, and I managed to help catalyze a discussion that led to a good compromise version.  The biggest edit conflict in which I was a participant on one side was probably at Joshua A. Norton, when User:Nunh-huh and I were at loggerheads over whether it was appropriate to refer to him as "Emperor Norton" in the article.  We had some words on the talk page, but I think we managed to both make constructive edits, and come up with a version of the article that was mutually acceptable.  Mostly I work on the axiom that writing a good encyclopedia, and following WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are more important than advancing any particular point of view, and a lot of conflicts can be sidestepped simply by quietly insisting that those policies be adhered to.  I'm pretty good at talking to people, and I think I can be helpful at pouring oil on water when I encounter edit conflicts.
 * The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.