Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesTeterenko

JamesTeterenko
Final (29/1/1) ending 13:35 27 July 2005 (UTC)

James has been here more than one year now, and has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. His own articles have mostly focused on topics related to Western Canada and Ukrainian-Canadians. He has also made solid contributions to two articles which are now featured, Louis Riel and Niagara Falls. I would characterise him as a relatively uncontroversial editor's editor dedicated to NPOV, who tackles vandalism whenever it crops up and who will make responsible use of the janitor's mop. [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=JamesTeterenko&dbname=enwiki. Edit counts]. Fawcett5 13:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept.  -- JamesTeterenko 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Naturally. Fawcett5 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. An excellent editor. --Scimitar parley 15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, good editor. Bluemoose 21:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. freestylefrappe 22:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Glad to see a good editor that takes on canadian issues. Wiki can always use more responsible admins. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 23:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) User:Merovingian (t) (c) 00:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. JuntungWu 04:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Excellent stuff about Ukraine. --IJzeren Jan 05:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, absolutely. Happy to see his name pop up here. Antandrus  (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  Grue   09:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. No previous familiarity with this user, but since edit counts are a very poor indicator of trustworthiness, I reviewed his edit history. Every edit I saw was good faith and I saw many very positive contributions. We are here to write an encyclopedia, so content creation is to be encouraged. That said, I also see enough community interaction and a pattern of editing that reflects a user worthy of the extra trust, which is what is important for Adminship anyway. - Taxman Talk 20:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Unconditionally supporting. Denelson83 01:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Sure. No reason not give him the mop and shotgun.  Uncontroversial, quality editor who won't misuse the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Change to Support. User has been active as of lately. Redwolf24 03:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Good editor, sensible guy: support. -- Hoary 04:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I made it through this process with 1500 edits at most, over the same period of time. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) David | Talk 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- he's answering my questions about page deletion...I figure I either have to support him or resign in disgrace. :-) Seriously, in my experience he seems very calm, intelligent, and likely to do well in this role. Jwrosenzweig 05:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -- Long time contributor, good editor. Number of edits is proportional to quality of work, prefer better quality over high edit count.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  21:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, I am persuaded out of neutrality. (And I've moved my previous comments down to the 'comments' section.) -Splash 22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Sango  123  22:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Wholeheartedly Support, look at all he's done... wow... we need this guy!!! Now get ready to swab, sailor! SWAB I SAY! :) GarrettTalk 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support; I've seen many good things from him and expect he'd do well with admin tools, too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) The romantic in me supports (see below). --Michael Snow 19:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, excellent contributor. - SimonP 23:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Impressive article-space edits, and an indication that you will help close out VfD discussions can only be a Good Thing&trade;. android  79  01:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Definitely. He's helped me out on RC patrol, and looks like he's highly qualified in the other areas as well. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support adminship will be a plus in his already remarkable fight on vandalism.-Poli (talk &bull; contribs) 14:20, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Weak Oppose. Not because he voted as such for me, but I have to agree with Splash below on the 1800 edits over a year. That's terribly inactive. I made that much in about 3 weeks. Step it up a bit. Redwolf24 04:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose everyone on rfa? Don't you see a problem with that? --Phroziac (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Boothy adds a bit of local colour to the "meh, no big deal"/"what, they're not one already?!?" RfAs... :) No vote yet, I will have to think this over... as I do with everyone as a matter of fact. GarrettTalk 10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I'm of two minds.  1) James has contributed greatly to many articles and he is keen to improve on existing articles or create new articles.  2) However, if he becomes admin, does that mean he'll be sucked into the black hole that is Wikipedia and I'll never see my fiance again? :)  CWood 01:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly, yes. Also see cabal. :-) Splash 02:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to be an admin too. That way we can set up a cozy little place in the black hole together.  :)  -- JamesTeterenko 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "...and they Vfd'd happily ever after..." ...awww... :) I wish my fiance was interested in Wikipedia... wait, what am I saying, I don't even HAVE a fiance yet! *sniffs* :( GarrettTalk 10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For #2, yes, so clearly you just need to get sucked in yourself. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * 'm struggling to decide . Editcountitis can be fatal, but 1800 over the course of a year isn't all that many. But, they are pretty constant i.e. he hasn't only just started making edits. He does participate in VfD, and has done some rescues from there and thus would probably be clear enough on how that sort of thing works. Nothing in TfD/CfD/etc but they're backwaters by comparison to VfD anyway. However, all of Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and User talk: space edits together total only 237 (and a number of those are recent RfA votes), which is too few for me really. But there's the decent edits and the RC patrol that appears in his (sub-2000 entries long) contributions list. So I'll listen to the debate and then decide. I have now changed my vote from neutral to support.-Splash 22:33, 24 July 2005 (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. The most useful aspect will be to revert vandalism.  Also, I expect that I will help clean up results of votes such as WP:VFD.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favourite is Maksym Berezovsky.  It is one of my earlier articles and I believe that it is the best information available on the web on him.  I am also happy with my progress on the Calgary mayors.  I started from the beginning and have made it more than half way down the list.  I also really enjoyed working on the Louis Riel and related articles when getting it to featured status.
 * 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. Not really.  I use Wikipedia as a break from the stress of the real world.  I suppose it helps that many of the topics that I write about are not of interest to others.  As for the future, I expect that I continue to do the same.  If I disagree with someone, I will try to state my case clearly.  If we do not reach agreement, I would look to the opinions of others.