Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd 2


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

Rogerd
final (62/0/1) ending 04:30 12 January, 2006 (UTC)

– This is Rogerds' second nomination and it has been more than 3 months since his first self nom failed primarily due to lack of project space contributions. Now he has almost 6,000 edits and 1,500 of them have been to project space. Rogerd has been working hard on disambiguations and is one of the most polite and courteous editors I have come across. Rogerd has been active in every namespace and I trust he will be an excellent Admin.--MONGO 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I humbly accept, and thank MONGO for the nom. --rogerd 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support Everything looks A-okay to me!--MONGO 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -- Phædriel  04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support of course. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per impeccable nom. BD2412  T 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as above; excellent candidate. Antandrus  (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Supported after reviewing contributions. Pretty much the ideal admin. silsor 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Everything looks good. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. He seems to be a fine editor.  Let him be promoted. -- Eddie 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I see this user around all the time, we can trust him with the admin tools. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support as above. Does a lot of stuff. Croat Canuck 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Will make a great administrator. Neutralitytalk 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Snakes 06:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Administratorfy!-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Very good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. While I personally haven't ever had any experience with the user, judging by his edits he seems to be well rounded.  Looking at his talk page, he seems to be well respected and often people ask for his advice or opinion.  Having 100% edit summary usage also always looks good in my book.  PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Izehar 10:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Positive user. - Darwinek 11:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Terence Ong Talk 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Easy Support great edit history, good editor.Gator (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support very good user who does good work.--Alhutch 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Polite and does good work, will make a great janitor. --W.marsh 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Tally Up! Its not big deal! Even if it was I would still vote +ve. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. The concerns raised in the first RfA have been addressed, and I feel this user would make a great sysop.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, good credentials, no reason not to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, looks and sounds pretty good. Good answer to question three. Babajobu 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Good editor. -- Szvest 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
 * 30) Support. Thunderbrand 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) King of All the Franks 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. KHM03 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. The more prolific article authors are the people who deserve adminship. David | Talk 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, would make a good admin -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support, seems like excellent admin material to me. CharonX 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. jnothman talk 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Looks good. Olorin28 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support All the i's looked crossed and t's dotted. --Jay (Reply) 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Everything looks in order here. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  04:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support: yes. --Bhadani 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support; indeed valid contributor and nice guy. Plus MONGO's thoughts on adminship are always right on the money as far as I am concerned. -MegamanZero|Talk 08:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support: He would make a great admin, and is almost a namesake - what a laugh. Roger Dangerfields 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Strong Support I wanted to nominate him --Jaranda wat's sup 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support --NaconKantari 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Seen him around, always in a positive light.  Ban  e  s  11:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support gets my support, good luck to you. Gryffindor  17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support Monor 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. Good history, good answers to the questions. I believe candidate can be trusted with admin tools.-- Dakota ~  ε  22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support Looks like he's improved since then. --Chris S. 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. Looks like a good editor. --Kefalonia 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. Good editor, probably a good admin. -Colin Kimbrell 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Mukadderat 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support Nothing wrong with being supportive--Nn-user 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support. Mihai -talk 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support, solid contributor. - Bobet 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support. I could have sworn I voted support on this a few days ago, but I don't see my vote anywhere, and so I'm stumped.  Anyway, I think Rogerd will make a good admin. —Cleared as filed. 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support. Looks good.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:59Z 
 * 60) Support. --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support--Duk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 *  Weak Oppose: I'm sorry to be the lone voice of opposition, here, but I've recently decided I'd like to ask admin candidates to have twelve months of editing history before being accepted. Also, since I do not know the candidate, I don't have enough information to support.  I need to personally know that a candidate has demonstrated a commitment to NPOV and consensus before supporting.  I've added a question about this below, and if the answer is shows enough overwhelming support for these principles, I may consider changing this to a Neutral or Support.  Nothing personal, I'm just trying to prompt us all to think about raising our own standards for this process.  Given the number of votes you've received at this point, it seems likely you will be promoted despite my vote here. :) Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral based on answers. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * To bureacrat closing this....Roger Dangerfields was banned by me indefinitely for making racial slurs, personal attacks and trolling. He surely voted here for dubious reasons and his vote should not count...bear in mind that this is my nomineee and the vote is a support vote, but fair is fair.--MONGO 02:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above comment User:Monor is apparently a sockpuppet and his/her vote should also be discounted.--MONGO 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interiot's report and tool. --Interiot 18:17, 6 January 2006 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. The articles for deletion seems to get backlogged a lot, I think I can be of some help there, as well as IfD, CfD and other deletions. Also copyright problems and requested moves.  If I am made an admin, I will check on the administrators' noticeboard often to try to help where needed.  I also believe that admins should be very careful dealing with controversies in articles that he/she has done a lot of editing, and in some cases should get other admins involved.  I already do a lot of vandal patrolling, and admin rights will help with that.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. National Museum of the United States Air Force as well as several other articles related to aircraft (both civilian and military) like Taylorcraft Aircraft, North American BT-9 and Sikorsky R-4.  I am also interested in early US history and WW II.  I contributed a lot to an article about a little known incident in the American Revolutionary War, known as the Newburgh Conspiracy, as well as other articles about the period.


 * 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. Only some minor incidents. No real stress.  An anonymous editor kept trying to re-insert unsubstantiated claims in the Daryn Kagan article.  After trying to discuss this on the article talk page (they kept changing IP, so I couldn't use the user talk page), I put in a request in WP:RFPP.  I feel that the best way to handle things like that are to discuss them calmly, and then try to compromise.  And remember that you aren't going to win every disagreement. You should only revert or resort to heavier handed means if the other party is violating established WP rules.


 * 4. Please provide diffs to edits you have made which demonstrate your commitment to Wikipedia's core principles of consensus and NPOV. Do you believe that the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high-quality encyclopedia? Do you believe that consensus among Wikipedians is the proper way to produce articles and create and administer policy? Please demonstrate with diffs. Are there any cases where consensus has gone against the way you think things should have been? How did you handle it? Diffs representing these cases would also be helpful. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to take your questions one at a time:


 * Do you believe that the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high-quality encyclopedia? Yes. Although, it will constantly evolve and "eventually" will never happen.  The NPOV is a constant struggle.  Even the 1911 Brittanica, which  is pointed to as a role model, in many ways is POV by most 2006 standards.  Many newer editors edit with POV without realizing it.  In time, if they are dedicated to the principle, editors learn how to become NPOV even when it goes against their beliefs.  When the POV is clear, the simplest way to deal with it is to revert it, like:, or , or .  However, sometimes POV pushers bring up some valid points that need to be weaved a little better into the article like , , , ,  and


 * Do you believe that consensus among Wikipedians is the proper way to produce articles and create and administer policy? Absolutely.  It is the only way wikipedia can work.  A good example would be how RfA standards have evolved, even in the 3 months since I have been participating in these discussions.


 * Please demonstrate with diffs. I am not sure what your are looking for here. I don't know how I can demonstrate that to you.  I have participated in many RfA and AfD discussions, I think those are both examples of concensus. I would be difficult to single out examples in the article space, since almost every edit that good editors does would qualify for that.  Here are some possible things in the wikipedia space: , ,


 * Are there any cases where consensus has gone against the way you think things should have been? Of course. There are several situations where my position didn't prevail.


 * How did you handle it? Diffs representing these cases would also be helpful. If my position doesn't prevail, I don't sulk or post rants to talk pages, so I really don't have diffs about how I handled it.  I usually just move on.  Perhaps a good example was how I handled my first RfA.  I was determined to take some of the criticisms to heart and try to learn from it.  Then I spent the next 3 months being a better editor and allowed myself to be re-nominated.
 * --rogerd 16:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Process is Important? DES (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting document. I think that some of the controveries surrounding admin actions, including the recent one about user boxes, highlight the fact that you can definitly be too bold and overdo ignore all rules.  I think those guidelines are important to keep newbies from being intimidated, but admins should follow established processes.  Also, editors making changes to templates that are used in many articles and doing other edits that involve major changes, need to discuss these changes with the community.  One of the purposes of the Rfa process is to ensure that a candidate is trustworthy and won't do anything rash.  --rogerd 02:28, 10 January 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.