Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fvw 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fvw

[edit]

(81/13/0) final - ended 05:17 12 January 2005 (UTC) - Promoted

Fvw has been with us since August 2003. On 14 OCT 04 he kicked into overdrive and has racked up an impressive 7785 edits as of the time of this nomination. He is dedicated, hard working and responsible. He has been very active in patrolling Recent Changes (and New Pages), reverting vandalism, and in general doing a great deal of housekeeping here. His first RfA was a little early, but he has more than proven himself by now. This is someone I believe will make an excellent admin. SWAdair | Talk 05:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Yes of course, thanks for the kind words. --fvw* 10:06, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Support

  1. Of course. SWAdair | Talk 05:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. -Willmcw 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kensho 05:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strongly. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 05:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. CryptoDerk 05:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sure. --Gene s 05:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Hoary 06:35, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. AlanBarrett 06:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Easy decision. jni 06:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. I've seen him around and was actually under the impression he was already an admin. Support. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely. —Korath (Talk) 09:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. If it looks like duck, ... Following the previous RfA I've noticed Fvw strenuously behaving like an admin,
    walks like a duck, ... helping out on many of the forums that keep WP tidy,
    and quacks like a duck, ... and making numerous sensible decisions,
    ...then it just may be a duck. — so support. -- Solipsist 11:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sure. Sietse 12:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. I assumed he already was an admin. Absolutely support. Carrp 13:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. I actually asked fvw if I should nominate him for adminship [unfortunate typo corrected] at roughly the same time as SWAdair. Support of course :)Thue | talk 14:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. BrokenSegue 15:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. thought he was an admin already (hoping, once you are an admin, you won't act like an "uberadmin :o) dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Never come across this user in my contributions, but I have looked through Fvw's and was impressed by the variety and extent. He's got my vote. --Cyberjunkie 16:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. absolutely. a tireless wiki-janitor. understands & respects policy. very strong support Michael Ward 16:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Sure thing.--Bishonen | Talk 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Noisy | Talk 16:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Yet another user whose work to keep things running smoothly has been so tireless, I did not realize he was not yet an admin. Strong support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Definitely suport -- Ferkelparade π 17:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. I thought he was already. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Dude is all over the VfD and the new pages slaying trolls left and right. He'd also make a great intermediary on VfD regarding articles on the speedy delete borderline until the policies are changed. - Lucky 6.9 21:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Would make a great admin. DCEdwards1966 21:51, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Tuf-Kat 21:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  30. [Insert unspeakable RfA cliche here]. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  31. In my experience his opinions and actions derive from a very reliable sense of NPOV and the best interests of the project. Support. Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Evercat 00:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. --JuntungWu 02:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strong support. I've seen a lot of his work over the last month or so, and I'm very impressed.-gadfium 04:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Ironclad support. A great vandal-fighter and janitor to boot. -- Hadal 04:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Obvious. Should be an excellent admin. Antandrus 04:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Supported last time, and I don't see anything has changed since then. Shane King 05:10, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Paul August ☎ 05:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Very Strong Support. Back from grave to support you. utcursch 08:09, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Strong support. I too thought he was already an administrator, given his incredible work on Recent Changes. Would be glad to see him an admin. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. As if you even need my vote! --MPerel 19:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  42. I didn't realise you weren't one Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Superduport. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    In the interest of full disclosure, I must point out that he gave me a cookie. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support - he does very good work. →Raul654 01:05, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support, absolutely. Dbenbenn 01:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. support I think that added responsibility will make him more calmly. Dunc|☺ 02:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. I would have sworn he was already an admin, but apparently I'm crazy. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support Very impressive statistics. Squash 06:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. Ryan! | Talk 17:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  50. Strong support. I'm surprised he didn't become an admin the first time round. Xezbeth 19:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support, with reservations. See objections below regarding speedy deletes. Vacuum c 02:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. Rje 02:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Sorry I didn't get to vote sooner - I strongly support this candidate.David Cannon 05:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. I didn't vote here yet? Wow. Of course I support. His RC patrol is great. --Lst27 (talk) 20:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. I support based upon the opposition, which I find unconvincing, in addition to my own experience. - RedWordSmith 04:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support His edits are sane, he's more than willing to discuss, he'd be a great admin --sp00n17 06:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  57. A bit wary of his deletionism (which is more extremist than mine), but a fine editor otherwise. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. 172 09:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Changing my vote; I was confusing him with another user earlier.]
  59. Ditto on assuming he was already an admin. Would clearly benefit from being able to rollback and block vandals. Opposition is unfair: having a specific perspective on deletion is irrelevant so long as he abides by community consensus. RadicalSubversiv E 09:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support Slim 10:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Strong support - fvw has been a great help during my beginning days on the 'pedia. He has given me good advice on the Wiki way. Perhaps could do with being a little less abrupt on occasions, but I think he would make a first-class admin. [I believe this vote is by User:Smoddy; added by Bishonen.]
    Yep, was me. Sorry, I got so excited about voting fvw in... Support as strong as ever. Smoddy | Talk 17:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Strong support. Wyss 04:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  63. See comments below. --Slowking Man 06:12, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support Warofdreams 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support despite his deletionism ;-) David Gerard 11:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support. Janitorial work is a plus. - Vague | Rant 12:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  67. Xtra 12:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. M7it 21:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. gK ¿? 22:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. The amount of janitorial/etc stuff he's already doing has impressed me no end. Noel (talk) 23:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) We need more janitors. I think at the very worst, he's useful.
  72. Do you know I thought he was already... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  73. Shanes 03:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  74. O yea --Whosyourjudas\talk 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. No doubt. --MarkSweep 05:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support. Lupo 08:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  77. One of our greatest vandal-stoppers I've seen. Total support --Neigel von Teighen 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Infrogmation 20:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  79. The concerns of others have me concerned. ugen64 03:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) First-hand experience moves me to support. ugen64 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Support why not? Tony the Marine
  81. Ambi 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Too many occasions where I personally disagree with his decisions. Too prone to simply revert substantive edits without adding to discussion, so rollback access would be unsuitable. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    Could Netoholic please supply some diffs for other potential voters to evaluate the second of these charges?--Bishonen | Talk 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. The evidence of the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger indicates that Fvw does not display the maturity required of a sysop on Wikipedia. It is important that adminship on Wikipedia is not treated like a "club" but rather proffered on people who have the necessary skills and maturity to be up to the task. - Robert the Bruce 05:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Could Robert the Bruce give a link to "the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger"? R th' B has already referred to it darkly on Fvw's user page but I don't know what he's on about. -- Hoary 05:18, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
    I assume the passage in question is [1]. I found it funny, and I had a similar exchange with this vandal. See my talk page.-gadfium 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    If it is indeed that, then Fvw should be commended on his brevity, wit, and good taste. The childishness was all on the other side. -- Hoary 05:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  3. I have the same objections as Rob the Bruce and Netoholic. BSveen 07:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nope. He's improved a little but I cannot support anyone a/ whose view on speedy deletion is so far from policy, b/ who talks about "slapping vandals" and c/ tries to write policy by the back door. We have enough of those already.Dr Zen 11:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Norman Rogers\talk 18:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. As Fvw admits himself, all of his time here is spent 'patrolling' RC and tagging things, most frequently fD. He has practically no experience of writing or editing articles, which is actually what Wikipedia is about. It would be nice if, instead of tagging articles and leaving them for others, he actually did some of the work himeself. Further, being a strong 'deletionist', I very much doubt he will arrive at objective conclusions when evaluating consensus on VfD pages. Dan100 18:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Do you also very much doubt that a strong "inclusionist" would arrive at objective conclusions when evaluating VfD pages? Also, if someone is interested in mainly doing "janitorial" work on WP, why should that be held against them? Carrp 18:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I can think of cases where aggressive work on RC patrol was done solely for the purpose of gaining adminship, then abandoned. It is easy work that is typically well regarded by voters here, so is an easy mechanism for promotion. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    Wouldn't, say, 3000 such edits be sufficient for that purpose? Why make nigh on 8000 of them? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:25, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    It may well be easier work than is a lot of other work hereabouts, but it's exhausting in bulk. Incidentally, I don't think Fvw has been "aggressive" in doing it. -- Hoary 01:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
    Carrp, the difference between inclusionists and deletionists is that a bad decision by the former does not result in the disappearance of other editors' work.Dr Zen 08:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is also about having correct information. In his patrols fvw has uncovered a number of subtle hoaxes, at least 4 such today alone. That adds at least as much value as writing several articles because a hoax impugns the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. And, I'd call almost 8000 edits of any sort "work". Michael Ward 23:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    There is a subtelty which I suggest is being missed here and that is that it appears Wikipedia is attracting the sort of people who prefer to "control" other people and their actions than themselves contribute to building articles. Fvw is clearly one such person who additionally seems to derive pleasure from "slapping" people. Wikipedia is fast approaching a situation where sysops are becoming a law unto themselves and the question needs to be asked again: Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Robert the Bruce 03:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Still too early (less than 3 months of continuous activity). It's annoying how people are always trying to force this. Whenever an RfA fails, someone will just renominate after a month or so. Gzornenplatz 00:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, based on the quality of support and objections, it seems it would be best to wait. Deletionism alone is a good reason to oppose, if nothing else. We do not need more deletionist admins. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. I currently oppose. Fvw needs more time here, and needs to prove a fairer interaction with users and the database. Kingturtle 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Everyking 08:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, strong concerns expressed....Salazar 03:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia, Salazar. How did you find RfA on your third day? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, you mean this one? from the recent pages page I think it was. Very interesting. Salazar 06:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    For example, fvw cuts material with little justification [2] and was later forced to return it.
    With all due respect, I think that this is a mischaracterization of the footnoted case. See the interchange here: [3] The link that FVW cut was a poorly-added external link, marked as an editorial, on a frequently vandalized page. When asked about it, he took a second look and reverted his own deletion, then improved the link. All in all, I'd say that FVW behaved quite properly. -Willmcw 06:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    He should have checked it out instead of simply reverting. Perhaps he tries to do too much. But editing that is not careful should be discouraged, particularly removing others' work without due care.Dr Zen 07:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Ey's allowed an opinion on eir third day. Ey's allowed to express it without being harassed.Dr Zen 06:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Who's Ey? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    He or she, whichever it might be.Dr Zen 07:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Does Brockert have a problem with me voting? I have no problem with him voting. Salazar 13:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    This seems to imply symmetry, but there's a certain assymmetry between the length and depth of his history hereabouts and yours. I don't know how much one should have done here to be counted (perhaps I don't qualify), but if I were counting the votes, I might wish to skip Kensho's and yours. -- Hoary 14:15, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  13. jguk 23:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • I have seen his work on the RC Patrol, but I have only a few disagreements in regards to things he marked as speedy deletes. Rainbow kiss was marked as a speedy, I listed it on VfD then it became a copyright problem -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Nevermind, my mistake. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I've never edited Rainbow kiss. --fvw* 14:09, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Comments

  • I feel that some of the concerns raised by objectors are valid, but my evaluation of Fvw's work and the support given him by Wikipedians whom I respect outweighs that. If Wikipedia needs anything, it needs more janitors and patrollers. Now, to speak on something that has me concerned, namely the hatred shown by some voters for deletionists. I am a self-proclaimed deletionist. I feel that a lot of crap gets added to Wikipedia, and that deleting it is often the best course of action. What I didn't know is that this makes me a fire-breathing monster looking for the next opportunity to delete someone's hard work, if some comments in this RfA are to be taken seriously. It's certainly permissible to disagree with deletionist philosophies, but a knee-jerk "oppose" vote because someone calls himself a deletionist is bad. The broad brush of stereotype will only hurt Wikipedia, making issues ever more political and contributors ever more recalcitrant. Disagreement is healthy; viritrolic mudslinging is not. --Slowking Man 06:12, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't as it happens oppose Fvw for being a "deletionist" but I don't think we need more admins whose purpose in being here is seemingly to get rid of articles that they personally disapprove of and "slap" vandals. Dr Zen 06:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
imho, WP does need vandal-slappers. badly. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suppose "don't bite the newbies" is just one of the rules you don't feel Wikipedia is really in need of?Dr Zen 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come on now, we know that Newbies != Vandals. I think most people would agree that vandals should be slapped. The concern is that a newbie is unfairly labeled a vandal. As long as an admin warns suspected vandals and informs them that their "contributions" are not very productive, I see no problem with slapping them should they continue their vandalism. Carrp 13:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am basing my comments on my observations of Fvw's contributions. Reverting and smacking a template on to user's talkpages are not my idea of showing wikilove, especially when the "vandalism" is borderline.Dr Zen 23:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bickering about a user who's spending ungodly amounts of time with the unpleasant and very necessary task of cleaning up the mess others are leaving just because you disagree with a couple of his contributions is not my idea of wikilove, either -- Ferkelparade π 01:06, 12 Jan 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. Mainly the RC patrol side of things, but I'll see if I can help out in the more understaffed areas of janitoring (WP:VfD and WP:CP) too.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most of my work here has involved minor improvements or repair and cleanup, so there's no specific article I'm particularly pleased with. In the interest of answering the question however I'll list List of elements by boiling point and List of elements by melting point, since even though they're rather dull, the greater part of them was my work.
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. Yes, there's been the odd bit of conflict, but I think I've been spared a lot by not getting too closely involved with most articles. Whatever stress does occur is easy to work off by slapping vandals in RC patrol.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fvw_2&oldid=1138650278"