🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ameliorate!
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ameliorate!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ameliorate!

[edit]

Final: (83/1/5); ended 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ameliorate! (talk · contribs) - Ameliorate! has been a Wikipedian since April 2006, and has been editing with increased frequency since May this year. He is an able writer — I have particularly enjoyed reading the articles on Horand von Grafrath, the first German Shephard Dog, and The Trons, a robot band from New Zealand. A number of articles created or significantly expanded by Ameliorate! have been featured in the "Did You Know" section of the main page. He has recently become involved in helping with updates to that page, where admin tools would be useful in allowing him to complete the updating process.

Ameliorate! comments intelligently in AfD and MfD discussions, demonstrating a good knowledge of the relevant inclusion standards, and his deleted contributions show a sound grasp of the speedy deletion criteria. He reverts vandalism and follows up appropriately with warnings. His reports to AIV all seem to have been in order. In addition to this, Ameliorate! runs 3 bots on Wikipedia: AmeliorationBot, which reverts obvious editing tests; AilurophobiaBot, which fixes instances where users have accidentally added pages to categories rather than linking to the category; and AloysiusLiliusBot, which adds dates to maintenance templates.

To summarise, Ameliorate!'s contributions to the project demonstrate skill and experience and include the areas with which admins are regularly involved and I believe he is a good choice to become an administrator on Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Mailer Diablo

I know Ameliorate! well from his involvement with Wikipedia:Did You Know? (DYK). As with recent RfAs have indicated, DYK is having a shortage of administrators to keep the six-hour cycle going, something that all of us has probably taken for granted. Ameliorate! will be a fine addition to the existing corp of administrators in updating the edit-protected Main DYK template.

There is also something of Ameliorate! that I think is worth highlighting to everyone. Recently, he has taken the initiative to propose solutions in simplifying the maintenance process of DYK, which many of us the DYK regulars feel greatly appreciative of in substantially reducing our workload even if it may not an absolutely perfect one. Amongst his other maintenance contributions, I think we can see more of such initiatives from him in the future for admin-related processes when he gets the feel of the mop as a whole. Continual initiatives for improvement and self-development is the spirit that every administrator should possess in an always work-in-progress encyclopaedia, and I believe Ameliorate! possess both traits that will prove himself to be an asset to Wikipedia.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to accept. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Updating T:DYK, keeping an eye on WP:AIV and helping to clear the perennial backlog at CAT:CSD for the most part. I may also delve into closing AFD discussions and performing edit protected requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of tangible content; my contributions to the German Shepherd Dog article and the articles I have created or expanded to have included into WP:DYK, my best of which is probably The Trons. Outside of article work, I am quite proud of my technical work to the DYK process (which Mailer diablo mentioned), in which I devised a system which made it a lot easier and much less time consuming to notify people that their articles have been included in DYK. There are also my three bots, which WJBscribe explained the functions of. I have also done a little bit of "behind the scenes" work, such as creating most of the maintenance categories for September and this month (such as Category:Articles that may contain original research since September 2008, Category:Cleanup from October 2008 etc.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't been in any conflicts that I can recall, I have had disagreements and differences of opinion of course but nothing specific that really stands out. When I feel myself getting stressed I tend to disengage for a while and go and do something else. For the most part I dislike "drama" and often myself compromising in favour of the other party to avoid it.

Optional questions from Blooded Edge

4. Wikipedia has a multitude of different policies, which do you personally feel is the most important? Please also provide a reason explaining your choice.
A: I personally do not feel that any single policy can be singled out as the most important as each individual policy addresses a different issue. For example, the WP:BLP policy addresses the ethical and legal concern of Wikipedia having a negative impact on a person's life because of what was written; from a social-responsibility standpoint BLP is a very important policy, however WP:IAR for example is also a very important policy in the sense that in a project of this nature a user may find themselves unable to make what they feel is a positive contribution because of our policies and guidelines. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is also a very important policy as it is necessary for Wikipedia to keep a standard of credibility, just as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is important to prevent Wikipedia material becoming biased to certain views/angles. I therefore can't give a definitive answer that sets any of our policies above another, primarily because the importance of certain policies is liable to change based on the circumstances.
5. I would like to ask one more question, if no-one minds. Often, administrators will have to deal with disruptive IPs/Users. Assume that you succeed this RfA, and find yourself in the following predicament. An IP/new User has edited prominent articles in Good Faith, but when another User reverts these additions, the IP/new User reacts in an obscene and violent manner. The IP/new User has no history with vandalism, and recent contributions before this, are of a good quality. Would you place a 'cool down' block for, lets say, 12 hours? What is your stance on the 'cool down' block? Bear in mind, Wikipedia (last time I checked) generally discourages such paths of action, as they often just inflame the situation. But there is a chance that the subject of the block will take the time to calm himself/herself, meaning it can work at times. I look forward to your response :).
A: Blocks should only be given to prevent actual disruption, not to give a user time to cool down. In your hypothetical situation this user, who has contributed positively, is much as likely to abandon Wikipedia as they are to cool down because the block, especially because as a new user they have found their contributions removed and being prevented from editing on top of that, I feel, would most probably only serve to frustrate them. My philosophy is that profanity and obscene behaviour can be easily reverted and ignored but there is no one button that generates positive contributions.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ameliorate! before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support - fantastic user who will be a great help at DYK. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support We absolutely need more qualified DYK admins. Also (more importantly?) I love the username. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per great work at DYK. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per co-nom. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Was literally looking over this users contributions a few days ago thinking about whether to recommend that the user run for RfA. So I guess that's support JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The candidate is competent and trustworthy; will be a a net plus, if promoted, I believe. Support. Anthøny ✉ 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I see no reason not to trust this user with adminiship. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Competent administrator-hopeful; helps out a lot at DYK which is great. Caulde 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good work at DYK.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aye - great user, no red flags, no problem. Black Kite 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Nothing even remotely alarming or worrisome. Nice work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Pretty much per everyone else. We really do need more DYK admins, other than Victuallers ;). Just joking, there are plenty other great ones! Plus, if WJB wants to nom. you, you can't be all that bad. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Synergy 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, I already thought he was an admin. RkMnQ (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. No red flags, everything looks good! Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – Very well-rounded editor. I've seen very nice work from this user around DYK, and I'm sure he'll be able to do more as an administrator. Absolutely no problems from what I've seen. Ameliorate! will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No reason why not really. Great editor. Matty (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --ditto. ~ Troy (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - I trust the nominator's judgment. iMatthew (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Nothing significant pops up after a look at your contribs, seen you around, and trust the noms. Good luck! J.delanoygabsadds 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support After very careful consideration.The user has been since April 2006 but over 11000 edits have been since June 2008 and over 7000 in September 2008 alone.But the user has used Automated or script-assisted edits only for 800 edits.Further the user has shown great commitment as per track and see no misuse of tools.Lastly fully trust the judgement of WJBscribe.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hi, I'm here to pick up my laundry. Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here -- Support for a great editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support LittleMountain5 review! 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support! II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes indeedy! -- how do you turn this on 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - We need more DYK admins, and I trust the user's judgment, as well. — neuro(talk) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems here. Steven Walling (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great editor! America69 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as nom. WJBscribe (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support having seen contribs as part of AWB approval, and taking into account willingness to take on DYK, I have no qualms here. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Because you're from New Zealand, you must be the coolest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Great user, will be a good admin. Xclamation point 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support BorgQueen (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Outstanding user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. WTF? I could have sworn that you were an admin since early 2007. I must be confusing you with someone else. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user, perhaps? GlassCobra 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not him. I can't understand why I think this. bibliomaniac15 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it User:Joyous! you're thinking of? But, she's been an admin since sometime in 2004. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. This isn't even a jokingly cliched support - I truly did assume this contributor already had access to the extra buttons, and was honestly quite surprised to see his name pop up at RfA. Valtoras (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Certainly. --PeaceNT (talk)
  39. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, although with a caution that people who ramp up their activity on Wikipedia so quickly are prone to burnout.-gadfium 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - A candidate with the potential to further ameliorate! the DYK process --Flewis(talk) 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - it is only the fact that this RfA occurred that caused me to realise that Ameliorate! was not an admin already, and ought to become one. Caspian blue's diffs show what a great candidate he is. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Great DYK work, no reason to believe candidate will misuse tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support The candidate has provided well-thought out answers, and I feel he would make a great administrator. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support User's openness and good communication suggests can be trusted, and DYK work os great - good 'pedia builder Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, per competence. fish&karate 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No problems here. GlassCobra 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Developed great DYK tool, DYK help is always needed. Even if the candidate would burn out quickly it would be worth it to have a short-term net positive. Royalbroil 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Good work and would help a lot at DYK. --Banime (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Very good worker - can't have enough DYK template updaters. Vishnava talk 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I reviewed the diffs listed by Caspian Blue and couldn't see what the problem. Reviewing Ameliorate!'s contributions and answers, those'll work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support- I haven't had much to do with this candidate, but what I have seen has impressed me. In addition, I am unconvinced by Caspian Blue's accusations of incivility- to me they actually demonstrate a sound grasp of policy and a level head even in the face of provocation. Reyk YO! 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. - Per the noms, the answers to the first three questions, and some excellent positive contributions to this project across varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Agree with Reyk - I am encouraged about the candidate's level-headedness after reading Caspian's links. Townlake (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - after viewing the way he dealt with the oppose, and looking through his contribs, I'm perfectly happy to support this candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support for incredible patience in sorting out DYK microconflicts. NVO (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. I'm familiar with the candidate and trust him with the tools. The diffs presented below aren't uncivil and the dispute was handled in a calm manner. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per nom and article work. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've seen you around at DYK. Judging by your contributions and work on article building, you have my support. Jordan Contribs 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support wholeheartedly, a longtime contributor who can easily be trusted with a mop. RFerreira (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Great work + nomination by WJB = Support! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support They will be really useful at DYK, and no reason to think they will abuse the tools. rootology (C)(T) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Hello, I'm looking for the grave of the first German Shepherd, and...ooh, wrong queue. Support (beat you eco) the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support quality additions to the project Spinach Dip 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Weak Support--LAAFansign review 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per Malinaccier. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: The username represents what every Wikipedia user should strive to do for the community. Need we use it as a battle cry someday? Also, it brings me back to the good days of studying 4th Form History at S.M.A.... Anyway, best of luck! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - one of those few users over which I have no doubt whatsoever. It's evident from everything he's contributed so far that he's in it for the long haul, and certainly won't abuse the position. Long overdue IMO. – Toon(talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per pretty much everyone above. Great editor, pleasure to work with.  This flag once was red  10:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support : I have a bot task request for you... :) Can you automate RFA approvals ? If ( RFA candidate = Good ) { default: Approve }  ? .... Just Kidding ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - meets all my my standards. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - seems good to me. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Thought I'd already supported actually. Per DYK and previous wholly positive interaction. Pedro :  Chat  14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Wonderful contributor, although, is User:Ameliorate a sock of yours? Because if it isn't, you are open to impersonation (a situation potentially magnified with adminship), but besides that, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, however, they have been inactive for quite a while. There is a possibility of impersonation, but it requires that the owner of that account becomes active again, has malicious intent and knows that I exist, to impersonate me. That account is actually the reason I have "with the !" in my signature. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - looks like an execllent user. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, looks good. Wizardman 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak Support No reason to oppose, nor even go neutral, but I would have preferred a sustained amount of edits over a longer period - however, WP is not constructed around my preferences and there is no indication the candidate would abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per answers, experience, general reasonableness, and Caspian blue's reasoning. Tan | 39 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Good candidate, net positive. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Ben waiting for this. — Jojo • Talk • 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. I gave Ameliorate account creator rights, the results speak for themselves. Clearly advantagaeous to the project, congratulations. WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support: Ameliorate will revolutionize the DYK concept. KensplanetTalkContributions 14:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Oppose After consideration, oppose vote moved to neutral. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Oppose per the candidate's incivility and lack of understanding of policies which showed on T:TDYK.[1][2][3][4] (my responses[5][6]) The user obviously could not assume good faith in not only this case but also in many others. I also have not get any good impression from the user's cynical sarcasm such as on User:Cirt's RFA[7][8][9] and on ANI. I don't want uncivil editors to become admin with tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian blue--those first two diffs weren't even made by the candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fix the diffs.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was attempting to do was a carrot and stick approach, which has worked quite successfully in the past in getting article creators to fix up some problems with an article that just misses the requirements (such as being a few characters off 5x expansion). When it became apparent that you had taken it as a personal affront, I dropped the issue and confirmed the article. It wasn't bad faith or a misunderstanding of policies, it was that I would have preferred if an article that looked like this didn't get onto the main page, and because your nom missed the requirements (however narrowly) I tried to use that to get you to quell some of my concerns with it. Also that diff is not sarcasm? It was a factual observation that something wasn't quite right (which later evidence supported). ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrot and stick? huh, improper comparison again. Do you think commentors like you could be a lord or teacher to DYK nominators? I'm not your horse to bear your hitting nor to be fed by your care. I know you will say like "Oh, your don't get my intention. There seems to be a language barrier. The comparison was to explain..blah, blah..." My DYK experiences are longer than you and I've had two inquiries about Korean sources from Daniel Case and BorgQueen before. Unlike you, they did not act the way you behaved but have been always civil. You're the one who taunted the policies in the case. I did not miss anything except the 2 minute belated nomination. You did not clearly read the provided citations, and falsely accused me in such uncivil tone. That's why I don't believe your judgment as editor as well as ability to be admin with tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those diffs are incivil in the slightest. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last group of diffs, the first and third are the same edit and the second is from a different user. As with Wisdom89, I really don't see any issues with those edits on the RFA, though I don't have enough DYK experience to judge the others. The only one that could remotely seem uncivil (the fourth one) is certainly not anything even close to serious IMO. Admins are allowed to show emotion. Mr.Z-man 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think so. The candidate accused me of "taunting policies" such as WP:English, WP:V that the interpretation and accusation are totally uncalled for. Besides, the candidate is not an admin. "Admins are allowed to show emotion" --> Do you mean admins are okay to be rude? I've never such heard such implausible defense for candidates like this.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? The first 3 diffs from T:DYK are perfectly, absolutely fine. They fit quite clearly under "discuss content, not contributors" - Just because you take criticism of your work as an attack doesn't mean it is. Not once in the first 3 diffs does Ameliorate! ever refer to you, only to the article. Only in the last diff does Ameliorate! mention you at all. If you think "when I raised the objection you attack me?" is incivil, you really need to read WP:CIVIL. Mr.Z-man 16:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say "what are you talking about?"? Look at the diffs and my above comments carefully again. I did not say that the candidate's comments at the AFD were toward me. Those are examples of how I feel about him. I said the way of raising criticism is wrong. In the diffs, his behaviors are not absolutely fine for me. I think you're the one who should brush up WP:Civility because you have to be model to Wikipedian since you're admin (very new info for me). The user was not honest about himself on checking the sources and use of "taunting" is not only inappropriate, nor valid criticism to be taken seriously. That only gave a bad impression to the candidate. I think you see what you want to see. You have to accept that everyone can't regard his behaviors as the same as you want to believe.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, from this discussion it appears that you are the only person interpreting the above diffs and the comments therein as incivil. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this discussion has only four people so far including "the candidate" and the "supporters". Just accept the difference of our opinion. People tend to think differently on a same matter. Even if I had not the unpleasant experiences with him, I certainly would cast the "oppose" vote per my usual impression of him. Since I've seen too many uncivil admins on Wikipedia, I just don't want to vote for unsuitable people in my criteria. Although very a few of such admins tend to be summoned to ArbCom or RFC in the end, the procedure taking two or three months is incomparable to just RFAs being held in one week.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have, it appears, mistaken "flaunt" (which means, I gather, to be flout [over the misuse of "flaunt", I should say, one—at least one as obsessive as I—might reasonably oppose :)]) for "taunt" in the first diff. Whether this affects your analysis (or that of anyone else) of the propriety of the comment—or whether it should—I don't know; I simply offer the observation. Joe 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian, I'm sorry that you feel the need to oppose a candidate over a (civil, I might add) disagreement you had with the candidate and another user whose comments you have used to cast a negative light on the candidate. Being right is not uncivil. Try to put this behind you, at let us get on with our lives. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. Seems intelligent and clueful, and this editor's contributions so far have been outstanding. But the user's edit history is extremely top heavy, with 80% of the user's 11000 edits occurring in the last 8 or 9 weeks, and an enormous number of those edits are repetitive Wikignome tasks like replacing deprecated templates. User seems smart, but I like to see more of a temporal commitment to the project; before this summer, they barely edited at all. I also don't feel the user has participated in enough discussion for me to get a feel of how they'd handle the tools. Contributions at DYK and elsewhere are superb, though. Should this RfA fail, I have no doubt that after some time has passed, I would be able to support this candidate without reservation. Ford MF (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Answer to question 3. Bots and automatic edits. Also mainly editing article relating to dogs. — Realist2 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick question; is editing dog articles a bad thing? Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not alone no, but mix all this together and there is 0 proof this candidate can handle pressure and will seemingly, actively hide away from difficult situations or decisions. — Realist2 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering, you just mechanically oppose someone who doesn't has a good or featured article? I've seen a huge log of this actions and I assume you're doing it in bad faith. If not, please let me know. greetings, macy 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume what you like. I'm not wasting my time on this one. — Realist2 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, if you weren't wasting your time with this, you shouldn't had to reply =P. macy 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, a little light on Wikipedia-namespace contribs and deletion-related activity. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (for now), I agree with Stifle here: I expect someone that wants to close AfD discussions to have more experience in that area. It's not just a clerical position where you count !votes. VG ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I probably should have worded my answer a little better. I don't intend to close AFD discussions right away, but it is something I may look into at some stage. If I did start closing AFD debates it wouldn't be until I had a bit more experience and I would definitely start off closing discussions where there is a cut-and-dry consensus before making calls on contentious cases. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - this user looks to be on the path of being a great admin. A little more experience in various parts of the project and more mainspace activity will help. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ameliorate!&oldid=1306147724"