→ImperatorExercitus: (2/5/2) |
|||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
#'''Oppose''' - Regretfully, CSD is the one area where I don't believe you can fix your mistakes in policy knowledge ''after'' passing RfA. If it were AfD, or RFPP, I'd ask you to take things slowly and recover certain topics. But in CSD you don't really get to take things that slowly. I'm pleased to see your work at AfD (listing, nominations etc.) but again, today alone, I've seen several mistakes in your nominations. I'll diff if you'd like. Keep up your work on articles, I hope you choose to run again in future after reworking some of your policy knowledge at CSD. Also per Sparticus. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">[[User:Cyclonenim|<b>Cyclonenim</b>]] |[[User_talk:Cyclonenim|<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat </font>]]</span></small> 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - Regretfully, CSD is the one area where I don't believe you can fix your mistakes in policy knowledge ''after'' passing RfA. If it were AfD, or RFPP, I'd ask you to take things slowly and recover certain topics. But in CSD you don't really get to take things that slowly. I'm pleased to see your work at AfD (listing, nominations etc.) but again, today alone, I've seen several mistakes in your nominations. I'll diff if you'd like. Keep up your work on articles, I hope you choose to run again in future after reworking some of your policy knowledge at CSD. Also per Sparticus. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">[[User:Cyclonenim|<b>Cyclonenim</b>]] |[[User_talk:Cyclonenim|<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat </font>]]</span></small> 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
#Per above, if you want to work in [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] you're going to have to know which tag is right for which article.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">T</font>]]</sup>/<small>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">C</font>]]</small> 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
#Per above, if you want to work in [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] you're going to have to know which tag is right for which article.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">T</font>]]</sup>/<small>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">C</font>]]</small> 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. [[User:DougsTech|DougsTech]] ([[User talk:DougsTech|talk]]) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 17:26, 16 April 2009
ImperatorExercitus
(talk page) (2/5/2); Scheduled to end 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
ImperatorExercitus (talk · contribs) – Hello! I've been here on Wikipedia for over 6 months, in which time I've attained over 6600 contributions, 255 of which are deleted. In addition to my abundant anti-vandalism work, I'm also dedicated to article-writing; I've 6 DYKs, 5 GAs down (as well as two that are waiting.), and hopefully a Featured list soon. I'm also pretty active at various projects; for instance, I regularly help out at Articles for creation. In addition, I've demonstrated a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies; I have numerous reports, comments, and votes at WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and WP:CSD. I also regularly patrol Usernames for Administrator intervention (which is one of the primary reasons I need administrator tools-see below) and Administrator's Noticeboard. Also, I help maintain the heavily backlogged Did You Know by help reviewing people's articles. I'mperator 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate
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: As mentioned above, I often help take care of Did You Know by often reviewing people's submissions; consequently, I believe that I could aid by adding the approved DYK hooks to the queue. In addition, I plan to contribute to WP:AIV, where, though not too bad at some instances (thanks to j.delanoy :P), can be heavily backlogged when the majority of administrators are absent; for instance, I often help revert vandalism when the people across the Atlantic are asleep. Also, I plan to interact more at UAA. There, I often help clear up the backlog by eliminated false positives from bots and discussing usernames with beneficial users whom otherwise might be blocked. However, as a direct consequence of my lack of administrator tools, I sometimes make mistakes, namely the fact that I miss deleted contributions. These contributions mark a user as either a well-intentioned user with the misfortune to pick a bad username or a promotional user who uses Wikipedia for blatantly advertising.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Well, aside from my many reversions of vandalism (whether manually or via Huggle, which I don't really like that much), I have written plenty of articles that span from specific fungi to articles of art (a list can be found on my userpage. However, I must say that the ones that I'm most proud of are my 6 DYKs (this, this, this, this, this and this) and five GAs(this, now reassessed, Bart the Fink, this, this and this), with two more well on the way. In addition, I'm proud of my work at WP:AFC/R WP:UAA and WP:AFD.
- 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: First, my biggest conflict was with Calton at UAA over a user who had created spam pages (which were quickly deleted without tags on his/her talk page). Consequently, as far as I could make out, the user had done nothing wrong; consequently, I marked the reports as "Non blatant". In fact, I had even checked contributions, which reflected nothing. As a result of my misreplies, I was quickly "put down" and spent a few weeks reviewing all the policies again that related to WP:UAA. Since then, I've learned a great deal: to this day, I have always requested a list of deleted contribs, if any, from an admin before reviewing a case at WP:UAA. Should the community decided me worthy of attaining these tools, I will be able to avoid such conflicts in the future.
- (A link can be found here.) There was a notable incident with another well-intentioned editor, whom I accidentally reverted with Huggle (and giving him a warning). Although I reverted my revert and removed the warning, I was accused of "going in like a bull in a china shop." However, I calmly conversed with the user, and, sure enough, WP:AGF paid off. We finally ended with a cup of tea and apologies on both sides.
- Additional questions from Ali'i
- 4. In your opinion, what level of participating does it take to being able to claim a Good Article as your own? The reason I ask is that it appears that on some of the articles you note above, most of the work was done by others (User:Theleftorium on Three Men and a Comic Book, and hundred of others on England, etc.). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- A:
General comments
- Links for ImperatorExercitus: ImperatorExercitus (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for ImperatorExercitus can be found here.
- Promote ImperatorExercitus (bureaucrats only)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ImperatorExercitus before commenting.
Discussion
- For those who prefer them:
- ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look at the GA stuff. The Comicbook article was expanded by about 9000 bytes over the past month. Of that increase IE is responsible for about 3500 bytes. While the Leftorium was responsible for most, I have no problem with his sharing credit there. As for England... that's a little tougher. That's a huge 114K article and his direct invovlement was more limited---BUT he was still the main force behind taking the behemouth to GAN and working on the clean up to get it to pass. Thus, while he might not have too large (in terms of percentage of the total article) I again am not overly worried with his taking credit there. It probably would not be a GA right now if he didn't do the little bit of work he did. Most of the editors were drive by's but he was trying to make across the board improvements to help the article meet GA requirements.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was just more curious as to his or her opinion on the amount of work done to be able to share/take credit. A lot of the work IE did on the Three Men was adding references (which is important, of course), so the byte count may be inflated (refs take up a lot of bytes, properly formatted). Unless you meant readable bytes, in which case, I might be wrong. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that ImperatorExercitus should be more careful before taking credit for Good Articles. For example, even though I told him not to, he went ahead and nominated an article he barely worked on (Lisa the Iconoclast) before User:Maitch (the main contributor) had a chance to finish it and nominate it at WP:GAN. (Note: I have nothing against ImperatorExercitus, though, and I think he is a great user). —TheLeftorium 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mean. Thank you. I think he's doing wonderful work, but was curious about these. --Ali'i 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that ImperatorExercitus should be more careful before taking credit for Good Articles. For example, even though I told him not to, he went ahead and nominated an article he barely worked on (Lisa the Iconoclast) before User:Maitch (the main contributor) had a chance to finish it and nominate it at WP:GAN. (Note: I have nothing against ImperatorExercitus, though, and I think he is a great user). —TheLeftorium 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was just more curious as to his or her opinion on the amount of work done to be able to share/take credit. A lot of the work IE did on the Three Men was adding references (which is important, of course), so the byte count may be inflated (refs take up a lot of bytes, properly formatted). Unless you meant readable bytes, in which case, I might be wrong. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Support He is a very helpful user. GT5162 (我的对话页) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nobody's perfect. If his policy knowledge isn't that good, I'm confident that he will work on this concern (i.e. improve his knowledge in this area) before he starts helping out there as an admin. After all, I believe that ImperatorExercitus will be a good administrator and of benefit for the project. — Aitias // discussion 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose strongly suggest that you review the meaning of nonsense as it applies to CSD. You are using it way too frequently and in every case incorrectly. You might also want to review WP:WIHSD, WP:FIELD, and WP:10CSD. But I cannot support somebody who fails to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, yet works in that area and indicates a desire to work there.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Sparticus. Unfotunately, WP:CSD is a splendid place to turn away new users. It requires finesse and a thorough understanding of policy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. As often I'm Spartacus! is correct. You used G1 five times in the last 3 days alone, each time to an article that was clearly not notable. Yes, they were deleted but with correct reasoning instead. Point is, I have to assume that if you were an admin, you'd use this incorrect reasoning instead, this biting new users (because G1 carries a much harsher assumption than some other tags like A7). An admin who wants to work in deletion should not make such elemental mistakes. Also elemental A7 mistakes like tagging a product. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Regretfully, CSD is the one area where I don't believe you can fix your mistakes in policy knowledge after passing RfA. If it were AfD, or RFPP, I'd ask you to take things slowly and recover certain topics. But in CSD you don't really get to take things that slowly. I'm pleased to see your work at AfD (listing, nominations etc.) but again, today alone, I've seen several mistakes in your nominations. I'll diff if you'd like. Keep up your work on articles, I hope you choose to run again in future after reworking some of your policy knowledge at CSD. Also per Sparticus. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per above, if you want to work in speedy deletion you're going to have to know which tag is right for which article.--Giants27 T/C 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral-Man this is tough. I like you GA and DYK work is very impressive, good work at AIV and I would love to see with the mop, if it wasn't for you actual time here. You've only been here about like 6 months and don't which tag is proper for an article in a CSD, not sure about this one.--Next-Genn-Gamer 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning support I like his nomination speech a good deal: he seems to have good potential as an admin and is unlikely to abuse the tools. However, I think it's best if he waits a few months. He is very active, but I know from my own experience that just because your active, that doesn't mean you are qualified enough for the job. I'd most likely support him if he'd requested adminship in a few more months and kept up the same level of contributions, and would most definitely support him if he waited for a full year. Sorry, but I'm a little worried that he might quit; a user needs to be here long enough to prove that they won't drop out and get bored with Wikipedia. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)