final (91/1/0) ending 23:26 23 February 2006 (UTC)
ESkog (
talk·contribs) – I'm nominating ESkog for adminship. He's one of our friendliest users and has been very active over the past couple of months. He does everything, RC patrol, AFD work and even writes articles! I cannot think of a good reason not to trust him with the extra privileges and think that promoting him could only benefit Wikipedia. --
Latinus (
talk (el:)) 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words. I accept. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Contributions look good, and his patience in waiting 2 1/2 months since his first RfA is a good sign.
NoSeptembertalk 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support looks good.--
Jusjih 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I like and trust the nominator a lot. The nominee's great too, btw ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
You really aren't an admin? Wow.
NSLE(
T+
C) 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Seen him around, seems sensible. –
Joke 01:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Per NSLE, Are you certain you're not an admin :-) Great user, seen him in AFD often. --lightdarkness (
talk) 02:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support good editor --
rogerd 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Rory096 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Good editor. Put him to work.
No Guru 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Good vandal patroller.
Merecat 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Trustworthy editor. Happy to switch from a previous oppose; no reason for any doubt now.
Xoloz 05:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. good work.
pschemp |
talk 06:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support looks good.--
MONGO 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for beating me to too many vandalism reverts. err.. Very StrongSupport, awesome user, warns on every revert; no reason to oppose here. Well... never mind. (Added a very after seeing through the whole situation with
User:Maoririder.) --
Jjjsixsix(
talk)/(
contribs) @ 07:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Emil Skog? This candidate looks all OK to me.
JIP |
Talk 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Insert cliche about thinking he already was one here. Totally deserves it.
Mo0[
talk] 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, with lots of reasons; so to save you all from my usual RfA essays take a look at
my RfA criteria, and add on "nice work on mediation/mentorship/general helpfulness".
Petros471 17:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, looks like very good admin material.
Kusma(討論) 15:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Not that another support vote matters. I've seen some pretty good edits from ESkog on a number of articles.
Jim62sch 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - I'm not sure if any more votes help at this stage, LOL --
Tawker 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't usually challenge votes, as I think of it as assuming bad faith, but would you mind explaining your reasoning which led you to the decision to oppose? --
Latinus 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I would probably continue working with RC patrol and AFD for the most part, using the tools to rollback (and block when appropriate) and close deletion debates. I'd also participate on the Admin Noticeboard and evaluate requests for protection and claims of 3RR violations. I have looked a little bit at image copyrights but I would want to learn more before I got in and did anything that couldn't be undone. Rest assured that I won't "push a button" until I'm very sure about what it does.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. On an article level, I haven't really done a whole lot from scratch -
Allen Fieldhouse,
Mark Mangino, and
Memorial Stadium, Lawrence are mostly my own work. I'm more proud of my work behind the scenes, both on recent changes patrol and in informal mediations. I have worked with disputes at
Quixtar and
Naked short selling (the latter is still in progress), and also tried to help
Maoririder/
Jingofetts/
MaoJin who had a great deal of trouble adjusting to Wikipedia.
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. I suppose there have been some minor content disputes at
Mark Mangino, but that was quickly resolved on the article's talk page.
Quixtar and
Naked short selling, as noted above, are conflicts where I tried to step in and informally mediate disputes between other users, but I think I did an okay job of remaining neutral in both cases.
4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would probably point that user to
Deletion review, which is designed for careful review of controversial decisions such as this. If I were considering more serious action such as undeleting the article myself, I would seek the advice of other admins on either the Noticeboard or IRC before taking that action - but I think DRV would normally serve this situation the best.
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. My usual practice is to revert unexplained blankings of whole paragraphs, and either warn the user in question or ask for clarification on their talk page. If it is not clearly in bad faith, I would (and, in fact, I have) point them to the article's talk page and possibly help them open up a discussion of their concerns with the article.
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of
WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would answer on their talk page that, in my judgment, their creation violated criterion A.3, and so I deleted the page. I would also include a brief description of why this is an important criterion for speedy deletion - an article with no actual content is not useful to our readers, and simply including an external link can be viewed as spamming. If they showed some interest in contributing (and not just railing against all things Wiki at that point), I would try to help them use the Sandbox or create a temporary space in their userspace where they could polish their article/stub/whatever a little before posting it in the land of articles.
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.