Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EWS23

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

Final (89/0/0) ended 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EWS23 (talk · contribs) – I've been thinking that it's about time EWS23 appeared on this page. In the past I found myself checking the list of admins, even diving into the permissions log to really check that there hadn't been some mistake in my thinking; to see if he'd already become an admin without me noticing! After seeing this wasn't the case I set about a contributions review to just check if this should be fixed.

One of the things that really stood out at me when reviewing his contributions is how unfailingly civil he is. I reviewed all of his contributions this year, and the only thing that I had slightest reason to query was the use of 'newbie' in some edit summaries [1]. The moment I pointed this out a slightly less BITE version of the edit summary started appearing [2]. (You can see the full conversation around this in my talk archive.) This just one example of the way that EWS23 never seems to fail in meeting the statement on his talk page: "A few things I deeply believe in are edit summaries, test messages, civility, and not biting the newbies." Another example being edit summary usage- not just the percentage usage, but also their usefulness.

Edits have been flowing out of this account since 19 June 2005, with something over 3400 edits made since then. This should be enough to satisfy those-who-count. Solid contributions have been made to the mainspace [3] [4], article talk [5] [6] [7], Wikipedia namespace [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], template [13] [14] and image [15]. Contributions to the 'community space' do not overwhelm the edit count but are still significant. For example this award winning one, and being a member of the election staff for the latest Esperanza elections [16].

Well, now you've read my bit, it's your turn to have your say! Petros471 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored, and I gratefully accept. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator support- it should be pretty obvious from the above, but it seems to be tradition for nominators to place their mark here as well. So here's mine :) Petros471 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, of course. Was wondering how much longer this nom was going to take to appear. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. All seems well. However, something seems wrong with your "vote here" link. I'm too busy to fix it though :P Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Commnent Oops! That was my fault, didn't notice it after moving the draft version here. Should now be fixed :) Petros471 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support despite the redirect! Computerjoe's talk 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. I too have been consistently impressed by the quality of EWS23's edits and interaction with other users, will be a great admin. Rje 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Good edit history and user can be trusted with extra tools in my opinion.--Dakota ~ 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support because of nom statement and despite minor edit count deficiency<grin>. Over-all excellent editor who has gone for quality over quantity, who uses edit summaries, and who understands the importance of welcoming and guiding/teaching rather than abusing/humiliating newcomers. I would prefer more RCPatrolling, but I feel that, were User:EWS23 to err, it would be on the side of caution rather than blocking someone who did not deserve it. <sigh> I see from the user page that the nom is deficient after all-- I see no mention of User:EWS23 ‘s Barnstar.<grin> :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Very thoughtful, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, without question. Very deserving of the mop. After all, I gave him this barnstar. --Elkman - ^(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Ding Ding Ding we're looking at an excellent candidate here! A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Above vote was the user's second edit. Rje 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Support. Oh, yes. RadioKirk talk to me 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. support looks like theyll make a good admin Benon 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Looks good to me. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Petros471 has convinced me, and I have personally seen great contributions from EWS23. joturner 20:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - also one of the best nom "speeches" I've seen yet —Mets501^talk 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support solid contributor. Keep up with the good work. --Tone 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong Support - I was pretty shocked he wasn't an admin already, he knows what he's doing -- Tawker 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Edit-conflicted Support definitely--Deville (Talk) 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, a familiar name, with nothing but good edits coming from it. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Obviously a great user. DarthVader 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support hard to know what to add to the above, so I'll simply say "yes". Gwernol 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Super Strong Oppose Support awesome editor; always civil, calm, and very experienced. Mopper ^Speak! 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong support, no reservations. I have no reason to believe that he does not know how to handle admin tools, and every reason to believe he won't misuse them. Additionally, he has worked significantly in behind-the-scenes activities, as well as illustrating articles, a definite plus in my book. We need more civil admins like him. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support ForestH2
26. Support, per nomination --Mhking 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Lots of experience with wikipedia and wikipedians. - Patman2648 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Richardcavell 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Level-headed, and doing mostly janiatorial work anyways. I suspect admin tools will make him more effective.--Stephan Schulz 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I was initially concerned that too many of his Wikipedia space edits might be Esperanza related but there are more than enough to other areas. The candidate seems to be well rounded and will make a productive admin. JoshuaZ 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per my judgements and per all above.—G.He 00:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support; a blessing to the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, is a very hardworking and awesome to work with contributor! -- Natalya 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support from fellow Esperanza election volunteer.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support with no reservations, per above and beyond. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support--blue520 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support looks good.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - I like what I see in his user contributions. 1. When reverting, he's assuming that it's a well intentioned test. We need folks that don't assume vandalism for everything. 2. Disambig link repair is thankless, repetetive work that makes the project better, and he's done it. Plus some other things, but American Idol is on and my wife wants me to fake interest in it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support -- DS1953 ^talk 04:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Pile-on Support. --TantalumTelluride^♪ 05:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Logged in just to vote here, support without reservation. -- Banez 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Looks good to me -- Samir धर्म 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support.™ --Rory096 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Should make a great admin --Scot^t 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per nom. I like his Wiki-beliefs! Kimchi.sg 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. A balanced, committed wikipedian; giving him the mop will help make the project better. Bucketsofg✐ 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support--Jusjih 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. zOMG! Support! Misza13 ^{T C} 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Give him the mop. :) --Actown ^e 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Thank you, please send more. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. -- ( drini ☎ ) 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, user has shown familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and is clearly interested in performing maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Strong Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, a very good editor. No doubt will be asset to Wikipedia.Jordy 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. I'm glad I checked the noms! You'll be a great admin. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    71.112.6.189 00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous editors can't vote. joturner 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62. Support? Yep! A very strong candidate who have succeeded in wowing me. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. You're not an admin already? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. More like this candidate, please!^TM Support ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Looks like a good admin-to-be. Tangotango 15:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support DGX 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Of course. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. esoppO. I backwards oppose! HA! Okay... yea.. he's a good guy :-) Sasquatch t|c 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. esoppO per above ;). Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support per all above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Joe I 04:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Nicest guy I've met through Wikipedia. Dakpowers | Talk 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, ticks all the boxes and then some. Rockpocket (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Roll on Eric. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I've come across this user before, and he's always seemed to be level-headed and knowledgeable. I see no indication that he would abuse admin tools.--Shanel ^§ 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support, this user is a good all-round Wikipedian who helps in many places, such as combatting vandalism/spam/personal attacks/etc., welcoming new users, RfA, copyediting, NPOVing, etc. This is exactly what I look for in an administrator and this user will definitely make an excellent one. --Evan Robidoux 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Dragons flight 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support, to pile it on!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Thanks for ALL your contributions.! --TeChGuY 19:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Speedy Strong Support per nom. Royboycrashfan 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - What's more to be said? Sango123 (e) 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Isn't-one-already?-cliché support. — TKD::Talk 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose A guy who trolls in my opinion. I don't like being called a newbie and Admin nominations are really going down in standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.7.180 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if comments like this can be removed, so I'll let someone else do that- but as it is clearly vandalism from an IP I have struck it. Petros471 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's a fair comment vandalism? Ok the civility was uncalled for, so I've removed it, but even the opening paragraphs are evidence for this guys blatant need to continually bite "newbies". Read up on WP:VAND and know about what you're talking about before you think you have any kind of morale high ground to remove valid, if some what aggressive comments.. //James//

No it was not vandalism, but that kind of language is totally uncalled for and it makes it hard for people to take any comments you make seriously (don't be surprised if people call you a troll or a vandal when you talk like one). Anonymous accounts may not "vote" on RfA, but they may make comments in the appropriate sections. Rje 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP is an AOL and IMHO was trolling, if it was an account it would be indef blocked by now, the above vote is for all intensive purposes null and void (or invalid to quote Linuxbeak) -- Tawker 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*cough*"all intents and purposes"*cough* (ducks under rotten tomato) ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

CommentsUser contributions.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Viewing contribution data for user EWS23 (over the 3620 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)Time range: 302 approximate day(s) of edits on this pageMost recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 19, June, 2005Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 93.3% Minor edits: 98.54%Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 96.67% Minor article edits: 98.33%Average edits per day (current): 11.98Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 2.4% (87)Unique pages edited: 1930 | Average edits per page: 1.88 | Edits on top: 15.08%Breakdown of edits:All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 44.92%Minor edits (non reverts): 23.09%Marked reverts: 27.71%Unmarked edits: 4.28%Edits by Wikipedia namespace:Article: 43.98% (1592) | Article talk: 5.61% (203)User: 4.86% (176) | User talk: 25.77% (933)Wikipedia: 14.56% (527) | Wikipedia talk: 3.37% (122)Image: 1.44% (52)Template: 0.14% (5)Category: 0.08% (3)Portal: 0% (0)Help: 0% (0)MediaWiki: 0% (0)Other talk pages: 0.19% (7)

• See EWS23's (talk) contributions as of 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]

UsernameEWS23Total edits3714Distinct pages edited2034Average edits/page1.826First edit20:51, June 18, 2005(main)1622Talk205User178User talk971Image52Template6Template talk1Category3Category talk6Wikipedia544Wikipedia talk126

—G.He 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See EWS23's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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:

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:

• Vandalism: Combatting it, not committing it, of course. Obviously rollback will be a plus, as will the ability to block vandals. I'll also keep a close eye on WP:AIV in an attempt to make sure listings stay on there as little time as possible, and keep track of things at WP:RFI and anti-vandalism channels such as #vandalism-en-wp.
• Deletion: Mostly through WP:PROD and CAT:CSD, helping make sure that backlogs don't build up there, but I could also imagine myself venturing into AfD territory as well.
• Miscellaneous: Obviously there's a lot of other stuff that can be taken care of. Protecting and unprotecting pages, mostly through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, blocking inappropriate usernames, fulfilling various admin requests on IRC channels, and keeping track of things at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Also, I certainly don't mind (and often enjoy) various other janitorial work, as hopefully my participation at Wikipedia:Duplicated sections and Wikipedia:Disambiguation link repair has shown. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I know this will sound corny or clichéd, but I'm really much more proud of the achievements of the Wikipedia project as a whole than I am with my own personal work. However, if you insist, probably getting pictures onto all of the Sumner-class destroyers (see {{Allen M. Sumner class destroyer}}), and my work on articles Block (meteorology) (will have pictures very soon!), Eleanor Estes, and Eric Carle (among others). I'm also happy with coordinating the effort and doing the major edits in making List of sex positions have inclusive language. In addition, I'm equally pleased with various other work such as welcoming/helping newcomers and disambiguation link repair. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: Depending on how severely you define it, I think every single person who has edited Wikipedia has been in some sort of editing conflict. However, I've been fortunate enough to avoid any really serious ones. I've never been apart of any kind of edit war or anything of that sort. I think the key to all content disputes is keeping your cool and sticking to the subject. When conversations start to move away from the subject of the article and more towards opinion and personal beliefs, that's when incivility and personal attacks are most likely to rear their ugly heads. I've always been a logical, scientific-type person, and thankfully I'm able to separate factual content debates from strong emotions. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.