Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pathoschild

Final count:(23/0/0) ended 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have exactly 2134 edits as of this message^[1], with an estimated 90+% edit summary usage within the past two months^[2]. I only joined the Counter Vandalism Unit today (after meeting some CVU members through IRC), although I've ocassionally RC patrolled since I became active on Wikipedia. I'm acting as informal mediator at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic, and founded the WikiProject on User Warnings. I typically alternate between several types of contributions, from RC patrol and the WikiProject to copyediting and archival. See the Questions for the Candidate section below for admin-related goals.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination, accepted. ;) // Pathoschild 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Good User Good vandal fighther --Aranda ⁵⁶) 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support First encountered user during the founding of the user warnings project, good stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Takes the initiative - nice to see! Brisvegas 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support His answer to Question 3 is probably the best I've ever seen, and his thoroughness in obtain his own edit count shows ingenuity, and respect for the RfA process. Bravo! Xoloz 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Got my support, yeah. Seems very crafty. ;)   ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cue adminship cliche. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 11:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Astrotrain 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Full support. FireFox 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support no good reason not to. Izehar 16:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. SupportYes, indeed. Banes 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support: Good user. Excellent work on Userpage warnings. Endorse for LART. Wikibofh 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support Great guy, would weild the mop wisely! --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Merovingian 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support good editor--rogerd 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Has a solid record, good grip on policy, and impressive replies to the questions below. Sango123 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Not that strong Support --Adam1213 Talk + 07:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Quentin Pierce 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support --pgk^(talk) 08:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I keep seeing Pathoschild in IRC en-vandalism, should make good use of the tools. Alf ^melmac 10:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Martin 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#Oppose. We don't need more admins. Vandals are often blocked quickly, and if they aren't, admins are quickly notified via IRC or the admin noticeboard. The open proxy backlog can be handled by existing admins (although it's good you offered to help). And I don't see a serious immediate need for categorising protected templates. 202.58.85.8 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 202.58.85.8 is a vandal. If anything this should be counted as a support. --Adam1213 Talk + 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. The more obvious sysop chore is the blocking of vandals, since I often warn vandals and report them for administrator intervention. I'm also interested in blocking open proxies (see User:Ral315/Vandalbot, Template:Blocked proxy), particularly after my December 2nd efforts against an open proxy multiple-IP vandal. Admin access will also allow me to categorise templates and pages that have been protected against vandalism or editor conflicts. I often spend time making contributions other than my usual, and I see no reason not to extend that to other admin chores.

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

A. I see Wikipedia as an entirely collaborative effort, so I see no more value between one good contribution and another. However, I am satisfied with the turn-around and progress (if slow) editors at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic have made under my informal mediation. I am also pleased with the progress made by the WikiProject on User Warnings, an ambitious project to categorise, standardise and rewrite user warning templates.

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 take Wikipedia's ideal of consensus to heart, and never attempt to impose my will or opinion. If I believe I have consensus behind me, I prefer discussion to revert warring. If the user persists, I ask an admin to protect the page until an agreement or consensus is reached. Thus, I've never had any major edit conflict that I remember. I personally see wikistress as undue lack of objectivity as an editor, although other editors undoubtedly have different editing philosophies.

In any hypothetical future conflict, I'll step back and consider our positions. Does either of us have consensus or agreement? If not, then persistance is POV pushing. I'll invite the editor to discuss with myself and other editors, protecting the page if he continues to revert despite the disagreement of the editors disagreeing.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.