Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flowerparty

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by That Guy, From That Show! (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 10 March 2006 (→‎[[User:Flowerparty|Flowerparty]]: «+"#'''Support''' Excellent candidate"»). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Flowerparty

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flowerparty|action=edit}} Vote here] (58/0/1) ending 13:00 March 11, 2006 (UTC)

Flowerparty (talk · contribs) – Flowerparty is my senior, being a registered, contributing Wikipedian since April 2005. Since that time, this Briton has made over 7,000 edits, including 5,000 edits where it counts, article space. This one's already quite good with a mop and bucket, as I've observed the user's clean ups, disambiguation fixes and, lately, a good use of the page move button (780 moves, and not one on wheels ;). With those few extra buttons, I think Flowerparty would exercise good judgment, as I've seen good judgment at AfD; this one's also an occasional RfA voter and thus probably knows what an administrator should be. Altogether, a good candidate, long overlooked. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, thanks CC! Flowerparty■ 13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Flower power. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Looks good. Essexmutant 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Looks good. --Tone 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A good user and I see no problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. It is time to give this user the mop. We need more admins! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support looks good! Prodego talk 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks fine to me. -- Jbamb 16:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Moe ε 16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Adminship is no big deal" - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support KI 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support The username gives me a happy feeling, too :) --Obli (Talk)? 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. yes please. pschemp | talk 18:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Robert 19:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I thought he already was one. This should have been done long ago. :) Coffee 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. --TantalumTelluride 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support an excellent candidate for adminship. - Wezzo 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. DaGizzaChat © 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support: Excellent candidate who evidently exemplifies good rapport. Keep up the good work! Ombudsman 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Jusjih 03:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Supportdone enough right without doing anything wrong savidan(talk) (e@) 05:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Will you Use Your Powers for Good or for Awesome? --ZsinjTalk 05:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Alan Au 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: --Bhadani 08:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
  32. Support. A tireless anti-vandal who deserves promotion. Isopropyl 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support' great user, excellent potential gidonb 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support seems to be quite reasonable editor abakharev 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Trustworthy editor (and trustworthy nominator.) Xoloz 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Ugur Basak 10:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - no explanation really needed Robdurbar 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Hard pressed to find a reason not to... Celcius 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Joe I 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - it's about time. --Ixfd64 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no reason why not. Stifle 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. support. great user. ... aa:talk 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Ok —Encephalon 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Heh, not much else to say. Great editor. Staxringold 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support; no more needs to be said. joturner 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Great article editor with proven understanding of policy & procedure. Deizio 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Go for it! 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. UKSupport some great contributions └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support no reason not to. Silensor 18:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support:Very good.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Its all about action and consequence. Serve time at Wiki, work well, and they stick you with a mop. --Rob from NY 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Jonathunder 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Sango123 (e) 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Excellent candidate —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:32Z

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Rob Church (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Flowerparty's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot'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.
I guess the obligatory stuff - checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AfDs, and so forth. I already use the move button quite often, as my log may indicate. Back in September I went through Category:Albums by year and tried to fix all the titles to comply with our naming conventions, but the odd one that needs administrator help is always infuriating, and I'd like to go through the categories again, mop/flamethrower/machete in hand, and fix those. I'd also anticipate fixing cut and paste moves and helping out at WP:RM as well. I've not really had great stamina for this recent changes patrol lark - I'm continually in awe of those people who can sit for days relentlessly rolling back vandalism and administering slaps to the backs of perpetrating hands - but I try to chip in where I can, and obviously the extra buttons would be handy.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Nothing I'm particularly proud of, I wouldn't say, in fact now that I look back it feels like I've not really done much here. The bulk of my edits have been music-related, which I suppose is a symptom of some internal malaise on my part. I've started a fair few articles for LPs by various people, The Fall being an ongoing project, and probably the longest article I've started is Scout Niblett, and that's not particularly long. I've also occasionally started articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, and those I find particularly interesting, plus it's always nice to fill in any gaps in Wikipedia's giant catheter of knowledge, if I can call it that.
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?
Well, there's probably been 2 or 3 occasions that might qualify, and these have been around deletion discussions at AfD and TfD. Those problems were resolved, I hope, through talking, and I wouldn't wish to handle a dispute in any other way. I don't like conflict and I'll generally do anything for a quiet life, so I always try to assume good faith and be civil, and all the other Scoutly virtues.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    You've been pitching that question a lot. Not the sign of a guilty conscience, I hope! Well, to be honest I find it pretty unlikey that I'd be the first to notice if a well-known editor was operating a flock of abusive sockpuppets. And I know from past experience that when something looks bad it's very often because I've misinterpreted the situation, so the first thing I'd do would be to ask this editor about it on their talk page. I think I'd only seek the input of another admin if they failed to provide an explanation.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    I'm not sure I understand this question - if an article has merely been tagged for speedy deletion then where is this discussion? Either way, I wouldn't generally have a problem deleting something, or leaving it deleted, if there was community consensus to do so. If I felt particularly strongly about it I'd consult the deleting admin before undermining any of their adminny actions.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    Well, the second one if I felt there actually was a conflict of interest. Otherwise I'd probably leave them another note on their talk and give them a chance to calm down, rather than just applying a kneejerk block.
Apologies if my answers to these questions seem a bit slippery, I've tried to answer them honestly. Flowerparty■ 13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Flowerparty&oldid=43084761"