Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extreme Unction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Extreme Unction

[edit]

Final (44/13/2) ended 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) – Extreme Unction has made 900+ edits since August, and shows no sign of stopping. He's also very knowledgeable on the subject of a) internet communities and b) legal aspects thereof. Recently, he started poking around AFD, and the rest of his contributions show a good balance. He also claims that he's also seen all the worst already. Time to give him a mop and bucket, to prove him wrong ;)  grm_wnr Esc 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thanks for the vote of confidence. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. The first support comes free with the nomination. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I would have liked to have nominated Extreme Unction. This user caught on extremely fast, and has been doing cleanup work and showing that he has the knowledge of Wikipedia policy and temperament for adminship since he started. When you look at his low edit-count, take a look at the quality of the edits and I think you'll agree that he's earned our trust in a fraction of the time it takes most users. As he says in question 3 below, he has shown a high tolerance for the abuse of other editors, and has handled conflict with calm and rationality. Let's give this user the tools that will help him continue to dazzle us. —Cleared as filed. 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Not many edits, but beign an admin is supposed to be no big deal so...Gator (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per CaF and Gator. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Has a strong understanding of online communities; good editing record; plenty of user interaction. The Land 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EXTREME UNCTION SUPPORT. (Sorry. Someone had to do it.) Another one I was thinking of nominating myself. Has the personality and experience to do this well, caught on to WP quick, and wants to do the grunt work. Works for me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A good guy, and the experience (and maturity) described in Q3 will be a great asset to Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - wow 900 user talk:vulcanstar6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.178.87 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - love your sig by the way. FireFox 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ξxtreme Support Izehar 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Quick Make Me A Table! Support karmafist 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Good user in AFD --Jaranda(watz sup) 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. AFD issues don't bother me, the existing rules about who can do what closures are rather foolish anyway. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian 12:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:00
  20. Support. First of all, after reading his response to Splash, I have to definitely leave a Support vote here. (No, it wasn't the Wile E. Coyote quote that did it, but that was nice) I don't think that someone should be punished in an RfA vote if they realize their mistake and openly and honestly admit that they were wrong. Too many editors, it seems, are not willing to do such a thing. If he's learned his lesson, let's give him a chance to do the job that he wants to do. This person looks like someone who has the potential to be very beneficial to Wikipedia. --Martin Osterman 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've never seen such good responses on an RFA. Joke137 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. → Support per Martin Osterman in particular, and all of the above in general. BD2412 T 19:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I was on the fence about this because of the low edit count and dabbling in arcane stuff like closing AfDs (OMG STANDARD LEVEL USERS CAN DO THAT?!??!!), but he recognizes his mistakes and is very well spoken in response to criticism. --Syrthiss 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Everyone makes mistakes, no reason to hang the man over one.... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support work with ISP's impressive and may prove beneficial.--MONGO 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, firm grasp of policy. Think he's too green? Then ask yourself this: do you trust him to ask before he does something he's unsure about? I know I do. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Good answers, concerns about editcount and AfD closes seem minor to me. -Colin Kimbrell 07:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Very competent and ambitious editor, willing to learn from mistakes. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Not a troll, vandal or idiot; well-intentioned, committed and rational. Less than X months experience? Less than Y edits? Please. Let's not pretend like Wikipedia is so difficult that only an intensive and long-winded study could give you the necessary experience to do the admin thing with care. For some people, this might be true. Those don't become administrators. Many more qualify than some might think, though. JRM · Talk 21:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Content matters. Supprot. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Very helpful in dealing with AfD of a new article. Nolamgm 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. He may have a relatively low edit count, but per Bishonen he seems competent and ambitious. No doubt ISP abuse skills would help the project, too. His recent explanation regarding an AfD convinces me that he does have the required understanding of the process. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, seems like an alright user, and has a reasonably good understanding of AfD. I'm fine with non-admins closing non-consensus AfDs, and I think he does a good job with it. JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I've seen him around, and he seems OK. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Good article edits, good comments, and since when can non-admins only close keeps? I must go look at history of Wikipedia:Deletion process. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Changing vote to Support per information contained in vote #36. There's nothing to show that he won't make a good administrator even with a lower than usual edit count.Give him a mop and bucket--Dakota t e 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. It takes something to make me vote. Extreme is a great guy. Note to others: there's no better way of getting me to support than opposing solely on the basis of vote count or account age. I was chosen as an admin after just five months, and Extreme seems happy to do the work, so why not let him? Do you really think he's going to abuse the tools? If not, you should support, because we need all the admins we can get. [[Sam Korn]] 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. the wub "?!" 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - not a vandal, troll, asshole, sockpuppet, or idiot, and most of the oppose votes do not give me any reason to oppose. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I like this fella's style :) -- sannse (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - He's been doing good work, and I see no signs that he is hotheaded, unreasonable, or other warning signs. I have every reason to believe he'll do just fine as an admin. Nandesuka 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - For great justice. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. -- DS1953 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following votes were received after the voting deadline.
  1. Support. Yes it's early but Extreme Unction has shown himself to be of administrator material. I am confident that if he is lacking experience dealing with non-AfD situations, he will quickly gain it and be able to use his admin powers wisely. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Let me first state that I've been extremely impressed by his contributions. I very rarely support a candidate with less than 1000 edits, but I almost did here. The reason I'm not is because I think he could use another month or two. I am a bit concerned that he's been closing AfDs as no-consensus. I think it's great for non-admins to close obvious "keeps", but it's up to an admin to decide whether there's consensus or not. In a month or so, I will strongly support. Carbonite | Talk 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched from neutral to support based on the candidate's handling of this RfA. Carbonite | Talk 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. It pains me to oppose, since I assumed he already was an administrator when I first interacted with him, just two days ago. That interaction was over his close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Off Dead (Soundtrack), where he stated that the merge was already complete, and so the article should be reconsidered for deletion. However, at the time, the merge target contained only "The soundtrack for Better Off Dead was produced by Robert Hine", and the merge source had not been made into a redirect. Most importantly, the GFDL only allows us to delete merged articles with very great care. Like how to deal with vandalism, the authorship requirement of the GFDL is something that every administrator needs to understand thoroughly before they get their extra buttons. I'd be happy to support, or even nominate, once he has some more experience, since he's clearly on the right track. —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to argue with your oppose vote, but I mention in passing that most users who come through RFA are never even queried on their knowledge of GFDL requirements, although it is obviously an important issue. The way I see it, Extreme Unction, by virtue of this experience you bring up, actually has more experience and knowledge on the subject than many RFA candidates and possible new administrators. —Cleared as filed. 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so regarding the GFDL, and had that been the only problem I wouldn't have commented; but the other two irregularities with the close (the article not being redirected, and only a sentence of it being merged) still show that experience with Wikipedia overall is a factor. —Cryptic (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I must join Carbonite in his concerns, but I share them a bit more strongly. I, too, thought you were an admin, because I've seen your "no consensus" closes before. I think you do a good job, but those closes leave a bit of a bad feeling, so I think more time is needed. Xoloz 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Some misunderstandings of things are ok, we all make them. But that particular one comes up quite often on AfD (several times a day, probably), and a duly experienced editor would already be aware of it. The fact that he is closing AfDs is good, but he shouldn't be closing no-consensi because that's what admins are for, and trusting their judgement in such things is part of why we have RfA. (Wikipedia:Deletion process is also very clear on the matter; presumably the editor hasn't read this document.) I would like to see a convincingly firmer grip on procedure and policy, particularly in this area since he indicates interest in adminning it and its closely related deletion processes. I would also like more than a few hundred edits to judge consistency and style by (don't start on me). Also, anecdotally, Extreme Unction has only very recently come to my attention: at the risk of sounding self-centered, I see most good RfA candidates long before they turn up here and I was quite surprised to see his name and more surprised to see he is in fact clear of 3 months. I am drooling at the thought of having an ISP's abuse admin as a Wiki admin in the future, however. We should give him m:Checkuser access now, probably. -Splashtalk 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clear things up, so that you, the gentle reader, will only think of me as a partial moron instead of a complete one, let me say that my sin was indeed one of ignorance, rather than of willful intent. Up until a week or so ago, I assumed that only admins could close out AfD discussions after the appropriate time. Then I noticed someone closing out an AfD discussion whom I knew to be not an admin. "SO!" thought I, "If he can do it, so can I! Obviously, I can't close out any AfD discussion which requires the actual deletion of an article, but obviously I should be able to close out any discussion which doesn't require actual article deletion."
     
    You see my error. It was so "obvious" to me what my options were that I failed to do due diligence and check to see if my interpretation of events was congruent with the reality of the situation. But no, it wasn't until today that someone mentioned to me "I didn't think non-admins were supposed to close out 'no consensus' votes. I thought they were only supposed to close out clear 'keep' votes."
     
    Oops.
     
    This is especially embarassing to me because this sort of thing is what I do for a living. I, of all people, should know better. But, to quote Wile E. Coyote, "Even a supergenius can have an off day." Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
     
    I recognize that I am most assuredly torpedoing any chance I have of succeeding this RFA by admitting my poor judgement and laying it bare for all to see, but I'm big into "full disclosure." And, as I told grm_wnr when he asked if I was okay with him nominating me for RFA, "I'm pretty sure the nomination won't succeed, but the comments from the 'Oppose' votes should be edifying and educational." And so they have been, for which you folks have my sincere thanks. Please rest assured that mistakes I have made in the past will not be repeated in the future, whether I have mop and bucket in hand or no. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your disclosure reaffirms my already-present respect for your abilities, and is very appreciated... but, I still think a little more wait is good, so that you can learn even more about the wonderous wonders of policy around here. I will strongly support in two months or so, though, and nom. you, if you wish (and if it's even necessary.) Xoloz 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, <6 months and <1000 edits. I'm also concerned that the user's best contribution to Wikipedia was an argument in an AfD discussion.Proto t c 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not quite enough edits and most of them are afds . Need to get around more here. There's more than afd. Vandal fight, spread your edits around and try again in a couple of months you'll get it then.--Che Perez 17:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opppose for now, needs more experience. Will gladly support if and when this person is renominated. Silensor 00:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Needs more experience --Rogerd 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as above Olorin28 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Extreme Unction to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs. BlankVerse 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose freestylefrappe 01:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as above: needs a little more experience. See no reason not to support next time, however. Turnstep 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Not quite enough edits, will support next time.--Dakota t e 01:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to lack of experience.Gateman1997 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose at this time due to experience criteria, but I certainly do encourage this editor to keep contributing. Jonathunder 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Eh, I wanted to support, but I saw the reasons for opposition, so I must remain neutral. Quentin Pierce 02:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's simply a matter of time and edits than the person or the person's actions. I hate to see the insane artifact of "inclusionist" and "deletionist" dragged into RFA, and I believe it has been. For me, there is solely, "argues and deliberates according to existing policy" and "does not." If the former, I don't care about "loves [topic]" or "hates [topic]." The rest of the reasons against ring hollow, for me: Welcoming is something that we should do, but some folks are excellent at it, and some folks not. Those who are, should do it. Those who aren't, maybe not. (Imagine me as the welcomer. About as cuddly as a caltrop.) Some people should tag images. Some shouldn't. What is requisite in an admin, to me, is awareness of policy, willingness to build consensus, unwillingness to go cowboy when policy is confining, and poise. ExtremeUnction has shown all of those, but there hasn't been enough time yet to vote for or against, IMO. Geogre 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hasn't been here long enough only 900 edits. There are only 28 entries on his talk page and no history of welcoming visitors, nothing much but afd. He should have known administrators are the only ones who can decide whether there is concensus or not. Might possibly have a quick trigger finger on deletes with admin powers. My finger twitches longingly over the AfD button, however(on one of his votes). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_bankers" and the nominator's comment on his talk page.As per our IRC conversation, here it is: Your own private RFA subpage. Make the most of it ;) grm_wnr Esc 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC).---219.93.174.106 07:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Welcoming ApolloCreed
[2] Welcoming Paulcleveland
[3] Welcoming Axoplasm
[4] Welcoming Beyondcapricorn
[5] Welcoming Ajaykpaul
[6] Welcoming 68.194.225.154
[7] Welcoming Prisoner627
I'll probably never be a one-man Esperanza, but I have welcomed new users in the past, and will continue to do so in the future during my RC Patrol rounds. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't need more admins. RfD's backlog is much smaller than it appears because most proposed RfDs haven't got any votes. MfD's backlog is also rather small, and if you think it needs handling, admins are very easy to contact. 202.58.85.8 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from oppose to here. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is a well-travelled path, and gets all the admin glory. While I will no doubt dip my hand in AfD discussions and closures if accepted, I will almost certainly spend a lot of time amid the less travelled regions of Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and similar areas. These areas have serious backlogs, and I will do my best to help clear them out.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler (2nd Nomination) would be the single contribution I have made to Wikipedia of which I am most proud. My comments there speak for themselves, and I am pleased that I was able to thwart a bad-faith nomination with a little investigation. Adjunct (beer) and Leo Gallagher are also personal favorites.
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. To clarify the comments made by the person who nominated me for adminship, I am an abuse administrator for a large regional ISP. I have, for the past 9 years, made my living excising cranks, hackers, spammers, and other various ne'er-do-wells from the ISP for which I work. This experience has provided me with an unusually high tolerance for provocation. I rarely find myself in conflict at work, even with people who hurl all manner of hyperbolic accusations and legal threats my way, because I simply don't let myself become provoked into conflict. If I am interacting with someone who is trying to provoke a fight with me, and I give them a fight, then I've allowed them to control the flow and the tone of our interaction. And in my line of work, that's always a bad thing.
So I have not been in full-blown conflict mode with anyone here at Wikipedia, simply because I don't allow myself to enter that mode. It's irrational, unproductive, and generally not worth the effort. I don't anticipate this viewpoint changing at any point in the future.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Extreme_Unction&oldid=1080983034"