Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoothingR 2

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

SoothingR

final (73/2/2) ending 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

SoothingR (talk · contribs) – SoothingR has been at Wikipedia since September of last year. He has built up over 5000 edits since then, and is an asset to the Wikipedia community. He's a very civil user - the words "helpful" and "responsible" also come to mind. He has done a lot of image tagging recently and welcomes new users frequently, showing widespread contributions between namespaces. The admin tools would be useful to him with all the vandal fighting he participates in, and there is no chance of him abusing his powers. — FireFox • T • 19:33, 11 February 2006

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gladly accept the nomination .SoothingR 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. — FireFox • T • 19:34, 11 February 2006
  2. Support; have had good experiences with this user, and feel he would make a good admin. Not too keen on the image in the sig, though. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting tired of my signature anyway..I will probably remove it some time soon.SoothingR 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. LordViD 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I remember he welcomed me back in October :) --Gary Kirk (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Mjal 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per his response to question 4. We need more rational admins. --Aaron 22:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --pgk(talk) 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Extreme "/me faints" support - he isn't one? --Celestianpower háblame 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support soothingly. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - great user, friendly, helpful, knows policy. No evidence he'll abuse the admit tools. Mikker ... 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - good work on the image copyright issues, plus generally good editor. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Terence Ong 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mouldy sandwich support. :P An extremely responsible and level-headed user.--Shanel 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support He deserves it. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've seen SoothingR in all the places an admin needs to be, and I've never seen him explode or anything. Deserves the admin position fully. Mo0[talk] 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Absolutely. I'd actually considered nominating him myself not too long ago. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks good. pschemp | talk 08:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Good luck! -- WB 10:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I've always assumed, SoothingR was an administrator, judging by his well-behaved manners and activeness. Well, that can be fixed by passing his rfa :) Obli (Talk) 12:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support for this candidate's nomination. Mop him a.u.b. --Alf melmac 13:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support looks fine to me.--MONGO 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Sango123 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sure, why not? Another editor who I thought was already an admin. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I feel he'll make a great admin! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support NaconKantari e|t||c|m 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support looks like a good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, seems reasonably soothing. JIP | Talk 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --TantalumTelluride 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. If you don't take your vitamins, you won't grow up to be big and strong. Esteffect 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Will make a fine admin. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support RexNL 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I'm sure he'll be a good admin. Raven4x4x 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Moe ε 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: all of above and he nuked his userboxes. Savidan 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A fine addition to the admin roster.--Lordkinbote 08:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Liberatore(T) 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: Yes. --Bhadani 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. You're kidding me! I seriously thought he was an admin. In fact, I was ever so close to asking for a vandal block. --Jay(Reply) 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Most Definately. -- 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughn05 (talk • contribs)
  47. Support abakharev 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, especially he's gotten rid of all those stupid boxes. Great editor, should make a great admin. Proto||type 10:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Ian13/talk 14:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per MONGO. Hiding talk 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 03:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. As I did last time! --G Rutter 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. --Rory096 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Natuurlijk ;) Jacoplane 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name. --rogerd 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, should make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support--Jusjih 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 08:54Z
  63. Support Sceptre (Talk) 09:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Yamaguchi先生 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support.--Ugur Basak 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose not enough userboxes I'm so funny. I should actually vote that sometime...anyway, seriously, support as a terrific editor who would be an asset to any encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 16:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Mihai -talk 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. --Ashenai 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, thought he was one (no not really, but it sounds good). — Feb. 17, '06 [15:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  70. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mjal 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you wholeheartedly for your support, but with due respect I'm striking your vote..You must either have forgotten about it, or thought that this was someone else's Rfa, but you already added a support vote on the 11th. Two support votes from the same person is a little over the top, don't you think? :pSoothingR 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support - user has done nothing but good for WP. -- Tawker 19:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - A great asset to Wikipedia --lightdarkness (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support! I've seen him around, and he's done a good job. I like his answers to the questions too. Also, it would be good to have another admin that was active in the metal-related pages, given the conflicts there (one has led to an ArbCom case). --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose --Pjacobi 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Too many userboxes)[reply]
    I could go ahead and argue that there is no link between admin duties and the absence or presence of many userboxes on my page. I choose not to do this; you have actually got a point there, sport. It's not like anyone reads these things, or cares about them. I should have gotten rid of them earlier..here..is that any better?SoothingR 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Thank you. My vote wasn't meant for blackmailing you into conformance. (But if this works so neatly, should we now address the use of images in signatures?). If your vote's outcome would be tight, I'd have retracted my oppose. But as your support seems strong enough anyway, let's say it as it is, as a momentum mori in the userbox wars. --Pjacobi 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize you should probably be temp blocked for WP:POINT over this right?  ALKIVAR™ 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise being aggressive is not helpful, right? Rob Church (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rob Church (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing is your right...But, could you please care to explain why you're opposing?SoothingR 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious about this as well. --Ashenai 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinion greatly Rob. What's up? Kim Bruning 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral It is too early after the last rfa and his comments, while withdrawing on that rfa, do not suggest a proper acceptance of feedback. --Gurubrahma 20:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My number of edits since my selfnom has almost doubled; I don't see why there wouldn't be any space to reconsider. Furthermore..what's wrong with disagreeing with people? If I thought that some of those oppose-votes were not proper, then why can't I say this? Also, after my last rfa I have tried to word everything as clear as possible. I have also checked twice before nominating an article for speedy deletion after OwenX's comments. That's not just accepting feedback; it's implementing it as well, I'd say.SoothingR 22:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Number of edits is, but another metric - I wouldn't be swayed by it too much. I don't have a problem with your disagreeing with people; however, I am not very sure you choose words properly in responding - here, in your response above, as well as in your last rfa. --Gurubrahma 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the number of someone's edits is an indicator of his activity, or, as you state it, "another metric". Although, as a Wikipedian gathers more edits, his understanding of policies usually progresses along. He gets evolved in more situations, forcing him to get more knowledge of policies to act accordingly. I've learned a lot more about policies after my last rfa failed. For example, I feel that I have more much more familiarity with the fair use, referencing and speedy deletion-policies. I hope that my point is clear now, since you felt that I didn't explain it properly in my last comment.SoothingR 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The number of comments and requests for reasons for oppose votes suggests that as an admin, SoothingR might be excessively defensive, which is not good. So, neutral for now. If I'm questioned about it in a harassing manner, it goes to oppose. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 97% 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 20:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See SoothingR's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Prior RfA ended on 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) with a result of (8/9/3)

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. Lately, I have become really involved in the Image namespace. I do quite some work there; I tag images with the appropiate licenses (and by that effectivaly saving a lot of articles from deletion), hand out {{or-fu-nr}}s, {{nsd}}s and {{nld}}s where I see that there is no other way of reasonably keeping the images. Now, admin tools would come in great with the maintainance and deletion of these images. Sometimes I see that images have been tagged with templates for way too long...Also, I do quite a lot of reverts a day. I use the godmode light script for that, but a "real" revert-button would be appreciated to make the work a little faster.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Nightwish, definately. It became a Featured Article in the first half of January, after having done a lot of work on it. Although I wasn't the only one involved in getting this article up to Featured-status, I was the nominator and I'm also the creator of {{Nightwish}} and have improved several other articles regarding this topic.
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. Yes, there has been one time when I actually considered screaming out loud. It was when Nightwish was on WP:FAC. Allow me to take you back to December..Leyasu kept removing the inline references I had added to the article, even when I reverted his changes with explanation on his talkpage. In the end, determined to keep these inline refs in (as they are vital to a Featured Article nowadays), but forced to not give in to 3RR-violations, I decided to gather more opinions on the talkpage of Nightwish. I soon got this issue settled afterwards, with several others backing me up. I plan to take of issues in such a way in the future as well..always trying to strife for justice on Wikipedia, but always with a level of diplomacy and decency.
4. In your previous RfA, you indicated that your main reason for seeking adminship (and I'm paraphrasing here, of course; feel free to correct my rephrasing if you believe it's in any way incorrect) was a desire to have the tools needed to deal with vandalism and bad-faith edits. As you probably know, a number of admins are currently engaged in an ongoing "war on userboxes" that does not have consensus support of the Wikipedia community (although they do have the blessing of Jimbo Wales). If made an admin, how would you react if you came across a userbox that you personally felt violated WP:UBP (keeping in mind that it is currently only a proposed policy) but was in widespread use on a number of userpages? --Aaron 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Thanks for your question. And yes, being able to deal with vandalism is still one of the reasons why I would like to become an admin. But that wasn't your question's point. Assuming that this RfA succeeds, that I'm granted sysop-powers and I run into a popular userbox which is a WP:UBP-violation.. I wouldn't probably do anything. The policy is only a proposal as of now, you stated it yourself. If I were to nominate it for deletion (or worse, speedily delete it), remove its image, or rephrase its content in a NPOV-manner and use WP:UBP as an argument for that..then I would be doing nothing than adding more controversy to the whole userboxes-debate. The situation involving these boxes has gone too far, I guess. I don't see why people get so wound up about them. That doesn't mean that I would allow anything. Userboxes stating things like "This user would be in full support of the NSDAP" or "Britney Spears should be killed, tortured and raped" would end up at WP:TFD real quick after catching my eye.
But, if this will become official Wikipedia policy, I'd be strict about enforcing it. As I feel that it is pointless to have policies that are not enforced. If an userbox is popular, though a failure to follow rules laid out in a policy I would take measures. Though, as I realize that a speedy deletion would spark too much controversy, I'd use WP:TFD to go about it.
Thank you, SoothingR. I appreciate that response. --Aaron 22:07, 11 February 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 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/SoothingR_2&oldid=1127487285"