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

Friday[edit]

Vote here (41/4/2) ending 10 October 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Friday (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Friday for adminship. She has been a user in Wikipedia since June 2005 , and has racked up more than 2600 edits since then. She is a dedicated editor who has been very useful in AFD and very active in NP Patrol and also Rarely Avoid Conflects and has more than 600 edits in User Talk. She deserve a mop and bucket and would make a outstanding admin. --JAranda | yeah 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I accept, thanks. Friday (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator --JAranda | yeah 21:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Another good one. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. El_C 23:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Soup ort Private Butcher 23:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Christopher Mahan 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Extreme TGIF Support! Acetic'Acid 01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good egg. Hamster Sandwich 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Robert 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. utcursch | talk 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I can't believe I'm the first one to say "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 talk 05:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No you're not. See User:Acetic Acid's vote at #8. — JIP | Talk 05:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... um... I can't believe I'm the first one to say in spelled out words, "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 talk 13:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Extreme FSM support, I need someone to support before I can nominate User:GraemeL and User:JoanneB. — JIP | Talk 05:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Ral315 WS 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, so long as he can keep his objectivity about him, he seems prime meat for the admin grinder... now if we can just find a monkey or two to process him...Gimmiet 17:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. One revert rule, appears to be reasonable when there is a disagreement. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. --Dvyost 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Heartily. Makes good edits, helpful and full of good advice. A force for the betterment of Wikipedia; the community should be grateful to have such editors. As for time-in-service, I know of no such requirement. Who was it that said adminship is supposed to be "no big deal?"--Craigkbryant 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Andre (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Extreme FSM support (but a different FSM to JIP's. Thryduulf 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Demonweed 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Most certainly. I'm slightly astonished that incivility is being proferred as a reason to oppose Friday, of all persons. The quality of Friday that has always stood out to me the most—and the reason I assumed until now that she was a long-time admin—is a certain unshakeable equanimity and poise that she maintains in discussions, even when attacked. We may not require of our admins that they never involve themselves in conflict, but we can expect them to maintain an even keel, have a willingness to entertain different points of view, demonstrate a firmness in upholding policy—and no less the grace to apologise for their errors when these are pointed out to them. Friday is all these; taken with her editing experience, I think she's a shoo-in for administratorship.—encephalon 03:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes - seen this editor being sensible and thoughtful in various places. Good 'un. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Friday's a great editor, and is extremely helpful and polite. I'm surprised that Denelson83 offers below this as an example of incivility, when in fact it shows the opposite: civility in the face of dealing with a difficult user, which is exactly what's needed in an admin. Friday's just the sort of editor who ought to be promoted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support our man Friday The exchange noted below actually shows that Friday can learn from mistakes, and be civil in exchanges. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support They opposed me because I had too many article edits, and they oppose her because too few. --Rogerd 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support- A thoughtful person, a good editor and very civil. Sunray 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Tεxτurε 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Molotov (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -Splashtalk 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, good editor, manages to stay cool when the editing gets hot, as the link in the oppose section shows. --fvw* 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. S'port - partly in protest at the discussion below! --Doc (?) 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Supporting Friday on a Saturday . --Bhadani 13:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support from one bemused by politics to another. Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support From one admin candidate to another. I'll work on the edit summaries if you work on the civility issues, both of which seem to be somewhat minor, and fixable. Karmafist 16:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support for civil handling of Gabrielsimon and his many incarnations. Patience with problem editors is a valuable quality. android79 17:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose re: civility issues and lack of time... sorry but 4 months is WAAAAAAAAY too short of a time to gain admin.  ALKIVAR™ 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think time is a bit overrated. Editors can get the "feel" of Wikipedia in as little as 3 months, given that he/she contributes daily; Ive been here for 3 months. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not so much for time to figure their way around the site as to not enough time to spot whether or not this person can remain cool in a bad edit war.  ALKIVAR™ 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little, and the civility issue is also troubling. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)The comment below is right; she hasn't been uncivil (don't know what I was thinking). Changing vote to neutral[reply]
    I've been looking at her edits and I'm not finding any examples of her being uncivil... she seems to be very thoughtful in her words. Can you provide a link? --Gmaxwell 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. It is nice that one stays in touch with Wikipedians, but that's not a good enough credential for adminship. PedanticallySpeaking 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose note enough time. freestylefrappe 21:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. NeutralPersonally pissed off as hell at this user, but will not let selfish or trivial emotions get in the way, or do something evil like oppose him. Molotov (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In looking through your user talk archives, you seem to receive the full spectrum of comments, from good to bad. However, I'm particularly troubled by this particular exchange. It seems to suggest to me that you might have a short temper and an attribute of hypocrisy. On this basis, and since this incident happened only just over a month ago, I shall render an opinion of opposition neutrality to your adminship candidacy. Just so you know, my most recent adminship nomination was opposed on this very same type of scenario, one on which my RfC was built.  Denelson83  06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, reading the post cited above, I feel Friday conducted herself quite well in what could have been a very heated exchange. KHM03 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, with KHM03. I not sure if I know this editor enough to vote, but her involvement in that exchange only does her only credit in my eyes. --Doc (?) 11:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, edits to Wikipedia count as part of a permanent record. I have had uncivil exchanges on Wikipedia as well, and even though I apologized for my most recent uncivil scenario, the fact that remains that it still occurred, and the Wikipedia community will remember it for time immemorial, resulting in my reputation being damaged. I opposed Friday's candidacy for adminship because she expressed incivility in the first place, and her reputation, and therefore credibility, is damaged as a result.  Denelson83  02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote changed to neutral, as a response to Andre's objection.  Denelson83  05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Incidently, the exchange pointed out above with User:DreamGuy as the example of me being uncivil was the very same one I linked to below in the answer to the third question. It's certainly true that he felt I was being uncivil (hence him leaving me the "Your lack of civility" message), however I felt that I was polite even though we disagreed. Still, this was certainly my strongest disagreement with another editor; I'm not trying to hide that at all. If you want to know how I respond to disagreement, there it is. Friday (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An observation on that exchange - the "I'm sorry you were offended" approach is not much of an apology, because it effectively blames the other party and will often aggravate rather than placate. I understand that it's motivated by a desire to defuse the situation, which is commendable, but only a sincere apology for something you did can work. Sometimes, if you don't have anything to apologize for, don't (I say this with trepidation, because most of us could find something to apologize for most of the time). --Michael Snow 22:12, 4 October 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I already do some vandalism reverting, so I'd certainly continue with that, altho perhaps a bit quicker. I've also been closing Afds here and there, but with sysop rights, I'd be able to do it in cases that required deletion also. I would also speedily delete things, if they definitely fit an existing CSD (and of course, I would cite which CSD was used). For cases that may be borderline, I'd tag it as a speedy but not do the actual deletion myself. As a rule, I don't like page protection, but I may do that occasionally if the situation really warrants it. I would also eventually block vandals, when appropriate. However, I think to start with, I'd stick to admin actions that are less potentially controversial than blocks.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I'm basically a Wikignome, so I can't claim to have written any brilliant articles by myself. I do try to be active in policy discussions, though, and I feel I can keep a level head even during conflicts. This will probably sound like a small and silly thing, but I think perhaps my proudest accomplishment so far was a month or so ago, when I was patrolling new pages. I found an obviously inappropriate page which had been created by a new, but signed-in user. I was able to explain to the author why it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. The author understood and agreed that the page should be deleted. So, with the author's consent, the page was speedily deleted, avoiding both Afd and bad feelings on the part of the article's creator. I want Wikipedia to be a newbie-friendly place, but not at the expense of having bad articles. I considered this a best-of-both-worlds outcome.
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 make every effort to not succumb to wikistress. I'm generally a laid-back person, but when I do feel stress, I simply refrain from editing until I'm calmer. I can't claim to have always avoided editing under stress, but I do make an effort. As for conflicts, one of the first editors I encountered was User:Gabrielsimon. We had some disagreements at first, but eventually made our peace. I also ran afoul of User:DreamGuy a bit here and there, but I like to think I usually kept things civil. You can see some of that history at User talk:Friday/archive2#Your lack of civility. I do have my own opinions (sometimes strong ones) about what makes Wikipedia better, so I know I'll have disagreements with other editors. I follow the one revert rule, so that whatever disagreements I may have do not result in edit warring. If given sysop tools, I would apply the 1RR to their use also: if ever someone else undid one of my actions, rather than fighting over it, I would stop and talk things over. Friday (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2005 (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.
Category