EVula

EVula (talk · contribs)

End date: 00:54, 18 May, 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is Shappy here, nominating EVula for adminship. EVula has experience with gnoming and templates here, and has been active for a little over three months. EVula is an admin on Commons, Meta, Wikisource, Simple Wikiquote, and is a bureaucrat on Wikispecies, English Wikiquote and English Wikipedia, so he definitely knows how to use the tools. He may not have a large edit count, but regardlessly, I believe EVula would not do Simple any harm as an admin. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. :) EVula // talk // 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Hell yes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second to support, because I'm awesome and he's even more awesome. :) But seriously, highly productive, very dedicated and well-qualified for the sysop role here. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Per nom. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Too many flags. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oh fuck yeah. Damn you Shappy for nomming EVula first. :P --Dylan620 ^{Review me} 01:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Please remain civil, even if you use such words jokingly. American Eagle (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No violation of the civility policy. Not even slightly close. Majorly talk 10:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, using the word "fuck" isn't on its own incivil.  GARDEN  20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I know, Majorly and Garden, I wasn't referring to that. Saying "damn you x", jokingly or not, can be taken as a PA, and therefore should be avoided. That's all I was saying. American Eagle (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He didn't say "damn you"... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wikipedia is not censored. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He's obviously joking, and I take no offense. :P Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support – Excellent, trusted user, will not abuse tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weakly support - Change from below . Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support as I have much trust in EVula. I'm sure any wiki with EVula as an administrator is a much better one. :-) — RyanCross (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - sure, no concerns. Barras (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Could always do with an experienced user's help. Majorly talk 10:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. WP:AGF and why not? I doubt he'd abuse the tools. NotGiven 10:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Why not? :D иιƒкч? 11:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. --vector ^_^ (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - per Djsasso. ;) Simon^KSK 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support --Chris 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. If I can pass he sure as hell can.  GARDEN  20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support decent EN user who would improve the average admin standard here Soup Dish (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. I disappear for one day and I'm stuck at #19? Well, here's a belated support. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Weak support After deliberating on this for a while, I've decided that this user will do fine with the tools. He has answered my concerns enough that I think he will make use of the tools enough to warrant them in the first place. While I still do not like the number of flags that he has (which still leaves me concerned with activity here), I have decided that a support is needed. Razorflame 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support-- Tdxiang 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support experienced editor, will be an asset to the team. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose - I see nothing wrong with the user, but I think going for an rfa at just over 500 edits seems a little bit funny. Looks like the user has flags in a lot of places, and have doubts on his necessety to have the tools. Doesn't seem to need them. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as need goes, I've been tagging pages for deletion, reverting vandalism, and making reports on VIP. I'd love to take care of those things myself, rather than asking others to do them.
Can't say too much about the having lots of flags, though; it's something that I can't really do much about (other than give up my bits on those projects, which doesn't really strike me as necessary for other projects). EVula // talk // 04:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVula has about 40 deleted edits, all QD tagging. If EVula had the tools, he could have deleted the articles himself, and cut the workload in half. But instead other admins had to delete the articles for him, when they could have been writing articles. Thus, even if EVula only uses the tools twice, it'll be a net positive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, you've convinced me. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 05:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. Sorry, but I am going to stay neutral on this one. This won't count as an actual !vote, but I still want to lodge my concerns. You are an administrator on far too many projects and now, this is starting to be seen as "hat collecting". I do not condone this kind of behavior, and even though it is meant to be helpful, I cannot support you at this time. Razorflame 07:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "You are an administrator on far too many projects and now"...Jeez, you must really hate the stewards. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not at all, because they are not really "administrators" per se....they don't have the flag on any projects unless they were given one before they became a steward. There are a few stewards that I might not like, but most, I do like. Cheers, Razorflame 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You obviously missed the joke, but anyway; to oppose someone because they happen to have the flag on more places seems a little silly. I think perhaps you should focus on the experience and dedication of the user, which might help explain why EVula has so many flags...but you're entitled to your opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I have no doubts that EVula would make a good administrator, it's just that with so many flags, the amount of time that he/she could spend on here is likely to be minimal at best, which is not a good idea to give someone the administrator flag if they are not planning on being here very often, or if they have too many other responsibilities elsewhere, which is what happens in this case. Razorflame 10:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This vote will most likely not cause this editor to fail the RfA. I'm actually thinking about moving this from an oppose vote to the comments section due to the nature of its' statement. Razorflame 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I talked about the "too many hats" argument above, but as for the concern that I won't be here very often... I honestly can't make any promises. I wander a lot from project to project, focusing my energies on whatever happens to catch my interest. I'm enjoying working here, and believe I can do some good as an administrator (moreso than as just a regular editor), but yes, I probably will at some point wander away (especially when I have real life commitments), just like I will, at some point, wander back. I've found an interesting niche around here right now, though, which always bodes well for me sticking around for a while. :) EVula // talk // 14:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]