Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chairboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Chairboy

final (79/0/0) ending 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy (talk · contribs) – Chairboy has been a member of Wikipedia since August of 2004, and heavily active since June of 2005. During that time he has contributed more than 3300 edits across a broad variety of subjects, including flight and spaceflight, television, history, and ships. Where admins may have seen his work frequently is in tagging articles for speedy deletion. He has more than 1000 deleted edits, nearly all of which are from speedy deletion tags. Despite being a speedy deletion candidate hound, he tends to side on caution when considering how to tag. He has also been heavily active in vandal fighting, with approximately 13% of all of his edits being reverts. Another area he has been active in is in WP:AFD with roughly 10% of his edits in this often contentious area. He keeps a cool head when faced with aggressive challenges ([1], [2],[3]) , is polite and friendly ([4],[5]) and does a great job of working with others towards the improvement of articles ([6]). I personally appreciate his stance against censorship on Wikipedia ([7]). He has encouraged vandals to contribute positively ([8]), encourages others to use proper image tagging ([9]), and promotes discussion ([10]). I also like that he takes the time to explain reverts to users ([11],[12],[13]). How often do you see that? He uses edit summaries on virtually every edit. Lastly, his patience is exemplary. I've been badly backlogged for a while now, and despite his first requesting I review him for adminship on January 3rd, he's remained very patient waiting for me to put together this nom ([14]). I've been really impressed by this editor in reviewing everything he's done, and it's time to give him the mop. --Durin 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks for the kind words above, I accept! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per above. --Durin 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Of course --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Very impressive nomination. It is especially good to see such a civil and cool headed user. Perfect for admin role. David D. (Talk) 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
5. --Sean|Black 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Has been very nice and helpful, is very nice in leaving Talk messages, and with his AFD/Speedy Delete history, he'll make a great addition to WP. --Lightdarkness 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Thought he already was one. WikiFanatic 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Positive interactions and contributions all around, will make a good admin. --W.marsh 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support A very good resume as well as friendly and helpful on IRC. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Newpage Patrol Support - 1000 deleted edits can't be wrong. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --tomf688^{talk} 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support nominated by Durin, how can I not? -Greg Asche (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support count me in! – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
14. King of All the Franks 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support good nominee--MONGO 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Support — TheKMan^talk 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Support should use the tools well. --Alf ^melmac 08:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - impressively nominated. Chairboy seems like an article speedy-deleting machine, yet is polite and conservative —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 09:15Z
23. Durin's nom is impeccable, and I've seen Chairboy about doing things that made me think he already was an admin, which, I suppose, is the best kind of endorsement. Dmcdevit·t 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Support; sounds like a perfect sort of user for Admin. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Support He needs it for the work he does here. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 11:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, I thought he was one already. Proto t c 12:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. No reason to doubt he'll do well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Support: Of course. --Bhadani 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. KHM03 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, feydey 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --Terence Ong 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Speedy Support per Durin's nom. --Gurubrahma 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I was recently involved in a minor argument with Chairboy, and can attest to the fact that throughout that debate, he conducted himself in a mature, even-tempered, professional manner. Good admin material! Owen× ☎ 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Thunderbrand 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, per nom. -Rebelguys2 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Durin's word is golden. Xoloz 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Will make a useful admin --pgk^(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Support good editor and will be good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Thumbelina 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Support An easy choice - great admin material. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. His contributions look good. I think he will make a good admin.--Dakota ~ ε 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. This person will, without a doubt, make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Doesn't get any easier than this. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Support freestylefrappe 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Support a great editor. - Dharmabum420 00:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Robert 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
49. Durin does not nominate glibly, candidates he supports tend to sail right through, so this vote is more of a pile on than a needful thing to ensure the right outcome in a squeaker. But I could not fail to support a fellow Libertarian, pizza eating, SpaceX fan who built a remote control camera tank, now could I?? Support. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
50. Support of course. --rogerd 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
51. Cliché support, not only because of his most excellent responses to the optional questions, but also because of his obvious willingness to take on maintenance tasks and janitorial work. Give the guy a moldy mop and old bucket to go with his chair! --Deathphoenix 03:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. Very impressive nomination, can't wait to have another great admin on the team. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
53. {{AdminCliché}} NSLE _(T+C) 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Great work, impressive devotion!Pschemp | Talk 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Support... "cats pajamas" lol, classic! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
56. Support so strong it hurts. As per nomination and above, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
57. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
58. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
59. Durin, as per Durin (after edit conflict). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
60. Support - Based on contribs, he might even deserve a gilded mop. Will be a good admin, I am sure. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
61. Support, of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
62. Support --Ugur Basak 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
63. Support — Moe ε 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
64. affirmative Derex 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
65. Support: chair, boy, mop, give. Jonathunder 09:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Tireless contributor/worker bee. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. — FireFox • T • 18:55, 23 January 2006
68. Let's do this thang! --Cyde Weys 06:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Vandals hate you, you must be doing something right. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. Absolutely amazing record, this editor has earned the priviledge of becoming an admin. --Zsinj 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. If only we were all as willing to learn ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
72. Support, per all of the above. BD2412 T 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
73. Support - answers to the questions, general conduct, and general vibe I pick up impress me significantly. Rob Church (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
74. Support As Rob Church put it so well I get a good vibe off of him and his conduct has been very good, he also answered the questions well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Maintaining civility in deletion discussions can be difficult given the SPEWING FIREHOSE OF CRAP that Wikipedia is subject to, but we need it and it needs to be encouraged - David Gerard 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Chairboy welcomed me when I was editing anonymously and helped turn me into a regular Wikipedia contributor. --TMS63112 16:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
77. Support, a stronger case for admin I've not seen. -lethe ^talk 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
78. support Excellent all round editor, that has a very cool head Benon 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
79. Support One of the better admin canidates. - Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• See information about Chairboy's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
• A chart showing this user's edits, including edits per day and average number of edits is available here: Image:Chairboy-edits.png. --Durin 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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. I've done a lot of RC Patrol, and the increasing effectiveness of other patrollers (translate: people that tag 'em before I can hit save, dangit) leads me to believe that there's a pretty good workload for admins to close out the deletions. I'd like to contribute as effectively as possible, and an area that looks like it could always use another cool head with a smite button is the evaluation of speedy delete tagged articles. My intention is to spend some time closing out speedy deletes and super-acquainting myself with WP:CSD (we are currently great friends, but an admin must know it like a lover, tongue and all) in the beginning. Reviewing the reading list, I see a bunch of fascinating scut work that can be worked on. Finally, I believe that I can be a positive user of the blocking functionality. It's a device for protecting Wikipedia, not punishing people, and I'm looking forward to doing some research into the efficacy of short (eg, 10-15 minute) blocks as a technique for minimizing collateral damage (shared IPs, etc) by sizing the block to the attention span of the vandal. In patrolling changes, I've found that the vast majority of people respond to discussion on their talk page (when being called out for a 'misedit') and that true vandals are pretty rare if you take a moment to talk to these folks, but for the exceptions, I'd like to be able to limit their damage.

I suppose the short answer (whoops, too late!) is that for some reason, I'm volunteering for more work. I know that it won't all sexy parties and deleting things, but I enjoy a challenge, and I hope that the community will place their trust in me so I can help get more things done.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Even though I don't create as many new articles now as I used to, I've found some really fun areas to contribute.

• I make a lot of spelling fixes. Is it soothing? Maybe... or do I enjoy the hunt? Definitely.
• Some articles I've created that have either developed well or that I just think are the cats pajamas: Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle, Falcon 9, Space warfare, Polyus spacecraft, Angara rocket, Mar Vista, Los Angeles, California, Cozy MK IV, Propeller Speed Reduction Unit
• I assisted in a few translations such as NAeL São Paulo and Chilean destroyer Ministro Portales
• Disambiguation repair (You can help!) is something I've dabbled in, though I find it best to have a properly set up, carpal tunnel friendly workspace to do it without, well, dying.
• Scrubbing and fixing - As an example, I recently spent some time doing some maintenance on various Cessna (and other general aviation aircraft) pages, linking them together with aero boxes to make them more readable, updating specifications, etc. Whenever I think "that's it, Wikipedia is done, I can't think of anything else to do", I last a few seconds before laughing and getting back to work.

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. For the most part, I've been pretty fortunate regarding edit conflicts. I've an almost pathological belief in WP:AGF that has driven me to work towards consensus in discussion pages. I'm convinced that if all parties are genuinely interested, consensus is possible. The closest to an edit conflict I've been involved in in recent memory is documented above in the talk page for HHLV, and there I worked actively to bring the other editor to the discussion table so we could hash out an agreement. When we were done, we had trimmed a bunch of the fluff from the article (my interest) and kept a lot of the foundation needed to make the article clear (his interest). It was a great example of how both parties can have valid points that conflict, and that there's a civil resolution possible. The only actual stress I've experienced on Wikipedia was when an editor whom I respect did not respond to requests for a discussion about something that greatly concerned me, but I've since decided that there's nothing on Wikipedia that'll kill me. I have taken a lesson from the experience that there everyone on the project will prioritize things differently, and that's ok. To quote Harry Tuttle from Brazil, "We're all in this together."

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. Actually, I'd prefer to choose from the ascending scale of the test family, eg test2-n, test3-n, and test4-n. As I said above, I think that true, dedicated vandals are rare, and most of what we need to fix are the edits of people who are 'playing around' or don't realize that what they do affects others. This possibly pollyanna-ish outlook is based on a number of discussions with these folks I've had over my tenure here. BTW, if I really think someone is doing what they do to be a jerk, there's no template that's appropriate to use, that's when the personal touch is most needed.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. I'd talk to them. A block isn't appropriate if they're within the letter of the law. That said, the spirit of 3RR is important, so making an effort to communicate with this person would be vital. If someone games the rules by showing a continuing pattern of this, maybe that would be an appropriate time to involve them in an RfC as an intervention, it would really depend on the circumstances. Aside from that, I'm wary of blocking people for doing stuff that doesn't "feel right" (even though it's technically allowed) because while we should WP:IAR, the policies and rules we have in place are to provide a structure for even handed equal treatment for all users.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. If there's any question, AfD. There's no A7 article that will destroy Wikipedia by being on for the duration of an AfD, and if there's a clear, early consensus that Speedy a7 is appropriate, the AfD can be closed early. It's a lot harder to un-pull the trigger when something is gone. This is doubly important when you're dealing with a primarily english Wikipedia that may not have the in-house expertise to recognize notable people in unfamiliar areas of expertise or other countries.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. The same way I do every time. I devils advocate what I've written and make sure that I'm careful in how I phrase anything that's subjective. Doing that without using weasel words is always tricky, and as delicious as deliberately phrasing something I disagree with so that it sounds ridiculous might be, actually doing so would be completely inappropriate for the project.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. There are two issues that I feel are the most dangerous to the continued growth and cohesion of Wikipedia. First, the complexities of copyright make much of what we do here terribly difficult. There are copyright experts and copyright activists that occupy the far ends of the spectrum, but 90+% of users fall in the grey area in between. Until there's a straight forward, cohesive policy in place that's short and to the point on how copyrights work and where they're appropriate, the quality of the encyclopedia will suffer (because of all the legit images and media that are not uploaded by people afraid they might do something wrong) and the community will grind away at fighting (because of all the stuff uploaded by people either trying to use Wikipedia as an anti-copyright campaign or because they don't know any better). This brings me to the other issue that frustrates me about Wikipedia, the balkanization of the community. There appears to be a gradual tendency towards having a caste system within our ranks that I fear may hurt the growth and stability of the project going forward. I am concerned that unless there is a clear directive agreed on by the community that "we're all in this together" (as I mentioned above) that the primary stakeholders and users agree to follow, the project could become moribund within 6 months (Has Netcraft weighed in on Wikipedia's future yet?). Face it, most of the hard core editnerds like myself who love to toil within the dark and steam filled maintenance tunnels of Wikipedia have already gravitated here. From this point forward, the people coming to the project are going to be increasingly casual about their involvement, and if the 'price of admission' for being a 'citizen' is too high, they won't bother to stick around. I ask everyone reading this to imagine what Wikipedia would be like in 5 years if the editing population was essentially unchanged. The same people making the same edits over and over on the same subjects, it would be terribly depressing and stagnation would be inevitable. Content is fueled by growth, and growth will not happen unless there's light. There are some clouds forming over Wikipedia, I hope with my heart that they will not block out the sun.

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.