Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man

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

The Rambling Man

[change source]
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Ended at 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (16/5) FINAL Chenzw  Talk  13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there all. I, Razorflame, would like to present The Rambling Man (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) to the community for the bureaucrat flag. Since he has started editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, he has made over 5,100 edits, blocked 40 users, deleted more than 200 pages, and has done more good for the Simple English Wikipedia than I could shake my finger at. His temperament is perfect for the bureaucrat flag, and he already has the flag on the English Wikipedia. I fully trust and respect this user, and I believe that he will continue to do good for the Simple English Wikipedia if he were made a bureaucrat. Thanks, Razorflame 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Goblin : I'd like to co-nominate The Rambling Man for the Bureaucrat Flag per pretty much all the reasons that Razorflame has made. He is an asset to this project, and clearly has experience on much bigger and harder to manage wikis. Since coming across him through the (V)GA discussions he has been nothing but helpful to me, and I am sure that he will continue this helpfulness to many more users for years to come :) Goblin 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:

I gladly accept. I really want to continue to contribute to the improvement of this Wikipedia and hope my experience as a 'crat for just over a year will readily enable me to approach the same position here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Strong support as nominator. Razorflame 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongest Possible Support - has the best possible interests for this Wikipedia in his mind, an asset to the project! (I so wanted this to be a beat-the-nom support!) Can I add a co-nom? Goblin 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - as I accidentally voted on the checkusership one, I think this is best for the wiki.--  † CM16  17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - When we were talking about who to nominate awhile back I actually listed him as one of the people I thought best on the wiki to be put in this position, but at the time I said it was obviously not realistic since he was away. But now that he is back he has my full support. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Most definitely. –Juliancolton (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support fr33kman talk 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support All admins should be 'crats. Decent user, too. Soup Dish (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Fairfield Deleted? 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very good user. Deserves to be a bureaucrat. Techman224Talk 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Hard working user, he would benefit from this. Best, Versus22 talk 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Normally I'd say two RFXs at the same time is poor form, but I'll make an exception here, per my comments on the RFCU, and the fact we could do with another experienced bcrat. Majorly talk 23:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Chris 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – trusted, will do fine. :) TheAE talk 01:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Weakly oppose - Sorry, I can´t support someone who´s been away for months. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't been away for months, though. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing somebody very much at all, is to me, being away. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that he was simply editing from another account, right? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM on tour, I know (I´m not that blind :p), but still. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, just wanted to confirm. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I´m sure he´ll do just fine. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for his overly aggressive and combative discussion at Synergy's talk page. It comes off as borderline harassment, something we don't need out of a bureaucrat. Either way (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I was upset at an admin systematically deleting pages I'd created having given me precisely one minute to do something about it. It has also opened a can of worms which should be discussed, as I have found, at a quick glance, half a dozen articles created in the last couple of hours which seem to meet the same "G12" criteria being imposed by Synergy and you, Either way. The discussion is not combative, I'm seeking a solution. Admins who summarily use G12 to delete articles will run the risk of putting off a lot of our new contributors. That's much worse than any discussion I'm having. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am less than pleased at the conversation on my talk page TRM. I had hoped we could communicate as equals, as I was very happy you returned. I cannot trust your judgment. Synergy 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above. I am shocked at your behaviour. You gave me one minute to do anything before starting your deletion spree. I cannot trust your judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be well versed in these things. You should have already known our guidelines. I gave you one minute, but you've been an admin for far longer. Synergy 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think it was the wrong move to G12 all of these and TRM was in the right, in that they aren't long enough to be copyvios. Of course in situations like this I also don't believe an admin should be deleting their own speedies. I must say I am very disappointed in Synergy who its becoming more clear over time has a happy delete trigger finger. -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think thats absurd. I gave an example of only one copy vio I deleted, and it was a match from en.wiki. Length has no relevance here, since its not just a few words, its sentences and paragraphs. I was taking pride in riding our pedia of copyright violations. They should not be created, and most certainly not restored to the violation. I wouldn't have minded it as much, had he only recreated, fixing this problem. But its still in the logs, and you guys are just allowing it to happen. So before you try and discredit me, by saying I have a trigger finger, you might as well ask many of the editors here, that also use IRC how long it took me to delete TRMs copy vios. They will probably says "hours". During this time, I thought about how to proceed. In the end, an admin, crat/cu candidate has no more standing than a regular user here, or on any other wiki. Just know that I did what I thought was best for our community. Synergy 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it appears that your interpretation of G12 and GFDL is questionable. Eptalon, a respected admin and bureaucrat has modified WP:COPY since your speedy deletions, and it now implies that you got it wrong. What do you make of that? And please, you abjectly refuse to answer my questions on the articles I pointed out which have direct copy-and-pastes from en.wiki that you're happy to leave. My stubs, which contained nothing more than basic information and raw facts in an infobox, were handled badly. You could have discussed this with me. Effectively you started wheel warring with me the moment you speedily deleted the stubs I created. Ever heard of "Don't template the regulars"? A little bit like "why not discuss things with fellow admins before speedily deleting their work". As for your use of IRC, that's very interesting. I've always hated IRC, it's really subversive, avoids any kind of GFDL and you can pretty much decide what you like there. It's exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confusing yourself into believing your rhetoric. I followed a guideline before his edits, to the "t". I can't "get it wrong" if I am following a current guideline. Once a guideline is changed, if I continue to follow the old version, I would be "getting it wrong". But this is not what has happened, obviously. I have yet to delete an article as copy vio following the changes (not made as the result of a discussion mind you, nor coming from a location I can confirm (height of invention? where does this come from? he just added it and simple's wp:copy is googles 8th hit!). I don't care that you dislike IRC, its just a quick way to talk to people, nothing more. Also, I never wheel warred! I deleted articles, you restored them. Synergy 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly why on-wiki stuff should not be discussed on IRC. The problem is that length IS relevant as you can't copyright things of insignificant length. Another thing to note, is that speedies that are disputed are supposed to be restored. So his restoring them was within process, whether he should have been the one to do the restoral or another admin I don't know, but the fact remains no matter how you look at it, it was you in the wrong by not discussing with him first. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er. Yes restored, but after a conversation. Not directly after they were deleted, by the creator no less! Overturning an admins actions, without discussion. Add that to the list of bad calls made by TRM. Synergy 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you feel you deserved the courtesy of having it discussed with you when you didn't show him the same courtesy? Because you realize you undid an admins actions by deleting his articles right? So you are accusing him of the same thing you did. -Djsasso (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, guys, can we leave this for Simple talk? Thank you so much.--  † CM16  08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with simple talk, its about an oppose on an RfB. -Djsasso (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I see a discussion of what QD G12 means. I only read half the discussion so forgive me if I'm wrong.--  † CM16  18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you shouldn't jump into a conversation if you only half read it then? -Djsasso (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from what I read it was off-topic and looked like it went all the way down so I felt I had to jump in, I already said sorry and forgive me, can we let it go?--  † CM16  18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - there are some reasons: First: Two Rfx's at the same time. Second: Used his admin rights for months not. Third: Come back and only one or two days later this request. Fourth: I think we don't need another 'crat at the moment. Fifth: I'm not pleased at the conversation stil on Synergy's talk page. Sixth: If an admin delete an article, you should ask him first why and not first restore the articles and ask after this. That's the wrong way in my view. Sorry, I know you are a good user and you do a good work to this wiki, but I can't support you at this moment. Don't take it amiss. Regards, Barras (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I supported the RFCU for TRM, but if we need another crat, then I think we should be sharing the load and put in someone else. There is nothing personal in this, just involving more people can only strengthen the editing group. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • Before voting for this user, please see Special:Contributions/The Rambling Man on tour for his contributions while he was away. Thanks, Razorflame 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why did you accept a RfB/C so soon after returning from such an extensive wiki-break? I know you had you're "On Tour" account, but this was not fully active. Kennedy (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accepted because since I'm now back fulltime I can dedicate more of my time to Simple English Wikipedia. Of course, during my time away, I was not fully active (too much sight seeing, nights out, etc etc to do...!), but since I'm online from around 0730 until 2300 UTC pretty much every day now I can dedicate much more time to my activities here. And as I said on the CU page, my experience as a 'crat on en.wiki (one year and 20 days minus my time off recently) will really help with the relatively low levels of 'crat-required activity here on Simple English Wikipedia. Feel free to quiz me further, thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your response. I don't think I could support at this time (many reasons, only just back from wikibreak, but mostly my own Crat duties), but I won't oppose either. I would say that I don't really think another Crat is needed. (I know, I fought this before) but it isn't. I have only used my crat tools once, and missed Fr33kmans rfa, theres enough crats, honestly. That said, I think you would make an excellent crat here. Kennedy (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No offense, but why should it matter if he ran for both at the same time if it would eventually happen in the future? I honestly think that this user won't abuse the tools in any way, shape, or form. Isn't that what this vote should be about, whether or not he will abuse the tools and whether or not he can be trusted with them? Cheers, Razorflame 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/The_Rambling_Man&oldid=8870858"