mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aldux Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aldux

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


Aldux

[edit]

Final (47/2/7) Ended 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux (talk · contribs) – I know Aldux from his work with WikiProject Chad, though he has started dozens of articles in his specialty of Ancient Greek and Middle Eastern history. A regular editor in hot button issues relating to the Balkans and nearby areas that appear to be in a perpetual edit war, Aldux has stayed calm and focused on quality content. He is knowledgeable, friendly towards constructive editors (ex), stalwart towards POV pushers (ex) and has that most-valued trait of being able to sincerely apologize (ex). If this is a fairly typical POV vandalism, then this is the kind of response I like to see - not a simple revert, but a revert with an added reference addressing the underlying concern of the POV. Aldux is an example of how being an editor on controversial topics does not have to mean that one is a controversial editor. I am pleased to nominate him as he comes up on his one-year wikibirthday. BT 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to co-nominate Aldux for adminship. He is a quality contributor, and always friendly and civil. He will make good use of admin tools.--Ezeu 06:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks. Aldux 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support as nominator. - BT 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom. --Ezeu 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Friendly and civil are the key words. Roy A.A. 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merovingian {T C @} 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support although please expand usertalk interactions. This Fire Burns....Always 03:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support seems suitable enough, although I would like to see better edit summary usage. — Deckiller 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. DarthVader 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good experience, good user. Abcdefghijklm 08:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Experienced user, nice work building an encyclopedia, I trust him. Afonso Silva 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) - I changed my username. Mário 11:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good man would benefit from the tools. - FrancisTyers · 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - --Klemen Kocjancic 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. A user that I have collaborated with on several occasions, and who has convinced me of his great understanding of the Wikipedia principles. Will certainly make good use of the tools and, I'm sure, won't abuse them. Todor→Bozhinov 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've yet to encounter the user, but he seems like a fine candidate for adminship based on a brief overview of his edits and the rousing support above hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - per above -- Tawker 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, although I don't necessarily agree that you speak English at a "near native" level Alphachimp talk 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A great candidate. Although Wikipedia edits are low, his overall contributions to this project is a great mitigating factor. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. --Shizane 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - good, dedicated user, with a rare set of expertise abakharev 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Joe I 10:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I don't know this user, but after going through everything and reviewing edits, seems like a good candidate for the job. TruthCrusader 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Have done numerous translation requests for user; who appears ganuinely interested in a better WP for all; shows good ability to reach compromise and importantly is scholarly, calm, reasonable, has excellent sense of humor, & doesn't WP:DBN.Bridesmill 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I have seen this candidate before and he strikes me as well acquinted with WP rules etc. and fair-minded and reasonable. Tombseye 03:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Sure. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Amazing, I was just about to ask him why he's not a sysop yet. Absolutely needed on Macedonia related articles. --FlavrSavr 06:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support -- A very good editor. No POV edits. Wikiprojects' participation comes w/ time and Chad project is moving. Good luck. -- Szvest 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  30. Support. Per nomination.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Eupator 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support We need more specialist admins Jaranda wat's sup 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Tēlex 10:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Specialist shall only make wikipedia a source of future reference, instead of we "seeking" references! --Bhadani 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. support: Ombudsman 20:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A serious article namespace editor. 172 | Talk 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Excellent contributor, someone who keeps an impeccably encyclopedic NPOV style and has a talent to moderate and keep a cool head even when working in controversial, ideologically sensitive areas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support It must be cool, because everyone else is doing it. Nice contribs. --Terrancommander 15:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support This is a good candidate. Picaroon9288 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. - came across this editor in my first few wiki-days and found his handling of difficult situations worthy of remembering. Agathoclea 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - cool head handling stressful articles. --A. B. 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - good editor, no reason to think that they will abuse admin tools. Jkelly 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, I think Aldux will be a good admin. — mark ✎ 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support i believe that he will be one of the best admins we'll ever have. --Hectorian 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support - another unsung hero.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose unfortunately. The candidate is low in WP space edits and answer to Q1 can't convince me to promote candidate to admin. (There exist little backlog in 3RR and WP:RFP.) --WinHunter (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Changed to neutral[reply]
  1. Weak Oppose per WinHunter - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Low project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Though Aldux looks to be a fine contributor to the article mainspace and does do well, as mentioned above, with edits concerning POV and other conflicts, I cannot help noticing that his involvement in WP articles and his edit summary percentages are low. I would support if Aldux could get these up. --WillMak050389 03:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The candidate is an excellent editor, but his contributions show a tendency to work on own, with very less discussions with other editors and community in general. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Wikipedia space and user talk edits a bit low for the amount of time the user has been here. Couldn't oppose because the reasons I've stated just aren't enough of a reason for me. Really good editor just can't support at this time.--Andeh 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Second thought, it seems I have been little bit too harsh. Though the low WP space edits and answer to the Q1 concern still stays, so I am not going to support either. --WinHunter (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Andeh. SushiGeek 10:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. — Jul. 6, '06 [15:16] <freak|talk>
  7. Neutral Low WP, user, template and portal talk. Highway Batman! 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 03:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Aldux (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 155 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 05, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 13hr (UTC) -- 2, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 55.53% Minor edits: 44.59%
Average edits per day: 31.81 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 669 edits) : Major article edits: 78.39% Minor article edits: 47.72%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.38% (69)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.12% (1456)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 36.75%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1554 | Average edits per page: 3.22 | Edits on top: 12.94%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 19.2% (960 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 3.52% (176 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.3% (865 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 47% (2350 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 75.14% (3757) | Article talk: 8.64% (432)
User: 3.48% (174) | User talk: 5.06% (253)
Wikipedia: 3.64% (182) | Wikipedia talk: 1.3% (65)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 1.98% (99)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 0.1% (5)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.58% (29)
Username Aldux
Total edits 9041
Distinct pages edited 2328
Average edits/page 3.884
First edit 17:30, 12 July 2005
 
(main) 7578
Talk 533
User 204
User talk 316
Template 107
Template talk 8
Category 4
Category talk 16
Wikipedia 200
Wikipedia talk 65
Portal 5
Portal talk 5
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:
A field in which I could act usefully would be that of 3RR violations; I have assisted so many time to the violation of the rule that I have come to fully understand its importance, and how vigilance should be kept against sockpuppets. Also I would like to be able to organize vote moves: the number of discussions held especially on Macedonia-related articles make me quite an expert on the argument. Another thing I could do well would be considering partially or fully protecting articles, following requests.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
While I have started a considerable number of articles, mainly on Chad and Hellenistic history, I would have difficulty identifying a specific article; I have made one of goals to make war to red links, generally using as a source the public domain Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which I appreciate for always citing its sources, making thus easy hyperlinking with the original classics (or, better, their English translations). I have also been careful in trying to remove inexactitudes, small or big, and POV edits; also for this my watchlist is considerably extensive, including, I believe, all Greek history articles between Pericles and Cleopatra, and many on Africa and the modern Balkans. But maybe, just to mention a couple of articles, I would remember Pomaks and History of Chad; on both I'm still working, but I find them promising to be good articles.
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 must admit that I have arrived to the sad conclusion that editing, mediating, disputing on modern Macedonia-related issues brings an inherent element of stress, especially because there are so many opinions on so many problematic articles, and everything is felt so much. You must not let your simpathy and esteem for an editor make you weak in implementing NPOV, also because it is of fundamental importance that all editors must be convinced you are doing your best to be neutral, and that you're not biased against this or that country; obviously, to obtain this, you most obtain their esteem, and not treat them with condescension, presuming regional editors feel too much the issue to be really NPOV; instead, it should be remembered that it's them who write most of the Balkans-related articles.
This said, and returning to the precedent theme, no individual editor has caused me stress, as there were only legitimate divergencies of opinion; and I have solved them either through compromise solutions, like in the case of Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, when me and Telex after many editing agreed on a version that created a better article; or else I have brought the thing to the attention of the Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board, so that the matter of contention may be debated with other editors.
4. Optional question from FrancisTyers · Considering the demographics of the region and internet access patterns, when do you think a Straw poll (or *spit* "Vote") is appropriate on Macedonian related issues? Furthermore, what is your attitute towards obvious ethnic consensus stacking and how should it be dealt with.
A:
As a rule, I would say that in those cases the principle voting is evil is particularly appropriate. More still than in other cases, the danger of voting on such issues is that to generate sockpuppetry and intense factionalization - the opposite of what must be searched, consensus. For this every solution must be tempted, especially a RfC, before passing through a poll. Unfortunately, in some occasions, a dispute simply will go on and on endlessly without a vote; in those cases it's important to offer more than two choices, and to insist on a clear majority, which must not be dominated by local editors; for this it's important to involve editors less involved in the question. As to ethnic vote stacking, useful policies are, in my view, limiting the poll to experienced editors, and leaving to the administrator to contact editors for the poll; what is clear is that to speak of consensus, it must also involve a majority of non regional editors.
5. Optional question from Telex How would you define a reliable source?
A:
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.