mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johan Elisson Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Johan_Elisson

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

Johan Elisson

[edit]

(64/0/0) Ended 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Johan Elisson (talk · contribs) – Johan Elisson has been with the project since mid-2004 and is particularly active in topics relating to football (soccer) and Sweden. He has in excess of 10,000 edits, and has written two featured articles (IFK Göteborg and Swedish allotment system) and one featured list (Swedish football champions). Project wise, he created the now well established WikiProject Football, which he continues to maintain and organize. He has a sound understanding of policy and process, and is an asset to the project, who certainly wouldn't abuse the admin tools. Oldelpaso 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gratefully accept the nomination. – Elisson • Talk 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I have recently started to seek up and fight vandalism more than before and I have seen the need for admin tools quite often since then, mostly for quick rollback but sometimes also for temporary blocking (although I doubt I will use that very often). I have a habit of visiting CAT:CSD and quite often find large backlogs, so removing them there and at other places is another field I feel I can contribute to if given admin tools. In connection to the many football-related XfDs that appear every week, I regularly visit deletion debate pages and closing old debates (starting with obvious cases until I get a grip of the process) is another task I am willing to take. Apart from that, I do not have any special chores I would like to do extra much, but I often bump into various problems that would be solved much quicker if I had the tools, for example copy-paste moves, images uploaded under the same name on Commons, occationaly doing RC patrol, semi-protection of pages, and so on. I really admire users that devote their spare time to do maintenance, fight copyright problems, limit the use of fair use material and other various "invisible" (to the casual reader) tasks, but I also feel that we need administrators that act almost as regular editors, fighting the problems that appear in front of them and now and then help remove a backlog or devote themselves to RC patrol. I feel I am the material for the later category of administrators. I am also a regular at the IRC channels and people regularly ask for admins there without getting any answer (I am one of those people...). I can help filling that gap.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Obviously the above mentioned featured content, and my current work on expanding Boden Fortress from its current state to this state. Apart from that, some of my created articles are on subjects that may never before have been covered in English, such as the English Canal or Swedish football (code). Non main namespace contributions include starting the WikiProject on Football, a project which I believe has had at least a little part in the explosion of football content being promoted to featured status, from one article (IFK Göteborg written mostly by me) to fourteen as of today, and aside from that also has been useful in standardizing and organizing much of the football related content.
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 can honestly say I have never felt stressed when editing Wikipedia, even though I have been involved in a few minor conflicts in the past, although nothing really bad. I particularly remember that User:Kingjeff and I (along with a few other editors) had a grudge over at the Football AID available here (covers almost the whole archive page) and here. Even though it ended with Kingjeff being temporarily blocked for his actions and almost got RfCed, I really regret I made a few little too harsh comments such as this in the heat of the discussion, although it worked out in the end and we had a few friendly discussions and debates afterwards. The other of my two largest conflicts I've been involved in (as far as I remember, if you find anything I have forgotten, please bring it up!), was an edit war on United States men's national soccer team, part of the larger edit war featured on WP:LAME... Even though really, really lame, I feel I had learned a lot from the conflict with Kingjeff and I did not get myself as emotionally involved this time. As I tend to edit rather obscure subjects, I very seldom get into large conflicts, but I feel that especially the experience gathered from two mentioned conflicts will help in keeping myself cool if such a situation comes up.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As already stated in the answer to question one above, I doubt I'll use the block tool frequently, and that certainly applies to established users (which I understand as a long-time user with no or very few previous major conflicts). And very seldom do these users do things that would warrant a block. Either way, blocking is only a last resort, and I would prefer to try to solve the conflict without using blocking, which only may trigger an even larger conflict. Established users also know the rules, and in almost all cases will stop what they were doing when being warned. If not, bringing the matter up on WP:AN/I to get input from other more experienced admins would probably be my first action, unless the user clearly shows no sign at all of wanting to cooperate, by for example repeatedly making personal attacks, continue to violate WP:3RR or vandalise articles even after being warned. – Elisson • Talk 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support per nom. --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. Oldelpaso 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Wow, those are some great accomplishments, and the answers are superb. -- Kicking222 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Great answers to the questions. Hello32020 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Michael 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support great work.-- danntm T C 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support An impressive editor, I doubt that admin privileges would be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good answers and you said "I feel I had learned a lot from the conflict with Kingjeff". You convinced me with that. NCurse work 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - per experience and work with images --T-rex 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SupportLong term contributor. Honest about his very few edit wars (which are minor anyway). Deserves to be in. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Great editor and I have no doubt he will make good use of the admin tools. Prolog 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Woah. Um...he isn't an admin? OK, I would have nominated him if I had known this... 1ne 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - devoted editors make good admins abakharev 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, possibly even over-due here.--Andeh 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support everything looks great; weak because I have an aversion to unnecessarily large sigs. Opabinia regalis 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the sig for Support #15. Now, that's big. --Nishkid64 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support strongly per nom. - Pal 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. Markovich292 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Merovingian - Talk 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Rama's arrow 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good answers to questions, and great contributor to Wikipedia. He/she is also a very good encyclopedia builder, which a lot of us recently created admins are not. --Nishkid64 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. -- Merope Talk 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jaranda wat's sup 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Eww, created a Featured List...! But otherwise a very complete, well-rounded, knowledgeable, levelheaded editor, who has been most helpful in my dealings with him. Support. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Support per Nishkid64. —Khoikhoi 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 08:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Absolut Suppørt ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because of that I'll have to show you one of my most recently uploaded images! – Elisson • Talk 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – damn straight. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Crossed paths with JE a few times. No problem. --Dangherous 14:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolutely. Conscious 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Punkmorten 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yeah, hard-working dude. Should have been moppified ages ago. Flowerparty☀ 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support  Doctor Bruno  21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Zaxem 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Jeffklib 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Calm, hard-working and honest. Admin material fer sure. / Peter Isotalo 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Excellent contributions to Wikipedia. No reason to not trust this user. Marskell 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per nom. John254 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per all above, highly qualified editor, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per above. Heimstern Läufer 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per all above. Will almost certainly be a great admin. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per all of the above all of the aboves. People Powered 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-05 07:48Z
  48. Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- he's been here long enough. / Fred-Chess 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Looks like an excellent track record. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SupportNeed more swedish admins --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support good stuff; seems to be a highly qualified candidate and I'm surprised he's not an admin already hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hm. Almost missed this.--SB | T 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Nice contributions, nice answers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But how could Image:Absolut Vodka 10 bottles.jpg be public domain? You took a photo of the copyrighted logos a bunch of copyrighted logos... Does anyone know the answer? - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAL, but... I would guess it works as with everything else. Taking a photo of a Volvo car, where the logo is visible on the photo, doesn't make the photo non-GFDL/CC-compatible. There are loads of photos like that, which I based the licensing on, see for example Image:Jagermeister bottle.jpg and other photos of Category:Alcoholic beverages. – Elisson • Talk 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Will make a great admin. Jcam 07:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support As a rugby player I really dislike football ;), but that aside he's a good editor and has made alot of good contributions, let him step up to the challenge. Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Great editor (featured articles by himself? I'm impressed), and pretty good answers. Michaelas10 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've been coming across his work for years, and to restate an old saying "I thought he was one long ago". -- Arwel (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Long-term editor with substantial encyclopedia-building experience. Espresso Addict 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support very impressive. lots of experience and great contributions to the project. Wikipediarules2221 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support — Four supports in a row. Just when you despair that the pool of administrator candidates is getting shallow, you see a string like this. Support - Williamborg (Bill) 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC) And it adds to the pleasure of supporting when I realize I've linked articles to a featured article he initiated and built—I've already voted for his work. How could one not support! Williamborg (Bill) 06:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support The majority of his edits are in the mainspace, which is a very good thing, but still has experience in AfD and RfA. And how many Wikipedians write that many featured articles? -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. G.He 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with results like this. :-) Seriously, though, well-balanced, thoughtful editor. Heimstern Läufer 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.