Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Improv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Improv

final (45/2/1) ending 22:41, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those "I thought he was already" nominations. Improv first logged in back in 2002 under the name Pgunn, and has been increasingly active since the beginning of 2004. According to Kate's edit counter he has a total of 2796 edits over the two accounts (the merging of these contribs lists is pending). He does good maintenance work, is active on VfD and policy pages, and is a current member of the mediation committee. I don't often vote here, let alone nominate, but am happy to make an exception for Improv. -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept the nomination. Thanks!

Support

1. sannse (talk) 22:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Insert you-know-what here. Neutrality^talk 22:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. CryptoDerk 23:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Wolfman 23:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Insert Cliché of choice here. Bart133 (t) 23:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. We need more admins who actually assume good faith. Rhobite 01:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
8. I keep forgetting that he's not one already. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Of course I support. -- Grunt   ҈  01:50, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
10. ...and I almost uttered the cliché myself. Excellent choice for admin. Antandrus 01:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
11. Joyous 02:13, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. JuntungWu 04:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC). Make that strong support. JuntungWu 04:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
13. Looks good to me. Carrp | Talk 04:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. For shizzle. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk donate 06:50, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
15. Absolutely. RadicalSubversiv E 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
16. Ryan! | Talk 13:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
17. Mh He has potential to make wikipedia a better place.
18. Support. Rje 14:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
19. AllyUnion (talk) 17:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. ADH (t&m) 18:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
21. Absolutely. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22. older ≠ wiser 20:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. *blink* He's not an admin already? (Okay, so everybody already said that....) --Goobergunch|? 02:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
25. 172 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
26. Seriously, my first reaction was: He's....not? Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
27. I thought Improv was already an admin. utcursch 03:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
28. Good chap, courteous and humorous. And seemingly tireless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
29. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Bishonen | Talk 08:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
31. Obvious support. He has more experience than majority of currently active admins. jni 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    No need to make impersonal attacks. r3m0t 00:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

32. Conti|✉ 14:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Michael Warren | Talk 15:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
34. Mike H 16:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
35. Michael Snow 17:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
36. I suppose. ;) - RedWordSmith 18:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
37. Support, moderate deletionist. —Stormie 19:05, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
38. He's not? Wait, somebody must be kidding. Let me check the list... Whoa! Seriously, he's not listed. Support! SWAdair | Talk 07:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. He...isn't...an...admin? Wha? This is an outrage! --Slowking Man 08:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
40. I support. Arunram 10:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
41. Andre (talk) 13:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
42. <insert concise and witty statement> Tuf-Kat 00:28, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
43. One of the few... Phils 19:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
44. violet/riga (t) 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
45. Squash 01:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I thought already was an admin... really I did...

Oppose

1. It's nothing personal, but his extreme deletionism frightens me a great deal. Everyking 14:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Netoholic @ 20:41, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Deletionism has me worried. The rest is good, though: neutral. Jordi·✆ 07:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In reply to Everyking's vote: Improv's preference to delete articles is not in tune with my views, and we vote frequently in opposite sides in WP:VfD, but I don't think that's a criteria for judging whether he's a good administrator or not. I still support him regardless. JuntungWu 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ideally, I would not vote according to inclusionism or deletionism—I used to not do that, and actually the one dissenting vote I got during my admin nomination was due to my inclusionism—but I've come to believe it's too important a factor to ignore when considering a nomination. The fact is, people take the opinions of admins more seriously than others, and if you've got a lot of deletionist admins, the project is going to veer towards deletionism in practice. Everyking 14:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a note -- I'm not sure how reassuring it is, because I can't promise it'll stay this way forever, but I haven't been very active on VfD for awhile. The last time I was active was several months back, I think. I'm not sure why it's been this way, but I've been more keen on focusing on other things in the project, and only when someone points something out to me or similar odd circumstances have I actually been voting recently. Also, when I was active I always considered myself a moderate deletionist, not an extreme one. There have been many articles I voted keep on, including a few which ended up being deleted. I'm not sure why you'd call me an extreme deletionist, unless you'd say that all deletionists are extreme. --Improv 13:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You're the only person I know of who thinks the Autobiography article should be outright deleted, which seems pretty extreme to me. Everyking 13:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I've been working on fighting vandalism recently, and would like to have the better tools available to admins for that purpose. Once I feel fully comfortable that I would be acting within tradition and guidelines, I also anticipate helping out with requests for article (un)protection and article (un)deletion. I would also note that I'd be willing, should he be interested and it not be deemed improper, to handle all of Anthony's (proper) requests for access to (non-copyvio) deleted content on Wikipedia for incorporation into his wiki. I will try to accomodate other similar requests that don't open us up to liability or are otherwise objectionable to the way we do things.

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

A. I started the Indian Wikipedian's messageboard, and am happy to see that it has grown successfully. I've also tried to focus on negotiation with people who others have given up on, sometimes with success, sometimes not. I'm primarily happy about keeping my cool and trying to be fair in a variety of varied situations, from GNAA and Israel-Palestine conflicts to policy discussions.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. In my two years here, I've been involved in a few conflicts. As noted above, I was involved in one of the times GNAA was on VfD, and got prank phone calls and other types of harassment. I kept my cool, and always explained what I thought whenever I was in discussion. I also had a disagreement with Nricardo about the notability of people on Donald Trump's show, The Apprentice, and while it grew kind of heated at times, it later cooled down and we put in some effort to reach out olive branches, working together on some things. I've been trying to work with Chuck F on Wikipedia (sometimes using IRC as a medium) in order to try to reach some agreement on Libertarian-related issues. I do my best to try to understand why other people feel the way they do with regards to their Wikiconduct, and while I can't say that I've never written anyone off as being unlikely to ever contribute positively, it's pretty rare. It makes things less stressful if you know where the other person is coming from, regardless of how that relates to if you can interact productively with them or not.