Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R3m0t

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] R3m0t

final (33/0/0) ending 10:37 1 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been here for some time, mainly involved in technical matters. That is, I created User:R3m0t/Reports2 (which were heavily worked on, to my surprise) and User:Humanbot (which was also well-recieved) and User:Grammarbot (which was, err, badly recieved until I fixed it!). I am currently working on a solution to bug 2411 (the original proposal can still be seen on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Indeed, if you look at contributions of mine at June 21st you will see I had used a prototype for RC patrol - the edit summaries are informative but not quite perfect yet. ;)

On the direct-contributions side, I have about 2800 edits, about 800 of which are made through Humanbot. Edit summaries and namespace spread? Well, I seem to remember somebody always posts statistics on those, and I don't really know the fast method of finding them (or, indeed, if there is one). r3m0t ^talk 10:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: aforementioned bug 2411 is an anti-vandalism feature. r3m0t ^talk 20:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

With about 14 hours to go and the status at 31/0/0, I think it might be a good opportunity to thank all of you for supporting me for admin - without the tedious going through everybody's talk pages. I've been so happy to see people's supports (although admittedly it wore off after the first 20 or so!) and hope to use my admin powers with care and, hopefully, to effect. r3m0t ^talk June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Support

1. James F. (talk) 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Forshizzle. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Support', apart from anything else, Humanbot is absolutely amazing. Bluemoose 10:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Joe D (t) 11:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. the wub "?/!" 12:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Enthusiastic, collaborative editor who seems good-humoured and reliable.—Theo (Talk) 12:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. But of course. smoddy 12:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. That's hot. Mike H 16:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

   Nnngh. r3m0t ^talk June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

9. David Gerard 19:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Absolutely.
10. Nothing but good experiences while working together on the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. In my experience, he's dedicated to making Wikipedia better. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Kudos to the janitors; they keep the place running. Wikiacc (talk) 20:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
12. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
13. Strong Support. As Katefan0 said, R3m0t is a devoted member and a driving force of the Cleanup Taskforce. He would be a fine addition to the ranks of admins. Ben Babcock 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - Absolutely. --FCYTravis 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. Support this committed Wikipedian, with extra points for the selfnom and for nice mature handling of Trilobite's concerns on this page. Bishonen | talk 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. R3mot shows substantial commitment toward Wikipedia, and making him an admin will help him with developing even better tools to combat vandalism, which those of us who do that need more and more every day. It would be counterproductive not to support. Kelly Martin 11:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    mutters vaguely about name spelling Oh, never mind. r3m0t ^talk 11:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

17. Neutral and tending towards oppose. See comments section for my concerns. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Switch to support. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, even if Humanbot sometimes edited what it shouldn't. --cesarb 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Yes, yes, yes! Echoing Kelly Martin. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 18:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Demonstrated strong commitment to improving the quality of Wikipedia. --Unfocused 19:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, I'm with Kelly's comments. Shem^(talk) 20:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Thought he was one. Hedley 10:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. JuntungWu 10:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, despite use of l33tsp33k in username. Give this man a mop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

    The l33t culture has never been something I have identified with. Rather pathetically, I chose this when signing up online for the first time ever - AIM at about 8 - and I imagine I used my first name, "Tomer". The people at AOL suggested reversing your name, and also suggested seperately replacing letters with numbers. It stuck and I still hate them for it. ;) r3m0t ^talk June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

25. Duh. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
26. Support A strongly committed janitor who would benefit WP greatly with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)
27. Support -- Humanbot is great asset, and so is its creator. --Spangineer (háblame) June 29, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

    Well, I would continue with Humanbot as opportunity arises anyway. Thanks, though. r3m0t ^talk June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

28. support an excellent contributor to wiki  ALKIVAR™ 29 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)
29. support Very good user and I think he'd make wonderful use of admin powers. I seem to remember working on one of his projects, but I can't remember which. Oh well. Strong candidate. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)

    Your name is listed at User:R3m0t/Reports2 (which was once just called "reports"). r3m0t ^talk June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

    Oh yeah! Thanks. I'm involved in so many projects that I sometimes forget the older ones. --Woohookitty 1 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

30. support Nice jobs. -- Toytoy June 30, 2005 08:23 (UTC)
31. Support. Good editor, no indication will abuse admin powers. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
32. Support. I like bots a lot; brings the automation and sophitication we will undoubtedly need as the project goes mainstream. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 1 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
33. Support Plenty of good maintainence and cleanup work which would greatly benefit from admin tools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• By his own admission, most of r3m0t's work is on the technical side, creating reports and fixing typos, etc. While this is undoubtedly valuable work, it suggests that among his 2000 edits (I tend to prefer several thousand) there are not all that many substantial contributions. How many articles has he written, I wonder? When has he worked collaboratively on an article or weighed in on a dispute on a talk page in a constructive way? He mentioned his cleanup of school counselor below (which is still in a bit of a mess when I look at it), and when I check that article I see only two short comments from him on the talk page, and three really minor edits to the article, of the kind that most admins do all the time without thinking about it [1] [2] [3]. Is this the best example of dispute resolution he could have showcased in an RfA? For his second question below, he only had this minor change to offer, again the sort of thing most of us do all the time. I haven't come across r3m0t all that much but from the times when I have I've formed an impression of him as someone who is quite arrogant and has an attitude problem. Of course, I could be totally wrong here and perhaps he's a great guy, but he has come across to me that way. See for example comments like "Basically, Znode, a) thanks for your idea and b) I may be way ahead of you." or the talk page of school counselor where he is pretty unhelpful and doesn't come across very well in his dealings with a new user. Only about 35 contributions to the talk namespace as far as I can tell, which is way too low for an admin candidate. Many of his contributions to the user talk space are things like updates to several people about Humanbot. I think people are jumping to support him based on the impressive piece of work that is Humanbot, which is great but doesn't require or merit adminship. I'll put my vote in neutral for now and may switch depending on how things develop. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  from the times when I have I've formed an impression of him as someone who is quite arrogant and has an attitude problem - oops. I know that I have been sparse on major edits and I tend to put it down to the fact that I'm 15 and my main interest is in computer science, which is of course already a very well-developed area on Wikipedia. Just to clarify (for other people) I had started a mailing list for Humanbot, although I realised the updates were too much of a pain and have instead made an announcement page to watch. The ZNode comment can be found on the proposals section I mentioned earlier. I had read the proposal, had various ideas to extend it, and was in a hurry when I was able to get a computer to reply to him. I did not mean to belittle his idea or contribution - although it may have come across in that way. Finally, the talk namespace - I can indeed see that I have rarely written on it. I'm not sure precisely what the issue is with that. r3m0t ^talk 12:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Well the issue is really that if someone is an active member of the community I'd expect to have seen them involved in disucssions about articles a bit more. The arrogant and attitude problem comment might have been a bit strong. I'm sure you're not like that really, and it's perhaps a little offensive for me to suggest it, but I thought it would be better to be honest about the impression I'd formed. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  OK - I think that's all cleared up. r3m0t ^talk 13:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  I did indeed support largely on the basis of humanbot, but this is because humanbot demonstrates R3m0t's commitment to improve Wikipedia, and that R3m0t will find the admin tools useful and be competent to use them. That is, my vote is on the basis that adminship is not reward or recognition, just something given to those who can be trusted to use it usefully and fairly to improve Wikipedia. I share you concerns over discussion participation, however, and would expect that to improve if R3m0t ever gets involved in dispute resolution etc. Joe D (t) 13:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  This actually sums up my own views of adminship pretty well. I've thought about it and I suppose I must have just got the wrong impression of r3m0t somehow. I'm pleased with the way he handled my concerns. The list of supporters also gives me confidence. Switching to support. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 24 Jun 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. Closing VfDs, closing IfDs (it sounds somehow more satisfying if it's irunreversible ;)), smaller places such as redirects and templates for deletion, speedy revert (that is, in RC patrol), and perhaps blocking vandals when required by the policy. Admittedly I seem to have listed almost everything on the list! Obviously I'll just find a few things and stick to them. Or I could keep doing more normal stuff.

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

A. Well, I suppose I was particularly bold to add colours to the tables in Prisoner's dilemma. It is now obvious where the points go - and pretty too! :)

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 suppose the only instance would be when I noticed that an article's paragraphs were quite long and it included smart quotes - I tagged it with {{cleanup}} and the main author promptly complained on User talk:Humanbot (section 6, "vandelising an article?"). I explained my reasoning on Talk:School counselor and left the tag on. He removed it and we cleaned up the page together.