Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cactus.man

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

Cactus.man

[edit]

Final (80/1/1) ending 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cactus.man (talk · contribs) – Cactus.man has been a member of Wikipedia for the better part of a year. In that time he has made more than 5000 edits across a variety of subject areas, including articles on Scotland and paint artists. He has been a frequent contributor to WP:AFD, and is neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I was rather surprised that his ratio of keep/delete votes was nearly 50/50. Most users are 20/80. His votes there show demonstrated thoughtfulness as well. He has made huge efforts in vandal fighting, with more than 20% of his edits being reversion of vandals. He was awarded the anti-vandal barnstar in December of 2005 for his efforts in this arena. He has uploaded a dizzying array of images for contributions to articles, which can be seen here. Many of these are simply stunning images that he has found to contribute here (Image:Kyle of Durness.jpg,Image:Loch Shiel.jpg,Image:Loch Leven.jpg). While I was reviewing his work, I was particularly impressed that he takes the time to update tagging on images as appropriate when tags change or are replaced entirely. This shows dedication on his part to keeping things in their proper order. He has contributed more than 50 new articles (see list), and takes the time to create more than basic stubs ([1],[2],[3]) as well as finding usable photographs to go along with these articles. With his images, he has demonstrated a strong understanding of appropriate tagging (Image:Loch Tay Crannog.jpg, Image:Berneray West Beach.jpg, Image:Pencz, Portrait of a Seated Youth.jpg) and is mindful of copyright issues in general. He is polite ([4],[5],[6]), thanks others for their work ([7],[8],[9]), and is self deprecating, showing some ever-important-for-an-admin humility ([10] (see edit summary), [11]). Interestingly, he's one of the few users I've ever seen who has done significant work to reduce the number of redirections used, contributing more than 200 edits to redirection bypasses. Lastly, I thoroughly appreciate his careful approach in working with people to correct their behavior, rather than boxing them about the head (see [12], which then resulted in the offending user correcting himself [13]). Given all the fighting on Wikipedia of late, this was refreshing to see. This user is well deserving of the mop. It's time. --Durin 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to Durin for his efforts in preparing this nomination, I humbly accept. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support per above. --Durin 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Go for it!/Vote Support we need more admins like him. --Go for it! 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very strong support. I thought he was one already. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Excellent contributor, and would make an excellent admin. — TheKMantalk 15:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Automatic support because I trust the nominator. His contribs don't look too shabby even neglecting that. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Extreme "Durin nominated, he must be good" support - What a fantastic user and one I thought <cliche>. --Celestianpower háblame 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: --Bhadani 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: An exemplar of the class, it would appear. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Cactus is spectacular in his own right, and Durin's word is golden. Xoloz 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looking good -- Agathoclea 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, per above. --tomf688{talk} 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. good work. pschemp | talk 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems to be a helpful user, with good grace, and well-reasoned actions / replies. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Solid contributions.--MONGO 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support savidan(talk) (e@) 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. --BWD (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. --Tone 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support: very promising candidate. Jonathunder 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, he's done a fabulous job here -- Samir ∙ T C 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support for all of the same reasons listed above--Looper5920 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Great contributor. Sango123 (e) 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support...with a nomination like that... -Splashtalk 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Khoikhoi 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support keep up the good work! Prodego talk 00:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Awesome contributions! --Mmeinhart 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Is there anything to add to a nomination like that? Kusma (討論) 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:28Z
  32. But of course. He once turned up at my page and, armed only with a kindly sentence, managed to repair a javascript error for me. Fancy that: he's smart and nice. Good combo, and not enough around. —Encephalon 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Suuport, and a well-deserved one. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support GizzaChat © 06:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good editor and good admin material; btw, OMG the no. of diffs in Durin's noms are soaring exponentially ;) --Gurubrahma 07:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, good Wikipedian, can be trusted with the tools. --Terence Ong 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Jusjih 08:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support sounds good, paintings are cool :-) Gryffindor 10:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. KHM03 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Oh yeah. haz (user talk)e 18:49, 10 March 2006
  43. Support per nom! - Wezzo 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sharp as cactus-Support from the snowy Czech Republic. - Darwinek 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. He deserves to be an admin. Tankred 00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Will make an exceptional admin. ---Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, dilligent, dedicated, reasonable, and moderate. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, it is hard to support a user who has a period in his signature. Wouldn't a middot be better? (Like this: Cactus·man) But I'll support anyway. NoSeptember talk 15:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a dot in the signature deprecated for technical reasons, or is this a matter of style? I'm just curious. Jonathunder 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:47, 11 March 2006
  52. Support per the solid nomination. --Jay(Reply) 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Moe ε
  54. Support Experienced editor. deeptrivia (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support VegaDark 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-11 21:23Z
  57. Support certainly. Raven4x4x 08:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Excellent work on Scotland-related articles. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 13:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Excellent candidate and I trust Durin's judgement. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support of course. Good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, great input on a lot of topics. ProhibitOnions 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support outstanding candidate. Deckiller 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. If Durin nominates someone, he's good. There are only a few people that's true for. But I did some checking anyway. Will be a great admin. Heartily Support. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. utcursch | talk 03:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. support: Looks very good. Ombudsman 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. --Ixfd64 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I welcomed him support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support JaredW! 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Great vandal-fighter. TML1988 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per above.Gator (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, per the other 71 people who all said what I wanted to say first. Hiding talk 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, dedicated and active editor. --Fang Aili 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Excellent crop of prospect admins on this page, Cactus.man is yet another. --Alf melmac 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support LOVE the images, the scourge of vandals! TruthCrusader 20:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, per nom. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support--Mmounties (Talk) 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support-- I've never had a bad experience with Cactus, he's a good editor and will be a good admin. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Ugur Basak 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. No experience with Wikipedia: namespace. Unacceptable. Ricardo Lagos 22:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vandal comment. Moe ε 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OpposePrasi90 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This user has been blocked multiple times for a variety of infractions, including vandalism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral due to lack of experience in the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm not confident enough that Cactus.man has good policy knowledge due to this lack. Stifle 09:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    About 8% of his edits are in the Wikipedia namespace. These have been distributed over RFC, Help desk, deletion review, AfD, CfD, Featured picture candidates, IfD, RfD, TfD, ViP, Admin noticeboard, and more. He's demonstrated a broad spectrum of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. --Durin 14:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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. I have done a fair bit of RC Patrol, so that work would continue, with the additional benefit of being able to block persistent vandals if necessary, without having to resort to WP:AIV. I would also become involved in dealing with reports listed at WP:AIV, closing out various *fD debates, clearing out some of the many backlogs including: WP:CP, CAT:CSD and dealing with the numerous problem images that pervade WP.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am a firm believer in providing appropriate illustrative material for articles, particularly those related to the visual arts. My current project in this area is to find suitable images for photojournalists and rock photographers (as well as writing the missing articles!). I have done a fair amount of work in sourcing and uploading images to augment various articles, and that's an area of my contributions for which I can say I am quite pleased. As for articles that I have contributed, well, Dunmore Pineapple springs to mind. It's not the biggest or greatest article on WP, but I had a lot of fun researching and writing it and I think it turned out OK. I am also quite pleased with Edzell Castle.
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 normally edit in fairly uncontroversial topic areas, so I have not had any significant conflict with other editors over content. However, following my keep vote on a particular AfD, I did get drawn into a dispute which subsequently evolved between the article creator and a delete voter. After the article was kept, this editor placed a {{copyvio}} notice on the article and blanked the content, despite intimating on the article talk page that he had concerns, but would review them and return to discuss later. This then escalated into what seemed to me to be a bad faith campaign of AfD nominations, placement of {{disputed}} and {{NPOV}} and other similar tags on new articles created by the original editor. Not quite wikistalking, but veering towards it.
I tried to intervene to resolve the growing dispute, my intention being to remain neutral between the parties whilst changing the inappropriate behaviour. Eventually it became clear that my edits were being followed as well. On occasion, under provocation, my responses were probably too hasty and somewhat ill considered, something I realise was wrong and regret. I did continue to urge common sense however, and eventually the situation seemed to resolve satisfactorily. All parties (myself included) are now still busily working away at improving WP, all in their separate areas :-)
The whole episode began around the end of September 2005, when I was still a fairly inexperienced editor with around 600 edits in total. I did learn a valuable lesson however: there is really no dispute here on WP that is so pressing that an immediate response is required. Step back for a moment, take a deep breath, have a cup of coffee, go for a walk, seek advice from others, whatever. Take time to reflect on the circumstances, what has been said, the context of the discussion and respond appropriately. The immediate knee jerk reaction is usually the wrong one and a short break will help. I have not had any other significant conflicts since this one ended.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A. If I understand your question correctly NSLE, this is a situation where I suspect that this well known editor is using sockpuppets to violate policy by, for example, placing multiple votes on *fD discussions, polls, elections etc, or to sway debate on article content disputes and so on. If it's only my own personal suspicion, my first action would be to seek further opinion privately from fellow admins that I know and trust from past dealings. Abuse of sockpuppets is a serious violation, but confirmation of the abuse is often dependant on subjective interpretation of circumstantial evidence. I would not immediately solicit advice on WP:AN for fear of widely besmirching a potentially innocent editor in good standing. If, after discussion with trusted admins, it seems to merit further investigation I would post a request on WP:CHECK. If the results of the checkuser investigation supported my suspicions beyond doubt, then I would block the sockpuppets, leave a strong policy violation warning on the editor's page and announce my actions (with evidence) at WP:AN for peer review and comment on any further action that may be necessary.
5. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A. I am assuming that these opinions are expressed on the talk page of the article in question. I would respect the actions of the deleting admin because the supporting minority was small, although I would expect the talk page to have beeen reviewed prior to deletion. If the article was about a topic that I would be motivated to contribute to, I would probably salvage the content to my user space with a view to working it up into a proper article. Otherwise, I would contact the supportive users suggesting that they work up a proper article before uploading it to the main namespace. Under either scenario I would advise the deleting admin, as a courtesy, that this particular article is liable to reappear at some point in the future (hopefully as a properly formed and sourced article).
6. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A. If the articles are clear speedy candidates I don't see a conflict of interest, as it's not a content dispute. I would not immediately block the user for this, but would post a further note on their talk page pointing to relevant policies, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:CSD as appropriate. If the recreation and abusive behaviour then continue I would block for a short period.
7. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A.Well, with one editor listening, the problem is on the way to a resolution :-). If it is straightforward edit warring with hostile language in summaries, then a block may be justified, but referring to ArbCom is definitely too premature. I would contact the blocking admin to explain that I was in the middle of a discussion, and ask him to reconsider his actions while I continued trying to resolve the dispute. If the blocking admin declined to unblock or withdraw the RfAR, I would respect this if justification of their actions is given, and provided the blocks were only short preventative measures. I would continue with the unresponsive editor, possibly pointing him to other avenues of resolution such as WP:M and the less formal WP:MEDCAB. Regardless of progress on resolving the dispute, I would submit a statement to the RfAR with details of the dispute and my actions, suggesting that the case is premature and be rejected. If discussions remain deadlocked I would seek further input from fellow admins at WP:AN and possibly WP:AMA.


The above 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cactus.man&oldid=1089264756"