Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EVula

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

EVula

Final (62/0/0) Ended 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

EVula (talk · contribs) - I think he is a good editor in general, who has made 3000 edits (or more, i don't know exactly since kate's wanabee tool isn't working) since his registration occurred in December 2005. He has been more active in the last few months, and given the mainspace/talk ratio i think he could be a fairly good admin. I have seen him revert a fair amount of vandalism (especially on Star Wars related articles, which i usually edit), and checks facts quite often [1] even when they are written by a fairly experienced editor. If he accepts the nomination, i will give him a support vote. Raffaello9 Talk 20:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. EVula 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: also of interest may be my editor review. I'll answer the questions here, sure, but additional reading/telling information can be found there. EVula 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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: Well, I'd like to spend some time at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I realize it isn't on the backlog pages, but while waiting for Freakazoid! to get protected, I had to revert more than a half-dozen vandal edits. If I can help protect pages faster, I'd be really happy. Category:Requests for unblock, while fairly dull at the moment (just five) would also be a future haunt of mine (forgive the phrasing, but it is Halloween after all). Taking care of Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons also strikes me as something I'd be fairly good at (and enjoy). Once I'm more familiar with my mop (which I'll promptly name "Vera"), I'll give speedy deleting some attention, as well as cleaning out Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

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

A: First and foremost, I've got a running commentary at User:EVula/Contributions. For specific items, though...

• I recently saved Hannah's Gift from being deleted by rewriting the whole article,[2] which included research to establish its notability (although researching a book about a girl who dies of cancer is horribly depressing).
• I'm very involved in the Mortal Kombat WikiProject. I designed their absolutely fantastic logo, I've worked hard to remove unsourced fancruft from across numerous articles (see The Khameleon Konundrum), and created a specific style guide for the project to standardize information across all the character articles (still a work in progress, though, and with the new MK game being released recently, a lot of "unprocessed" additions have been made).
• My earliest major contribution to the encyclopedia was The Zombie Survival Guide, which I expanded greatly (compare before and after). I'm still quite pleased with the work I did on this article, though I still vacillate between correcting the headings or leaving them as-is... (uncap them, as per the Manual of Style, or leave them uncapped, as per the source book? Decisions decisions...)
• The rest of my edits are more of the WikiGnome variety. Tweaks to image captions (removing periods when they aren't called for), formatting titles properly, uncapping headings, etc. I've also gotten into adding WikiProject banners wherever I can; I recently went through Category:Kyoto geography stubs and Category:Okinawa geography stubs, flagging every article with {{WikiProject Japan}}. I also added {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to all the templates (that I could) listed on Template:TestTemplates. There were a few that were protected, though, and all I could do was post a request to the talk page. Of course, if I was an admin, I wouldn't have to do that... *doe eyes*

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'm copying and slightly modifying my response from my editor review)

1. My first experience with the "pleasure" of wiki-disagreement came in the form of DreamGuy (talk · contribs). To this day, I believe he is an abusive editor, who bullies others and violates rules willy-nilly whenever he feels like it. My particular problem came from attempts at adding the aforementioned Zombie Survival Guide to Zombie#Zombies in literature and fiction. His argument was that it was merely spam (and felt comfortable labeling me a spammer). Eventually, he started railing against the ZSG article, labeling it as non-notable (and refusing to use the article's talk page to discuss the issue); it was actually DreamGuy's negative attitude towards the article that prompted me to overhaul it (seriously, just to shut him up). The ultimate solution was just to let the Zombie matter drop for a while.
2. My second editor conflict was with Justinpwilsonadvocate (talk · contribs), an (in my opinion) off-kilter editor who I first tussled with over at Talk:Vanderbilt University Law School. After our disagreements (for some crazy reason, I kept removing his unsourced/unverifiable claims. Silly me!), I suspected (and caught) him stalking me.[3] He then proceeded to constantly pester me on my talk page; so much, in fact, that I asked him to leave me alone (albeit a, *cough*, bit stronger than was perhaps necessary [4]/[5]). The solution to this issue was... well, to tell him to leave me the hell alone and to restrict all communication to just content discussion. I'd like to note that I was quite cordial to him after I'd told him point-blank that he shouldn't talk to me about anything other than content discussion.[6][7][8] (as an aside, his userpage is a 99% reproduction of mine at the time, right down to using my name) He has recently come back, and appears to still be stalking my edits[9][10] (which he's admitted to[11]), even going so far as to suggest that I'm stalking him[12] (which is an interesting feat, given that I'd edited the article more than 24 hours before he did[13]).
3. My third (and, to date, last) foray into the world of unpleasant dealings was with Wesborland (talk · contribs). The fledgling Mortal Kombat: Devastation article had suffered from loads and loads of what can only be described as concentrated drivel. I worked very hard to trim out all the BS and institute an aggressive source citation system.[14] However, Wesborland came in and started removing sources and adding unsourced (and poorly worded/formatted) information.[15] The resultant edit war saw both of us violate WP:3RR, although I didn't report him; instead, I used his talk page to try to address the myriad issues I had with his edits (last version before he severely pruned the discussion[16]). For this edit war, I have to cite WP:IAR; this wasn't just a content dispute, he was adding unverifiable information, some of it original research, and was removing perfectly valid content without explanation (which constitutes vandalism, in my opinion). With every revert I performed, I tried to tweak the copy in an attempt to guess at what his problem with the existing article was.[17] [18] [19] I even asked for help from a fellow Mortal Kombat WikiProject member[20], who backed me up in my assessment of the article.[21] [22] In the end, he finally gave up adding bad information, and we were able to call a truce. In hindsight, I realize that I should have handled that particular situation differently (in my editor review, Husond set me straight about how I should behave in future altercations).
4. Oh, I nearly forgot. I had a very minor argument with Kaldari about periods in captions (my talk page conversation and the Caption conversation). It resulted in a clarified guideline, and I've adjusted my editing accordingly (and revisited my edits that touched off the whole thing to begin with, which Kaldari had forgotten about[23]). Like I said, very minor...

So, that covers the "how did you deal with it?" portion. Future debates would really all depend on the situation; it has been more than once that I've gotten extremely worked up over a situation (at least once or twice with all three situations mentioned above), in which case I simply try to divert my editing attentions (in the case of Justinpwilson's persistent use of my talk page, it made it highly difficult for me to just ignore him, so I walked away from Wikipedia entirely for a few hours each time he started pissing me off).

Optional question from (aeropagitica):

4. Why do you want to be an administrator?

Maniacal laughter is probably the wrong answer here, isn't it? Crap...

All seriousness aside, I see it as an extension of my existing contributions. As I stated, a lot of my edits are of the gnomish variety; doing things in the background that make life easier and the encyclopedia better, but aren't necessarily over-the-top extraordinary. I'd like to keep the same editing "attitude" (for lack of a better term), but shift my attentions towards the project side (as opposed to the encyclopedia side,). I don't think being an admin would dampen my encyclopedia contributions, but I'd certainly like to help out in even more ways (protecting pages from vandalism is, in its own way, helping to contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia).

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: Breaking this down into the two parts:

• WP:IAR — The fact that this rule even exists (and that it is policy) makes me happy to no end. With so many rules, it is quite easy to be overwhelmed; its mere existence, to me, says "just make a damn encyclopedia," which is what Wikipedia at its core is. As for how I would apply it, well, I recently cited it as my rationale for keeping a external link template. I'm honestly not sure how else I'd apply it, as it would really depend on the situation... if this answer seems lame to anyone (and could potentially swing your support), let me know and I'll see about expanding on it further.
• WP:SNOW — Well, I happen to be fond of process in most instances, so I don't think I would apply this to anything except very clear-cut instances (like if someone submitted an AfD for Sex).

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: I think "punitive" here is a bit of a misnomer and depends on your point of view (the one being blocked will most likely see it as punitive, given that putting giant penises on multiple Pokémon articles seems like a good idea to them). At the risk of sounding like I'm regurgitating WP:BP, blocking is supposed to only be used to protect the encyclopedia; someone who is being abusive and incivil, in my opinion, is doing just that (a pissed off editor who has to walk away from the computer for a few hours is, oddly, less productive), and may be blocked accordingly (although, if the incivility is being directed at an admin, it should be done by a neutral third party). Attitude-derived blocks should only come with ample evidence, though (I'm talking about dozens of diffs, an indisputable history of incivility/harrassment, and several attempts at corrective measures [such as talk page discussions] with no evidence that the behavior is going to change).

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: My personal criteria:

1. The tone of the article — an article that addresses the subject's contributions to the world (or, on a less grandiose scale, simply establishes its notability) without pushing its individual products or services sets off far, far fewer alarms than "XYZ is a leading developer of self-sufficient foo". It is entirely possible for an article to be written fairly neutrally but still be spam, though, which leads me (and you, if you're not trying to imagine what "self-sufficient foo" is) to my second criteria:
2. The contributing editor — Subsequently broken down into two sub-criteria:

1. Editing history – if the article in question is the only contribution the editor has made, my (left) eyebrow goes up. If the contributing editor has made numerous other edits, I'd merely assume that the subject is something that they have a passing knowledge of and felt worthy of inclusion (which means they might know something I don't; after a bit of research, I'd either submit an AfD or ignore the article).
2. Attitude – Attitude is everything. I'm willing to assume good faith, but if the editor is more interested in belittling opponents than in discussing ways in which he or she could improve the article and perhaps save it from deletion (assuming that it was proded for speedy deletion, contested, and appeared at AfD), then my right eyebrow goes up. With both eyebrows up, I have a "surprised" look on my face, which... isn't that interesting.

If I happen across an article about a rather non-notable company, written by either an established member (here simply meaning "not single purpose") or by a new member who is open to feedback, I would not flag the article for speedy deletion (I would, however, submit its AfD, or if it is already in AfD, I'd merely call for its deletion). If, however, the article reads as an ad, I'd prod it for speedy deletion, and if contested, submit its AfD. If the article is merely non-notable but doesn't read like an advertisement, but the contributing editor is obviously suffering from a conflict of interest (all his article, article talk, user talk, and image edits are about that one article), I would be extremely hard-pressed to assume good faith about whether his or her attitude about Wikipedia reflects a desire to build an encyclopedia, rather than push self-sufficient foo (and, subsequently, I'd submit an AfD).

General comments

• See EVula's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

EVula's editcount summary stats as of 23:33 October 31st 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• This user has had an editor review which can be found here. -- ReyBrujo 00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I'm thoroughly impressed. EVula looks like a great user who could surely do some good with the tools. -- Kicking222 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Good news everyone! I support this RfA. - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

   And I support your use of a Hubert J. Farnsworth quote. -- Kicking222 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Haha, thanks. I think that Evula's screen name is based upon one too, so I felt it appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, EVula, but is your username based upon the episode of Futurama "The Farnsworth Parabox" where the professor refers to Turanga Leela in the parallel universe as "Evula"? - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Nope, sorry to disappoint. I've had "EVula" as my screenname since well before Futurama was on the air. The "EV" bit are my initials (although a lot of people thought it was for Escape Velocity, a game I've got extensive experience with), with "ula" tacked onto the end (there's a much longer story to my username, but I won't get into here). EVula 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Support I have worked with Evula in the past and have found that he is a very good editor who deserves to finally get some admin tools (that he will surely use well). Cbrown1023 22:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator and per reasons listed before --Raffaello9 Talk 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support -- why not? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Nice, reasonable answers to questions. Though not really influencing my decision, that project logo is really good work. Dina 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. seems promising. Cheers -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support EVula is a very dedicated and communicative editor. He took the suggestions on his editor review on board, demonstrating that he is willing to improve and step into another level of participation within Wikipedia.--Húsönd 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, changing to Strong Support. Great character, polite, refined sense of humor. Rare qualities that deserve my strongest support.--Húsönd 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Support. EVula is helpful and I trust him with administrator tools. Yamaguchi先生 23:49, 31 October 2006
11. Lets all discov--er...Support ST47Talk 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support based on honest answers and a wealth of projects under his user page! --Steve 00:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oh, no! they are attempting to control and sensor the internet and remove peoples freedoms. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
15. An undoubted support. Just a quick glance at the Mortal Kombat Wiki Project will show he has done a huge amount of work, and it's hard click on history for any MK page and not see his name. ~ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Great editor, has done a lot of work on a variety of different WikiProjects.--TBCΦtalk? 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, complete with maniacal laughter You have to support after seeing what EVula has done for the MK articles. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 01:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support No problems here. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Good editor, works on several WikiProjects. Hello32020 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per detailed answers to all of the questions. Loved your honest answer to aero's question --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Definitely! has always been very helpful in combatting fancruft at WP:FIREFLY. I've come across him many times there as we worked together to promote/improve several articles there, as well as at WP:BIOGRAPHY, and have no hesitation in supporting his nomination! --plange 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support Has made extensive excellent additions to the encyclopedia. Extremely civil, cordial and easy to work with. This seems like an easy call. Justinpwilsonadvocate 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Nice and thoughtful person in my experience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Strong Support. Will do a good job with the mop and bucket. Jcam 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Support based upon answers given above and general attitude displayed, all positive. (aeropagitica) 07:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Will not abuse the tools. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 11:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Holy Shit! Anyone who contributes to a The Zombie Survival Guide article and uses profanity in an edit summary should have the magical powers of an admin. But seriously, I thought it was really cool that EVula asked for an editor review to improve him/herself. That coupled with some of his other deeds (AfDs, userboxes, etc) makes it easy to give my support. —MJCdetroit 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Shiny Support In both WP:FIREFLY and WP:AFD, I have nothing but positive experiences with EVula.-- danntm ^T _C 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Looks good. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. From EVula, I've seen only good edits, conscientious efforts, strong awareness of Wikipedia policy, and dedication to Wikipedia's goals. Wryspy 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support -- Tawker 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
33. Support - Okey-dokey. KrakatoaKatie 05:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Great editor who will be a good addition to the admin team. NawlinWiki 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per above. Addhoc 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops! You already added your support on 1 November (Support #26). DarthVader 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

37. Support - experience with images, and no other concerns here --T-rex 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - bumped into this editor a while ago, all good! Budgiekiller 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Trustworthy and experienced user. Nishkid64 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per nom, answers, comments above. Strong editor, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Everything seems to be in order. JoshuaZ 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
42. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Seems to me like a user with his head in the right place. Andre (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. I have seen EVula around various XfD's, and his comments there are consistently well formulated and based on sound policy interpretation. Answers to questions here demonstrate forthrightness and a mature demeanor. Should be an excellent admin. -- Satori Son 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per above.  Doctor Bruno  07:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. EVula seems a nice editor. He could be a nice administrator.--Yannismarou 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. A friendly editor who is dedicated to wikipedia. Englishrose 10:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Not afraid to be assertive -- I saw that during Elonka's RfA (I don't rememebr which side she was on, but she was questioning one of the other commenters) -- yet always civil. Nice balance. --A. B. 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Seems to be reasonable and informed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per nom. Michael 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
51. Support He's a good Wikipedian who will make a good Admin.Sharkface217 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per nom.Mustafa Akalp^TC 15:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
53. Pile-on Support - not that it's needed :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
54. --W.marsh 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
55. Support per everyone above, seen him around and he seems like an excellent users. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per above. --Duke of Duchess Street 20:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
57. Support No evidence this nominee will abuse the admin tools...I also had a similar run in with Dreamguy.--MONGO 11:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
58. I think EVula would be helpful as an admin. >Radiant< 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
59. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
60. Late to the party! riana_dzasta 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Fashionably late, don't worry. ;) EVula 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    As always! :p riana_dzasta 07:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

61. Support - Just in case this ends up being a close one.  ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, I was going to put down Oppose, just so the unanimity didn't go to EVula's head... Seriously though, the answers to the questions were good and even the editing conflicts were minor or cases where EVula was on the correct side of WP:V/WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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.