Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Prodego

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.

Prodego[edit]

Final (77/3/0) ended 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Prodego (talk · contribs) – Prodego has been with us since September of last year and has amassed over 4000 edits in that time. He's proven himself to be a great vandal fighter and helpful Wikipedian, among other admirable qualities. Let's pass the mop in his direction. Nufy8 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Nufy8 and the other users who offered to nominate me. Prodego talk 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support so strong it shakes the very foundations of Wikipedia!!! Ardent vandal hunter, trusted editor, and all-around good egg. bd2412 T 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. It's about time. --TantalumTelluride 20:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)uhjn[reply]
  3. Support as nominator-dealy. Nufy8 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. (EC) — FireFox • T [20:43, 27 March 2006]
  5. Support a good addition to the mop squad. --Jay(Reply) 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Please...no...not...another...cliche...Aaaaargh! --Celestianpower háblame 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support meets most, if not all of my criteria. I'd like to see a few more talkpage edits, but it's all good :) — Deckiller 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support without question. -- DS1953 talk 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Seems to be good. Go ahead with that mop! :) —Mirlen 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. support Benon 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kaboom! (or something to that effect); go get'em tiger! -Mysekurity 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Hits the spot, I'm a sucker for mass-annihilation of vandals Deizio 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Vandal-fighters should be encouraged and empowered. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Judging your talk page (incl archives) and in honor of your efforts fighting vandals... --Mmounties (Talk) 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Don't see any problems here. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per same reasons as I voted for TigerShark. TKE 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support GizzaChat © 04:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, I don't see any problems either. JIP | Talk 06:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. All experiences have been positive, will use tools well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 'Support. Will be very efficient. Will use tools very well Leidiot 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--Looper5920 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. the wub "?!" 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - admin status will help him do his job. - Richardcavell 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Ugur Basak 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Changing from neutral per answer to my question. JoshuaZ 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support.  Grue  15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per BD2412 & Richardcavell - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Superexcellent (that's a word, apparently) Flowerparty■ 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Thunderbrand 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Suppport, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Suppport. of course. pschemp | talk 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support just the way I like'em. Eivindt@c 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support a trusted user. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Per answers and a sampling of the user's wikipedia namespace contributions. A good candidate, among other things seems willing to be cautious and learn as he goes along. --W.marsh 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. You've been an editor since September, huh? That violates my "No September editors" policy. OK, I'll let it slide this time :-). NoSeptember talk 01:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good amount of edits, been here long enough, will most likely not abuse tools, no reason not to. -- Patman2648 20:00 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Moe ε 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support as well... absolutely no concerns here. Sandstein 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, no questions, this user is fabulous! -- Samir (the scope) 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per above sentiments. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, definitely! Proto||type 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I se eno evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak support, good contribution but less towards wikispace. Shyam (T/C) 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I would have prefered more edits in the WP space, but I'm still willing to support. --Alan Au 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support? I don't exactly remember who he is, but if he is who I think he is, this is a no brainer. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 00:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I like what I've seen, and besides... Can't be pro one and anti the other! Support ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support--Jusjih 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support MONGO 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User already 'voted' above —Prodego talk 18:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Looks good TigerShark 17:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per all 63 reasons above. I figure Mongo had two different ones in mind. Hiding talk 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. All interactions have been very positive, looks good. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Impressive vandal figther and Wikipedia editor. Gwernol 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, could definately use the tools. _-M o P-_ 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - good work so far! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, learns from his mistakes, which is absolutely necessary for admins to do. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per above. Weatherman90 00:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No probs. --Alf melmac 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I think he agreed with me recently, as good a reason as any for someone to be an admin IMAO. Banez 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that's not a good reason. Prodego talk 15:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Ixfd64 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Great work. Covington 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. --Rory096 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Looks like a good bloke.:-) —Encephalon 21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bcrat, this is a late vote Prodego talk 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Main talk space edits too low. Not active enough with Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 09:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my answer to JoshuaZ's question below. Prodego talk 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Concerned that he has made only 47 article Talk: page comments. Have read the explanation below, and still am unsatisfied. Discussions about article content are public, not private conversations between individuals; they belong on the article Talk: page, where everyone can read them. If you're really concerned that people won't notice them, then you can alert them on their User Talk: page as well. Jayjg (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Jayjg. Though this will succeed anyway, please keep this in mind at least. Thanks.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral per now due to very low number of edits in the main talk space (less than 50) and not many in the project talk space. JoshuaZ 05:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different people communicate in different ways - Prodego's 1500+ User talk edits show that he prefers to communicate in the more personal space of User talk pages. Ask yourself, tho, does this suggest that this user (in light of his history and contributions) he would misuse the admin tools? bd2412 T 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly different people communicate in different ways. But one thing we often call on admins to do is to mediate in disputes and related tasks. When one has almost one's talk edits to individuals, I am uncertain of one's ability to handle such issues. I do not consider it fatal (hence neutral), and I am slightly leaning towards support. JoshuaZ 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to your question below. Prodego talk 13:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Prodego's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 would, of course, use the admin tools to assist me in fighting vandalism, by protecting pages, blocking users, and using rollback(fake rollback doesn’t work for me). Besides that, I would help clear candidates for speedy deletion, delete articles that have been proded(after 5 days) and of course watch the admins noticebord. To a lesser extent, I would possibly contribute to the Mediawiki namespace, if consensus were to make a change to it, and occasionally close AFDs, TFDs, IFDs and MFDs, at first staying away from all but those that are clear cut.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been of a janitorial nature, like most admin tasks would be, with reverting vandalism attempts, and using the Auto-Wikibrowser to fix common spelling mistakes. However, I did greatly expand the F-15I article, which has since been merged into F-15E.
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. Well when I first arrived at Wikipedia, I immediately ran into 2 conflicts, both of which were mostly due to my not understanding policy. The first, which was relatively minor was with BD2412, about the article Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina. At the time, I thought that any user could comment about their thoughts in the article, and thought that some user named "Fred Phelps" had inserted his anti-gay comments into the article. BD2412 explained Wikipedia's policies regarding this to me, and I found out Phelps was in fact a notable person, which ended that dispute. Kudos to BDA for doing an excellent job explaining policy to me. My second and last dispute was more heated, involving the former user Purplefeltangel. I was just starting out vandal fighting at the time and sent her a rather poorly worded 'vandalism warning', when I shouldn't have. Both disputes end civilly, in fact I now hold BDA in the highest regard, along with Essjay and OwenX. As for purplefeltangel: her comment on her second RFA, explains that our dispute ended civilly. Unfortunately, Purplefeltangel has since left wikipedia, although I am not sure why, I believe it may have involved Purpleavenger, a user who personally attacked me, and by doing that, Purplefeltangel. Both of these disputes were caused more from lack of policy knowledge than and malicious intent. Since these disputes, done my best to assume good faith with everyone I have contact with, and I believe I have done so well.

Question for the candidate from User:JoshuaZ

1 You have very few edits in the various talk spaces. How would you explain this and how would you adress concerns that this may make you unsuitable as an admin candidate?
A I once mediated (unoffically) a dispute, which should be I good example of how I use Talk pages. It was between Mistress Selina Kyle and Ec5618, over Template:user Aspie. My mediation was mostly conducted over user talk pages until they calmed down and were unblocked (3RR), then they worked it out on the 'Aspie' template talk page. I very rarely use talk pages, for discussions between only two users I use user talk, so the involved party gets a 'new messages' banner. I feel that talk should be used to direct general requests about the page, such as a verification of facts, deciding which external links to include, or when multiple users are involved in a dispute. I would discuss any revert war with each party one on one(over user talk) first to try to calm them down before having them work it out together on the article talk page. Also, my edits tend not to be controversial, as I said above, usually janitorial in nature, so there is less need to use talk pages regarding proposed changes. I generally perfer to use user talk under most circumstances, in case the person I want to contact isn't watching the talk page.
Thanks, that's a very satisfying answer. JoshuaZ 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Prodego&oldid=1082478358"