Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rigadoun 2

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.

Rigadoun

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC) at (46/0/0); Scheduled to end 07:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigadoun (talk · contribs) - Hopefully this is an easy case: there's something here for everyone. Article-building: Rigadoun has over 11,000 main space edits, including 28 DYKs. Civility: In 22 months of steady contribution he's never lost his cool. Patience: After politely withdrawing his first RFA he spent six months working to address the concerns, waiting until someone from the community stepped forth and encouraged him to run again. Need: A skilled hand at DYK, which needs manually updated 4 times a day. Twice this week it's been badly delayed; with tools, Rigadoun can help next week be different. Wikiprojects: Beyond DYK, Rigadoun has worked long and hard at the Missing encyclopedic articles project (a polyglot, he also has nearly 5,000 edits to other projects, helping with interwiki links) helping span the gap in both directions between en.wiki and other wikis. Wikispace: A long-time contributor to other policy areas, such as XFD. His comments show sound knowledge of our policies and rhythms. Care: anywhere Rigadoun gets involved he patiently learns the ropes, lends a strong and calming hand and makes nothing but good contributions. From his very rare errors he calmly learns and grows; no doubt we can expect the same from him as admin. --JayHenry 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Xoloz:

I first became acquainted with Rigadoun at his previous RfA (which I opposed.) I was very impressed with his grace, good-nature, and humility in withdrawing that request. Further interaction only strengthened my assessment of his calm character -- he chooses his words well, is quick to seek common-ground and compromise, and is an excellent communicator. In vetting his record more fully prior to this nomination, I now realize he is also a wiki-dynamo, using his talents as a polyglot to improve dramatically the inter-wiki coverage among the English 'pedia and its foreign language friends. With so many DYKs to his credit, Rigadoun is equally accomplished at contributing content from his own research. Given his well-rounded work in all areas of the encyclopedia, he is equipped with the knowledge needed to employ the mop judiciously. His demeanor, his record of contributions, and his dedication to the encyclopedia's work all indicate that Rigadoun is more than ready to apply his formidable energies to admin work. The project will benefit substantially from his mophood. I can think of no candidate currently better-qualified to help clear the backlogs, and it is my honor to co-nominate him. Xoloz 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Rudget:

Unfortunately, I have never been in contact with Rigadoun. However, I have witnessed their excellent contributions many's-a-time and I am pleased to announce that this user is probably one of the best non-admins on the wiki. His excellent efforts at WP:MEA are evident from his contributions, although never let me be the one to judge oneself from edit count. This user has an outstandingly calm, collected temperament, with sound judgement and a clear and sincere enthusiasm for furthering Wikipedia. I would like to welcome this user to anyone who had may have had the misfortune to never be in contact with them.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Rigadoun (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to continue to work on DYK; I'm not quite as avid as my nominator imagines, but I've prepared a number of overdue sets and then had to pester someone else to update it. It would also be handy to deal with the things that occasionally come up that require contacting an admin, like uncontroversial protected edits (e.g. interwiki), or speedy deletion of gibberish (I don't watch NP often, but I'm sure we've all encountered this occasionally).
One concern I've had about becoming an admin is that I don't plan to spend most of my time doing "admin" things. I was heartened when I read Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship#Doesn't need the tools, where it reminds everyone that an editor who only pulls out the tools once a month is still a benefit to the community, and worthy of adminship. I think I would be more active than that, as I know the backlogs consistently demand a lot of attention, but I would prefer to continue to spend much of my time writing and fixing articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pleased with my numerous contributions, for example those that have appeared on DYK; I've never picked my own so in theory someone else was too. I still haven't brought an article to good or featured status (apologies to adherents of the Jguk test), although there are some I work on incrementally with the intention of getting there someday. I'm proud of the hours I've spent working on missing articles lists, in particular the list from the French Wikipedia and the music topics list, which had been neglected for a long time, but I'm (gradually) going it through now and encouraging other users I encounter in page histories to contribute more articles for it. I'm proud to help Wikipedia become more complete and diverse in its coverage, and fight against the stereotype that it's just a bunch of cruft.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't had any significant conflicts with other users since the two I described in my first RFA. Most of the pages I edit are not widely watched or controversial (in fact, with many items I edit from missing encyclopedia articles lists or uncategorized pages, I work on them precisely because they receive little attention). Occasionally there are moments of stress, but I find it relaxing to do something completely unrelated, like search for interwikis or categorize uncategorized articles, or something else in real life, and then come back to the situation with a cooler head (and perhaps a cooler head for the other party), and reach an agreement on a talk page before changing the article again.
I imagine someone may ask about what I would do in the situation described in Q3 on my first RFA. If there was a violation of 3RR I would report it to the noticeboard (both parties, if applicable), as I now realize that even if I'm not doing any of the reversion, if it regarded material I had added, I shouldn't use any admin powers. Also, because I have little experience with blocks (I've only suggested a handful for vandalism, if I recall correctly), I don't plan to be active in blocks anyway without seeking some guidance from a more experienced admin.
4. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The policy on unblocking is quite clear that the first step is to contact the administrator who did the block and discuss whatever my problem with the block is, and try to reach a consensus on what should be done. Most likely, I did not consider some extenuating circumstance that he noticed, or vice versa, and a consensus could be reached. If not, or if the administrator was unavailable, there should be a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, where a consensus could be reached on how to deal with the block. The policy seems very reasonable and I would follow it; wheel warring in this or any other situation is obviously counterproductive and weakens trust in administrators. Rigadoun (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:5. How much time would you dedicate to exclusively administrator related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia for content?--Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you sort of answered this in Q1. Sorry. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rigadoun before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong support Excellent user. Should have been one long ago. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A JayHenry nom = Of course. — H2O —  08:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A Xoloz nom = Of course. :) Joe 08:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - no concerns whatsoever. Neil ☎ 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Jmlk17 10:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have no concerns with this user. Good luck:)--SJP 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I opposed voted neutral last time for the 3RR blocking issue, he has improved. I am sure he will be good:)--SJP 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Give him the mop! GlassCobra 11:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yea, give him the mop! NHRHS2010 talk 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Xoloz nom, also was impressed with the graceful manner of withdrawing his previous request. Addhoc 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support from co-nominator. Xoloz 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A very civil editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Nominators make an excellent case; there doesn't seem to be any question about any aspect of this user's work. Dylan 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strongest Support - as co-nom. :) Rudget Contributions 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. per Anonymous Dissident. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, per Anonymous Dissident, as well as the great three noms, above. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  16. Support. Per Xoloz nom, and I too was impressed by the grace of the withdrawal of his first RfA. His interest in helping with DYK is a good reason for conferring admin tools. EdJohnston 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - great nomination. After rereading his previous nomination, I'm even more impressed. Jauerback 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support Long live DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support all around.--Alabamaboy 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Good stuff. El_C 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Solid Support Anon Diss, gonna give you props here for your contributions as your fellow supporters have. Keep keepin on. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Of course. henrik•talk 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per many above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--MONGO 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Has a firm grasp in all areas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support will do fine as an admin. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--MONGO 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One vote per user. SashaCall 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per "no big deal", and the fact that this is a really solid editor. K. Scott Bailey 03:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Excellent editor who can be trusted. Johnbod 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support An obvious, excellent choice for an admin.  Folic_Acid | talk  04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support east.718 at 06:02, 11/9/2007
  34. Support Phgao 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. This is so weird. I have that extension that highlights all admin user and talk page links in cyan, yet I was sure Rigadoun already had the bit. Really excellent choice, however. — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - everything seems to be in order. WjBscribe 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - looks good to me --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support As per JayHenry further concerns of earlier RFA cleared.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Quality contributor. Twenty Years 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, with reservations. Rigadoun has some strong contributions in the "Administrator" areas of the encyclopedia, namely counter-Vandalism and WP:AIV. However, I'm convinced he could widen his scope of activities, for example at WP:UAA and related boards. He's also got a surprisingly low edit level in the XfD area, the last contribution there being to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrucionado, 15 October 2007 - that's almost a month ago. Having said that, he does make helpful contributions, e.g. at WP:AN/I ([1]) and I see no instances of incivility or other nasties. Rigadoun is definitely trustworthy, and I'm happy to support him, assuming he'll use his sysop tools in a broader way that is currently indicated. Anthøny 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support; yes, of course. Excellent choice for adminship. And as he correctly points out in his answer to Q1, when you are an admin you do not have to spend most of your time doing admin things; content contribution is still a high priority here. Antandrus (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - yes, excellent candidate with a wealth of experience and great editing on his/her side. :-) Lradrama 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Seems like a good user. Acalamari 18:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support John254 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oh geez, how did I almost forget to strongly support as co-nom?! --JayHenry 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rigadoun_2&oldid=1142573525"