Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Celestianpower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celestianpower[edit]

Vote here (17/8/3) ending 12:04 31 August 2005 (UTC) Celestianpower (talk · contribs) - Celestianpower is a passionate Wikipedian, with over 2000 edits in total in just four months. His watchlist is his Bible, figuratively speaking. Most recently, his work on aspects of Lemony Snicket's writings, as well as active membership of the PAC, has been commendable. --Baryonic Being 12:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you very much - I accept! —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 12:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support hereby given. --Baryonic Being 12:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Seems to be a friendly and helpful contributor. Ground Zero 13:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seems a good contributor. Ucucha|... 15:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Sorry, I forgot to log in. Jamesite 18:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support — I thought he was an administrator. Journalist (talk · contribs)
  6. Strong Support for his contributions as a voice of reason on VfD, as well as considerable contribution to the PAC, in which he's expanded some 20+ stubs into full article status. I'm not sure I understand the logic of the opposition here: I guess a hypothetical ideal admin candidate would be active in all parts of WP and familiar with every possible duty, but most wikipedians (even the best ones) find their niche instead and do what they do best. Celestianpower has already found that niche for himself, and he's a damn fine contributor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support Per Starblind. By the way, you meet your criteria. :) Acetic Acid 02:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support 2000 edits in 4 months low? Good grief. The only reason I have a lot of edits for my time here is because I spend like 10 hours a day at this place... --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, see no indication he would misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - Once again, I thought you were an admin already. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I agree with Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Celestianpower certainly tries to be helpful, although they aren't always technically able to answer my questions. StuRat 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Pretty much any editor meeting my criteria gets my vote, but I think this lad shows a lot of promise. Someone needs to deal with all the Pokecruft, but I'd like to see what else he has up his sleeve. Pedant 19:15, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  15. Support I think Starblind puts it best. He is a good contributor, particularly with his activeness in WP:PAC. I think he would use his admin powers well. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, adminship is no big deal. Someone who only does a few admin tasks is better than someone who can't do any at all. the wub "?/!" 16:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope you get promoted, 1- because you deserve it and 2- because that support vote was my 2000th edit, and I don't want it to be wasted :) the wub "?/!" 07:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. CP seems like a worthwhile user, but his contributions are rather one-sided, and he doesn't seem overly interested in cleanup or maintenance work. Good candidate for a barnstar, but not for a mop. Radiant_>|< 13:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Seems pleasant and a worthwhile contributor to certain areas, but I share concerns about overspecialization in his contributions, and am also concerned about the tentative language regarding the closure of VfD's and the banning of IP addresses. Both of these tasks are key ones performed by admins, and this user does not appear ready to assume the responsibility that goes with making tough decisions about deleting and banning. – Friejose 15:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No - I disagree. I'm happy to and will most definately do those sorts of tasks readily but not the moment I get accepted (if indeed I do). I would prefer to watch how its done and when to do it before I jump in: I think that it would be irresponsible to do so. I apologize if I'm not supposed to comment here but I felt I needed to clarify. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, regretfully. There isn't anything "wrong" with you, please understand that. However, administrators are heavily expected to get down and dirty, especially in the case of vandalism patrol. I feel that you're not sure enough of yourself to handle this at this moment. I suggest going to WP:CDVF and do some vandalism patrol work. You might find it not at all difficult. If you're not elected administrator, come back after "expanding your horizons" a bit, and then reapply. You're a good editor, so keep it up :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. More time, wider experience. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. More time. siafu 04:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too soon. The JPS 21:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Aaron Brenneman, Variable, and The Jps. freestylefrappe 04:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. 2000 edits over 4 months is not much, especially with relatively scant participation in the Wikipedia namespace. Will gladly support in a few more months if participation picks up and broadens. -- BD2412 talk 15:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Seems like a good editor, but too little experience in the WP: namespace. Will gladly support in the future if participation and experience in this area grows. android79 21:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I changed my original vote from an Oppose. I am certain (based on the candidates various comments) that he is a very likely candidate for an adminship. If unsuccesful in this attempt, they could use the extra time to contribute to articles and study policy as applied to the wiki. Hamster Sandwich 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Before I vote at all, can you provide us with evidence and examples of Wikipedia community work that would be made easier or more efficent, assuming you had administrative powers? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I'm intermittently active on VfD and after observing another admin for I while, I'd be happy to close VfD votes and delete pages as necessary. I have also recently discovered Special:Newpages and I would be perfectly happy helping there by speedying on sight. Other than that, on a less technical level, I like to help people and if becoming an admin helps me to help others then that is certainly a good thing. I hope that helps! —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 13:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide some detail on your experience with Wikipedia policy? I share Radiant's concern that your edits seem to be limited to a few areas (Pokemon, ASUE, VfD). From looking at your contributions, it's difficult to determine how familiar you are with policy. Any info you could provide would be very helpful. Carbonite | Talk 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Any specific policies you wish for me to comment upon? I spent my early days (before starting on ASUE and Pokémon) studying policy. Well, the most important is NPOV (making sure bias is kept out as far as possible) and to be bold when editting. Reverting edits is easier than making them. When I'm talking to other users, I try to remember to assume good faith and be civil. They may in fact be right. Naturally, I focus my attention on my interests and the areas in which I'm knowledgeable but this doesn't stop me from editting pages on the random page button (like Emyvale and FC Dordrecht). Is that what you were asking? —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 14:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment: It might be best if you removed or revised your templated signature. As far as I know, templates in signatures are discouraged due to the extra server load. Carbonite | Talk 13:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will do. Sorry. —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 14:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could you describe what you would take into account when closing a VfD? Hipocrite 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete anything from a unanimous delete to about 70% delete so long as a rough consensus had been reached. I would take into account the comments made and use my common sense based upon that. I would never delete anything that I nominated unless it was a complete consensus (like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Almond Beach Village Barbados). If there was any doubt, I would keep. Anything else you wish to know? --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I say 70% give or take a few percent. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    75% seems a bit high. This along with some of the other answers you have given, and the comments of a few of the other editors, casues me some concern. I cannot support at this time. Hamster Sandwich 21:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you misread, I said 70% and that could be as low as 65%, it depends on whether I feel a rough consensus had been reached and the various comments made. Did you read the previous question about VFD? I believe in sticking to policy. And anyway, 65% is a ratio of (almost) 2:1 delete, I don't understand how that's high. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 21:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i did read your comments above, and you did say "give or take a few percent". Since I asked you specifically within 5% what your criteria would be, that leaves me with your answer, 70%, give or take. This indicates 65%-75%. As I said, 75% is a bit high. Since there are no hard and fast rules concerning these types of closures, I feel it prudent to ask each individual candidate this question. This holds them to a certain level of accountability to the community. The phrase you used "various comments" to help determine a VfD or any other related admin type function, gives me pause. I feel it to be ambiguous and arbitrary. I do appreciate your speedy response to my questions and comments however. Thank you. Hamster Sandwich 21:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to push the subject, you or attack but the way I used "the various comments" was the comments on both sides of the fence, all opnions and not just my own. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 21:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate for an admin to use her/his judgement, rather than adhering to a simple calculation. If there have been few votes, and the "delete" votes are not explained, while the "keep" votes are well-reasoned, I think that I would err on the side of caution and not delete to give the article a chance to grow. Sock-puppetry is another valid reason for not adhering to a hard-and-fast rule. 65%-75% seems to be a reasonable range to me. Going below 65% could result in complaints unless the evidence of sock-puppetry or stacking the vote is clear. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within 35%, what percentage specifically do you consider to be consensus? — David Remahl 11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    35%? That's a large range. It all depends where the consensus is being sorted out. I say 65-75% generally but it mainly depends on the comments made. If the delete arguments are weak whereas the supports are strong then that may tip the balance in favour of support. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 12:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. I would make great use out of the rollback button, I am (as Baryonic Being said) always on my watchlist and a way to revert quickly would be highly useful. I don't however think that I would rush into doing anything big like blocking IPs or deleting pages immediately. I would prefer to watch other, more experienced admins do it for a short while first, before I jump right in. I feel it would be irresponsible to do as such.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have been most active in contributing to A Series of Unfortunate Events articles (I made the ((ASUE}} template) and Pokémon articles. I got a Pokebarnstar for my work at the PAC and you can see my contributions to that here under Celestianpower. I played a large part also in creating the Pokémon manual of style. I'm also quite proud of my article on Marling School despite what people seem to think about school articles...
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. Not any serious ones, no. Being an active member in the PAC, we debate the notability and listability of many Pokémon-related articles but I feel I handle myself properly and with Civility in all of these discussions.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Celestianpower&oldid=1138649389"