Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Machine

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

Extraordinary Machine

edit

Final (71/1/0) ended 22:52, June 29, 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs) – Extraordinary Machine is an excellent and dedicated user who has been here since early 2005. He has well over 10000 edits, numerous awards, and a great knowledge of policies. He frequently helps new users with editing questions and he has helped to promote many articles to featured status. It's about time we give him the mop! -- getcrunk ? 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with caution; I'll admit that I'm a little uncertain about this. However, if the community thinks that I'm ready, then I'll try my best. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support absolutely. Great user. Helpful and knowledgeable. Deserves everyone's support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support!!! While sometimes a little difficult to work with, Extraordinary is certainly extraordinary: he is knowledgable and works well with others. Would make a fantastic admin! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Has a whole bunch of good edits and has a good knowlege of policy. -- Underneath-it-All 22:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Trusted, trustworthy, tactful user. Mopinate him now. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  5. I-can't-believe-I-haven't-supported-as-nominator-yet support! -- getcrunk ? 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, another awesome candidate! and that makes two in less than 90 minutes! I think I'll have a heart attack... Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it weird how RfAs come in waves? There hadn't been anything for a day and a half before that. --Rory096 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. This user has been doing considerable and consistantly excellent cleanup work on popular music articles for many months. EM has proven to have good judgement, and familiarity with policy. There is no reason why this user shouldn't be able to carry out their own history merges, page moves over redirects, and vandal blocks. Just watch out for burnout, EM. Jkelly 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support per above. --Rory096 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I'd've nom'ed him myself if I'd seen his return from a Wikibreak... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support the name says it all. :p —Khoikhoi 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good good editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nomination. Kimchi.sg 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Always uses edit summaries, good editor, ought to be an admin already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I first came across EM some time ago in a debate over a FA removal candidacy for an article that he had been the contributor to. His response to criticism (which was fairly extensive) was excellent; he was measured and reasonable throughout and fully responsive to suggestions and comments, both negative and positive, without ever losing his cool. Full support. Badgerpatrol 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Y'know, I really like the ending to your answer for #3. Support. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Very Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No reason not to. --Tango 00:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Enthusiastic Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Extraordinary Support Yanksox (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Even more extraordinary support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I like your answers, particularly Q1. It's best to do the difficult things first just to get them out of the way. Roy A.A. 02:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Best of luck AdamBiswanger1 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. {{RfA cliche}} Support - Glen 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No one in the history of Wikipedia has ever been more deserving. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I'm surprised that I haven't bumped into you yet. --Alphachimp talk 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support (If Tawker.Endorse = True) {TawkerSupport = True;}
  28. Question - Why don't you have any category/portal talk edits?Blnguyen | rant-line 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a comment or a support? SushiGeek 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A joke. --Rory096 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --HResearcher 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A solid experienced editor. Zaxem 04:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Obviously. SushiGeek 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - per above abakharev 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. DarthVader 07:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Merovingian {T C @} 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Passes my RFA criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Extraordinary indeed. Very easily passes my RfA criteria. Grandmasterka 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Excellent user, seen his good work --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I thought he already was one! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 15:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom(s)! bd2412 T 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Cliché support, hell, I really did think he was one. NSLE 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! — Deckiller 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  43. Support Amazing editor. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Although Wikipedia namespace edits are a relatively small proportional of total edits, however clearly a dedicated Wikipedian and meets my criteria. --Wisden17 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. digital_me(TalkˑContribs)
  46. I've never met this user before, but he sounds like a good person to support in a RfA. So, Support! Freddie Message? 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, per nomination --Mhking 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support deserving. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 50th Mechanised Support without reservations. Werdna (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: EM does sane, careful work, and I have no hesitation supporting. I'm sorry to see James going to actually oppose. Geogre 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support without reservation. Skyraider 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support AnnH ♫ 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support If this guy isn't made an admin then i'll eat my couch (no, i don't know why i just said that) MichaelBillington 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support All seems good. Some of the oppose comments that you havent been here long enough dont bother me, editors need to remember that some people have excellent experience as an IP. I am sure you have! Abcdefghijklm 16:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Suppport--Isotope23 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Fantabulous work on Mariah Carey that I've used as the standard to work on Alison Krauss, which he has also helped with! Staxringold talkcontribs 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I found this user's userpage back in January, and I looked into their contribs. I was amazed. This person truly is extraordinary.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. 3FA>1FA. - BT 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Looked at the oppose links and found nothing to keep me from supporting this obviously experienced, level-headed editor. Marskell 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support looks fine to me, gets my support. Gryffindor 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support great contributions, good natured humor ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Nice userpage! Support from Λυδαcιτγ 05:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Joe I 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I could not possibly support EM more. He's an excellent contributor to WP, and a pretty cool person, to boot. Highly experienced, highly qualified, and highly worthy of being an admin. -- Kicking222 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Good user. Garion96 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per nominator. Polonium 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

#Oppose ROFLMAO! If THIS doesn't make the best of BJAODN I don't know what will! Teppupkcos 00:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's third edit. Jkelly 00:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other two edits were very awkward, as well. If this is the only objection, it shouldn't be noted in the total. — Deckiller 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did it hit anyone else that this user's name is "sockpuppet" backwards? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username block applied. I'm striking this oppose. Grandmasterka 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose; he's been aggressively pushing deletionism all over the place and virtually ignoring my compromise suggestions or responding to them as if they were something a world away from what I had actually suggested. Maybe some people think that's pretty mild stuff, but a person who makes a mission out of reducing the size of the encyclopedia and won't have an honest discussion about a compromise suggestion is not the kind of admin we need more of. Everyking 11:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Machine.
Neutral
Comments
Username Extraordinary Machine
Total edits 13109
Distinct pages edited 4769
Average edits/page 2.749
First edit 12:30, 21 May 2005
(main) 9119
Talk 984
User 525
User talk 1540
Image 243
Template 77
Template talk 29
Category 50
Wikipedia 514
Wikipedia talk 27
Portal 1
Dammit, I edit conflicted with you for the count. And this was a hard one, too, almost half as bad as mine, which is saying something. I can't believe it was a waste of time :( --Rory096 23:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 think the first thing I should note is that I tend to like doing a variety of things, but I also recognise the need to clear the backlog at CAT:ABL, so for example I wouldn't help close WP:AFD debates if there was more work to be done at, say, CAT:CSD. The pages I feel I would be able to help out on most are WP:AN/3RR, WP:AIAV, and WP:RM; I think the last one is particularly important because I know how frustrating it is not to be able to do something as straightforward as move a page to a correct title. I would also visit WP:AN and WP:AN/I to see if old messages left there have not been replied to yet.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I mostly contribute to articles on pop culture-related topics, and I've done major work on three featured articles in this area: KaDee Strickland (which I created), November (film) and Mariah Carey. I'm happy with the first two as they are on less well-known subjects and I find it reassuring that Wikipedia has a place for articles like these, but I'm probably most proud of my work on the Mariah Carey article because it took the longest time to get to a state at which I was pleased with it and it overcame the most difficulties along the way. Related to this, I've helped clean up, rewrite, and in some cases reference and NPOV-ise the articles under Category:Mariah Carey and the subcategories Category:Mariah Carey albums and Category:Mariah Carey songs, particularly articles on songs she has covered (e.g. Bringin' on the Heartbreak) as the bulk of the material is often about her version rather than the original. Another page on a relatively obscure topic that I have helped expand is Robert Clark (actor), and most recently I've been doing bits of work on articles related to Fiona Apple (including Extraordinary Machine) and Vanessa Carlton.
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 tend to consider each edit conflict as a learning experience, and I'm happy to say that in this regard I feel confident I have learned a lot since joining Wikipedia. For example, on an edit war several months ago involving the article on the Mariah Carey song Shake It Off (among others), I let myself get very frustrated with one of my fellow editors and, as can be seen at the discussion page, became rather incivil towards him. I regretted this afterwards and have since made sure that I don't get "emotional" and overreactive in edit disputes, because it can be very unproductive and create an uncomfortable editing environment. Recently I've been in a dispute regarding the article Christina Aguilera; after it received some unexpected publicity in The New York Times, I re-read my comments on the related discussion pages and felt sure that I had stayed cool and checked the justifications and explanations I had provided for my edits were in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just as important is the fact that I have become more and more emotionally detached from disputes; it's easier to be objective this way, and contributing to Wikipedia isn't supposed to be stressful or feel like a burden anyway.

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk) Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

A problem I encounter frequently is the tendency for some editors (I'm talking generally here, not about anybody specific) to ignore requests made by other editors to discuss something on talk pages, and often they just restore their edits without explanation (in some instances I've seen users repeatedly perform wholesale reverts to old versions of articles, undoing dozens of useful and unrelated edits made in between). I think discussion is very important, and when people ignore this it creates a frustrating environment to edit in, particularly if you are the only other editor involved in the situation. I'm not sure if admin status would lead to more editors discussing their changes upon request; in a way I hope that it wouldn't, because as I said discussion is important regardless of whether one of the users is an admin.

Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?

I don't really consider the numbers extremely significant, nor the date on which I joined Wikipedia; length of time and number of edits are not always related to the overall quality of contributions. I didn't realise my total number of edits was that high, though. I guess I feel the number of edits to the talk pages is important because of what I said above about discussion. I apologise if this isn't such a good answer.

Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.

I rarely ever vote in RFAs, and I guess I don't have any criteria.
O.Q. from CrazyRussian
Q If a genie offered you one policy change on WP, what would it be and why? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given some thought to this question, but no specific thing seems to come to mind. In fact, I think that it would be better to discuss a policy change even if I was granted the opportunity to make whatever one I wanted, because another editor may present a problem with my proposed change that I hadn't thought of.
Hmmm... a cop-out... It's good this one was optional! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Extraordinary_Machine&oldid=1147963495"