Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trilobite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Trilobite[edit]

Vote here (42/4/0) ending 10:06 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Trilobite has been a loyal Wikipedian for about a year. Anyone can tell from the 7,000 contributions, this is one very active contributor. Trilobite does many administrative tasks such as welcoming users, participating in RfD's and VfD's, and maintaining the neutral nature of Wikipedia. Trilobite also actively combats vandalism on a consistent basis. Trilobite seems to be a grammar and spelling sleuth, making many minor tweaks that help improve the quality of the articles on Wikipedia. Trilobite is extremely friendly to new or inexperienced users and doesn't treat them like clueless newbies. This is evident with his project Wikipedia:Babel aimed at setting up templates for multilingual users. His other contributions to Wikipedia are too numerous to mention here so consult his user page for more information.— oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 10:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I accept. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I happily offer my support. Good luck! — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 10:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Happy to be one of the first to support this. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Defintiely support. A good editor, and more importantly, is interested in admin-type chores. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Seems very dedicated to the tasks which are made easier by adminship, strong support. Rje 12:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oh, yes. Neutralitytalk 16:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Cool. JuntungWu 16:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Looks sound. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Talk pages and contributions show he's level-headed editor, who deserves the mop and bucket. Mgm|(talk) 19:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. (Some edits are missing edit summary.) Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support (I thought he already was an admin!) Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support.-gadfium 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. For sure. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Merovingian (t) (c) 02:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  15. I have seen only cooperative and productive contributions by this user. - BanyanTree 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Meelar (talk) 03:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Seen lots of good work from this one. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 04:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oh no, rholton is an admin and now trilobite will be an admin. I am rhobite - hilarity ensues. Support. Rhobite 04:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Excellent, easy-going contributor. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  20. I always liked trilobites. And Rhobite's ancestors. OK, seriously, I've run into Trilobite often and seen him doing good work, especially tackling vandalism. He'll make a great administrator. (Although he could use edit summaries a bit more often.) — Knowledge Seeker 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. I see this name all over the place, always doing good work. Easy support. SWAdair | Talk 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Easy decision. jni 09:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, valuable and very well experienced contributor. Sjakkalle 09:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support - good resume with no signficant negatives. Firebug 18:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 20:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support, great contributor and janitor--nixie 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support, great arthropod. Radiant_* 09:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, definitely. I've seen good contributions all over, and good evidence of communicating and working well with others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Everything I've seen from Trilobite has been good, so I will shamelessly add a "me too" vote. Isomorphic 15:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Strong contributor and likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support, why the hell not? --Bjarki 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  32. Emsworth 00:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, Seen you everywhere, lots of good work and tons of contributions. Kudos from a green contributor. Volatile 12:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. good user! dab () 18:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Mike H 01:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Bit worried about the "extensive cutting back", but I think we should trust him given his excellent track record.Grace Note 04:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. utcursch | talk 08:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Andre (talk) 20:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support'. Fine contributor. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Ferkelparade π 08:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Kingturtle 17:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. Would it be moot to support at this point? :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. "Wikipedia is an unruly jungle that grows with vigour but requires extensive cutting back of overgrown vegetation." Mmmm, I don't much like the sound of that. I know what that means. Everyking 04:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What on earth is that supposed to mean? Radiant_* 12:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • It means Everyking thinks Trilobite's "too deletionist." He always votes against people he views as deletionist. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 20:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • That seems rather silly - being or not being an admin has no bearing on Trilobite's ability to vote for or against deletion, nor on his opinions towards that. Radiant_* 09:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • You could, perhaps, ask him what it means...to continue the metaphor, perhaps he just thinks we should mow the lawn of Wikipedia, not that we should pave it or salt the earth. Or that he prefers topiary to untended growth. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It means, basically, that because of Wikipedia's anarchic nature, whereby anyone can come along and create an article, there's always a lot of work to do to clear up mess that people have left—much more so than in the traditional model of encyclopedia creation. I don't see that that's a particularly controversial statement unless construed to mark me down as someone in favour of wholesale deletion of great swathes of articles, which I am not. Not a great deal of thought went into that comment and it has no great significance as far as my attitude towards administrative tasks goes. It was just an observation on how Wikipedia is different from encyclopedias that have gone before it. I like Wikipedia's anarchic nature and consider it a great strength. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. OvenFresh² 21:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please state reasons. Kingturtle 17:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. ugen64 06:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please state reasons. Kingturtle 17:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 07:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Trilobite currently has 7030 total edits: 4257/374 to articles/talk, 587/5 to Image/talk, 571/1 to Category/talk, 188/371 to User/talk, 529/22 to Wikipedia/talk, and 116/9 to Template/talk. —Korath (Talk) 14:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since a couple of voters have asked for me to make more use of edit summaries I will say here that I have taken that on board and will try to use a summary for every edit in future. I use them most of the time already, but sometimes just check the minor box for things like spelling or grammar fixes. Everyking is of course perfectly entitled to oppose for any reason he wants, but I'd like to reassure him even so that I am not intending to go on some deletionist campaign, nor do I even consider myself a deletionist, voting to keep frequently on VfD. The bit he quotes refers more to things like this that get thrown at us every day, rather than any well-written articles about minor or obscure topics. Just because I might not too keen on reading articles on things like minor Tolkein characters doesn't mean that I actually want them deleted. I hope this answers a few people's concerns. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 certainly be willing to assist with tasks like speedy deletion of nonsense and clearing out copyvios. The ability to block vandals would also be very useful. I am often frustrated when I come across persistent vandals who have been given standard warnings again and again but have not been blocked. I would of course exercise such powers sparingly and with restraint. I'm well aware of problems like the risk of inadvertently blocking legitimate contributors, and I believe I'm familiar with most aspects of Wikipedia policy as it applies to administrators by now. I would be sure to double check my rights and responsibilities when using sysop powers for the first time. The ability to edit things like the In The News template would also be appreciated.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have a long-term goal of producing a featured article one day, however, so far I don't feel that I've written a particular article that I can point to as my single best piece of work. My contributions tend to be spread around the wiki instead of focused on the writing of complete articles from scratch. If you want an example of an article I've written that I'm fairly satisfied with, I'd point you to something like Olli Rehn. I also like to add little articles here and there, such as age set, but as I said, writing whole articles is not my main activity.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I've never been involved in any serious dispute and I don't feel I've made any enemies here. Of course there have been occasions when I've had disagreements with other editors, but I'd like to think that I've always been able to resolve these civilly. If granted adminship I will be even more careful to observe good Wikiquette, as sysops are perceived by many as the 'official' face of Wikipedia.