Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram

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.

Fram

[edit]

Final (55/0/0); Ended Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:58:41 UTC

Fram (talk · contribs) - Fram is a well-rounded editor who has been with us since August 2005. He became more active in April 2006 and has made more than 10,000 edits since then, every single one of them with a descriptive edit summary. Of his contributions, the most massive is the Belgium portal and its many Anniversary subpages, which he created almost single-handedly. In article space, you might remember him from such page creations as those on the comic artists Raoul Cauvin and Luc Cromheecke and about a dozen others, which were all well-referenced and of a decent length since the first edit. Besides the big and obvious Belgian comics articles such as The Adventures of Tintin and The Smurfs, he has also edited several articles related to the Angoulême International Comics Festival, where the most important comics prizes in Europe are awarded. (By the way, these articles are full of excellent red links that show our lack of coverage in the area of European comics). As you might guess from his contributions, Fram is a native Belgian who is interested in comics and therefore a member of WikiProject Belgium and WikiProject Comics. However, he has also edited in other areas, see for example his article Phillip Margolin.

Besides his excellent work in article and portal creation, Fram has also done a lot in the maintenance area, mostly specializing in deletion. His many successful WP:PROD deletions (see this list) are always accompanied by a warning on the author's talk page. In his AfD contributions, Fram always argues from policy and helps uphold our verifiability policy. I have never seen him put up a pure vote without making a proper argument. Some sample AFDs where Fram has contributed: 1, 2, 3, 4. When he encounters vandalism, he reverts, warns (with excellent edit summaries again), and reports (like here) correctly.

In conclusion, Fram has shown that he has experience in many areas and can be trusted with the extra buttons. Therefore, I believe it would be beneficial for Wikipedia if we promote this smurf to smurfship. Kusma (討論) 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Fram 08:46, 19 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'll probably be most active in the different deletion proposal and debate sections, like articles for deletion, speedy deletion, proposed deletion and miscellany for deletion. As I have very limited experience with images so far, I'll not look at the deletion of images before I have more experience with the admin tools and with images (and their copyright status) in general. Apart from the deletions, undeletions, ..., I'll also take a regular look at the vandalism noticeboard and the three revert rule noticeboard. I'm less certain if I will be of much use on the suspected sock puppets board, as I don't feel very secure identifying sock- and meatpuppets vs. independent editors with similar interests. This may change over time, but I guess that the tasks I am willing to do may already take some time every day.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While I haven't made any GA or FA, I have made a few small articles I'm quite pleased with. Kusma already mentioned a few in his nomination, but something like Happy Hooligan, is the kind of article I aim to make as a starting point: a significant subject, good sources, informative. Of course it can be improved in every conceivable way, in style, contents, depth, structure, additional (offline) sources, images, ... but it's a good start, in my opinion. Apart from those articles, I'm quite pleased with my work on two portals, Portal:Belgium and Portal:Comics, although it is sometimes hard to judge how many people actually use such portals. I'll probably cut back a bit on my portal work in the future to again do more New Pages and Recent Changes patrolling though.
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: Oh yes, I have had a few conflicts, most to do with nominating articles for deletion. The worst one was probably with a group of users who had created hoax articles like Eiland and Polfbroekstraat, which resulted in a request for mediation, and two requests for investigation (one by me, one against me). It caused me some stress, but I tried to stay calm and civil. Another dispute occurred rather unexpectedly on the talk page of The Smurfs, about the inclusion of an external link and a discussion of the origin of the word "schtroumpf". I made some mistakes there (I probably shouldn't have started a WP:SSP page on the other editor), and while I think I was correct in my actions, I perhaps should have stayed out of it because of some possible WP:COI concerns. Recent, less severe conflicts have been with User:SomeHuman (the "Waving Flags" section of this page and a few later interactions like here (see section "what one name", beyond the coloured section), and the last weeks with User:Balancer on some AfD's for webcomics like Greeneyes (the one that more or less started it), The Parking Lot Is Full and Pirate Cove. While he has a point that these are the most debatable of my webcomic AfD nominations (most others are a straight delete AfD), some of the arguments he used seemed to be more about me than about the subject. When I noticed that I got agitated and that our discussion went nowhere, I gave a final reply to Balancer, as indicated in the edit summary[1]. In general, I tend to not let incidents and discussions get too heated, since that usually serves nothing.

Optional question from User:Hoary:

4. With your geographical bent, it occurs to me that you may perhaps have distinctive and thought-provoking preferences in beer. Would you care to name your top three? (Note: My opinion of you will not be changed by a simple statement that you happen not to like beer.)
A: Only three? :-) I prefer Palm (and the variations Palm Royal and Dobbel Palm), Malheur, and once in a while a Super des Fagnes. I'm not so fond of either the more heavy beers or the very light ones like Stella Artois and of course Heineken (well, not many people in Belgium like Heineken!). Not sure if these are distnctive or thought-provoking (too many of those can be thought-challenging though)... Fram 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from ST47 (talk · contribs)
5. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: I had heard a lot about Wikipedia, and when looking for some information on the internet, I came across it and started browsing. It was huge, but I noticed soon that many topics had only a short article or none at all. I was reluctant to edit though, as I didn't want to ruin anything, and first checked around a lot and looked how other people did things. My first edit was when I noticed that Peyo only had a very short article[2], and that I could easily add info to it from memory.[3] I had no idea then that I was supposed to source my additions as well (and wouldn't do so for quite a while later on). Basically, I was happy that Wikipedia existed and that I could get so much info so easily (and for free), and I realised that I could do the same for other people and that it would be fun to contribute (I like writing, I like learning and researching even more). The other tasks, vandal fighting, new page patrolling, ... came with the package, and are quite rewarding most of the time as well. Basically, it's the feeling that I am doing something that is useful and fun at the same time which has kept me here. Fram 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs)
6.: As you know, adminship requires a lot patiance. While it seems like you're ready, I would like to know how would you handle the folling situations?
  • A new user participating in an AFD or RFA.
A: In an RfA, they are welcome to participate (I assume that you mean a registered user, not an IP address of course): however, I would look at them with more suspicion if there are a lot of them, and/or if they make strong and unsupported claims. If it is clear that they are sock or meatpuppets, of they are only here to stir trouble, warnings and blocking may be the consequence. In closing an AfD, I will try to look at the arguments, not at the user who made it, and not at the !votecount. Lots of new users claiming something is notable without reliable sources to back it up are basically worthless and often a sign of canvassing (of course, established users making baseless claims are to be discounted in the AfD closing as well). Fram 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new user (with no prior blocks) warned for vandalism. Would you block indef or give a one day block?
A: Except for severe vandalism, I would start with a one day block, in the hope that the vandal will slowly change into a good contributor (it has happened, I have heard, but it seems to be a rare occurrence). If it is truly disruptive vandalism of the kind you wouldn't expect from a truly new user, then an indef block may be the better solution (e.g. the main page vandal we had for a while): I think this should be the exception though. Fram 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new user creating a bio article about him/herself. Would you speedy or use AFD to evaluate the community's approval?
A: Well, it is often hard to know if someone is truly the subject, or a fan or an impersonator (see also username blocking for a discussion of these). But supposing that it looks like someone is creating an article about themselves, I would either speedy it (if it asserts no notability, under A7 / db-bio criteria), or AfD it (under the WP:AUTO guideline). In the second case, however, I would make certain to explain the author the reason for doing this (WP:AUTO and WP:COI), since it can be strange to have a perfectly acceptable article up for deletion just because of who created it. Fram 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Seems to be a well-balanced editor, good answers to questions. Support. -- Renesis (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support good attitude - trustworthy. Agathoclea 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nominator support. Kusma (討論) 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Just beaten by the nom support - good answers, good contributions, good editor. The Rambling Man 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, very much so. Proto ► 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I trust this editor with my life. He has brought much expertise and calm, logical voice to the Comics WikiProject.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Foamy headed support, outweighing a minor concern about balance prompted by the failure above to mention Orval. -- Hoary 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I think, a very conscientious and reasonable gentleman, and better at English than he claims. MURGH disc. 10:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Very happy to support this user, no qualms. ViridaeTalk 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I say we get this smurf smurfed up to smurfing smurfhood. Sarah 11:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support My interactions with this user were related to a somewhat complex (and equally immature) spate of vandalism from multiple users (or perhaps lots of sock puppets). He maintained a calm and persistant demeanor in resolving the situation and its periodic flareups that occasionally still occur. His other contributions seem to demonstrate a similar judgement that would be well suited to a position of responsibility. ScottW 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support .. and feeling very comfortable doing so. Seems trustworthy and dedicated. Great article work. Good candidate. - Anas Talk? 12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support only good things to say here... --Majorly (o rly?) 12:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A calm, experienced, and knowledgeable editor who would make good use of the tools. Geen enkel twijfel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support no major problems here at all. — Deckiller 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I'm alright with this candidate.-- danntm T C 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support good candidate, I've seen only good actions from the candidate. feydey 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No problems here, a good candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The Belgians make, er, tolerable chocolate, but very decent beer, and - it seems - great Wikipedia admins. Sandstein 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, despite the nominee's complete and total failure to name a Trappist beer. Good thing the nominee's editing record and trustworthiness ameliorated such a deficiency. Agent 86 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Enjoy the beer! YechielMan 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No doubt. We need solid editors that can both create content and actually understand the deletion process to become admins. NeoFreak 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good editor, & has already proven to have all characteristics one expects from a good administrator. To stay on topic: too bad he likes Palm, of course, but I am sure he does not mind my preference for Rodenbach or real English ale (yes, my British friends, I am crazy, but not so crazy as people who think they actually can taste the difference between Heineken and Stella). Vivat! Vivat! (i jeszcze jedno male)--Pan Gerwazy 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, . Yuser31415 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Of course - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Is that Farm or Fram??  ;) Hendry1307 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support And about time, too. Shimeru 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, excellent beer preferences. (And a good editor and all that too.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support seems to be a good editor. Darthgriz98 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Obvious strengths. Be a good admin! PigmanTalk to me 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Freakin' Smurf. riana_dzasta 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Is there any reason not to support this guy? Captain panda In vino veritas 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Michael 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. ConDemTalk 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support no reasons not to. BJTalk 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support looks good to me! James086Talk 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Speedy support. You're on your way.  :) BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support editor, Oppose Heineken. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. PeaceNT 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per above. Addhoc 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support looks fine.--MONGO 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Not always agreed with him on AFD related issues, but I think he'll do fine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 07:29Z
  50. 50 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Great candidate. Pascal.Tesson 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. WjBscribe 06:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support See no reason to oppose. Dionyseus 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Following the pack, support.--Wizardman 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Luckily the crats are lagging so I can sneak in under the wire and support. Hiding Talk 12:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/Fram&oldid=1090627279"