Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captain panda (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 17 June 2007 (→Discussion: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CloudNine

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/0/1); Scheduled to end 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine (talk · contribs) - CloudNine is an editor I have worked with a few times in the past. He is a dedicated and fabulous editor who has five Featured Articles and one Featured Portal under his belt ("Bam Thwok", Frank Black, Doolittle (album), Pixies, Portal:Alternative music, Surfer Rosa), while still being an avid contributor to the Alternative music WikiProject. His civility and kindness is riveting, as well as his edit count. CloudNine is a large contributor to peer review as well as GAC. Although he had been absent for many months when he first registered in November of 2004, it is apparent that, since finding a niche in Misplaced Pages, he has become an integral part of our society. In my general opinion, CloudNine is an exemplary editor of Misplaced Pages and will make an excellent Administrator. NSR77 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination! I accept. CloudNine 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Helping with the ever-present backlog at CAT:CSD (especially during times of heavy backlog) and closing XFD debates. I would also visit the various administrator noticeboards to resolve problems there. I'd also be able to help at any administrator backlog, and I would be happy to do so; indeed, if I do gain these administrator tools, I'm sure I'd find other places to help out.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My five featured articles; Doolittle (album), Frank Black and Pixies are ones I'm particularly proud of. Also, I feel my maintenance of the WikiProject:Alternative music, including contributing to weekly collaborations and writing the newsletter, have helped to improve the project. I'm also proud of the articles I'm working on at the moment: Monkey Gone to Heaven, Kim Deal and Joey Santiago.

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've been involved in several conflicts, although none of them have been serious in any way; I hope my attitude towards conflicts helped to resolve them as quickly as possible. In chronological order, here are two conflicts I have been involved in:

1. The Pixies article was renamed to The Pixies and then Pixies (band); both moves were without consensus and I went to the proper authorities in order to get consensus for a move back. However, I've always tried to focus on the similarities rather than the differences - I assume both editors aim to make the best article on the subject (WP:AGF of course) - and I don't take sides as such; I try to empathize with the other person.
2. While editing the Red Hot Chili Peppers page, I noticed that the article referenced a little too much fair use media. I went to the talk page to discuss removal of some empheral media, gained the appropriate consensus and removed several images that were not criticised in the text. User:Xihix took objection to this, saying: "top being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used? Oh wait, you don't. Good job ruining the article guys, great job". I didn't get emotionally involved, and instead quoted policy and tried to empathize with the user. This was similar to an earlier debate about a logo in the infobox, which I removed; citing WP:FUC as a reason.

General comments

• See CloudNine's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for CloudNine: CloudNine (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CloudNine before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. First to support (it was watchlisted ;) ) - great editor, very communicative, all my interactions have been very pleasant. Has my trust. Go for it! (Must add - a great relief to see one of the musical editors being conscientious about fair use - we don't have enough of those... ) Riana ⁂ 16:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Oowaweewah, your contributions are excellent, I can't see any reason why the community shouldn't trust you with the tools. However, if they're bestowed, please don't forget to continue making your great positive contributions. Good luck. The Rambling Man 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support He is a good editor, and I believe I can trust him! Politics rule 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Adminship is no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Looks good to me RuneWiki 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I generally only meet the editors of academic articles, but I have come across CloudNine because I am a Pixies nut. He has done the band proud with his five featured articles; he works hard, understands about sourcing, and responds impressively to questions or objections. He is also a good reviewer of other articles at FAC and contributes measured comments on the talk pages relating to featured articles.qp10qp 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - a great candidate. —AldeBaer 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Seems to be consistently civil and composed, and has a fine track record of constructive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support in agreement with BrownHairedGirl. Acalamari 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Why not? He/she is a reliable user.--†Sir James Paul† 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Very strong editor, and no reason to believe he'd abuse the admin tools. - Zeibura 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Support on behalf of the nominator. NSR77 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support- Great editor. Eddie 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - has made really good contributions and is very experienced as well ..:) --Cometstyles 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support ll the evidence says you'll be a great admin. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support I have not personally come across this user, but he clearly has a broad basis of admin-related experience over the whole project. And User:Riana supports him, which would be good enough for me anyway.--Anthony.bradbury 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Has good taste in music. --MichaelLinnear 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, Pixies, but I still think you will make a good admin. Captain panda 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral at Present You state that you opposed the move of Pixies to "Pixies band" as there was no consensus. However you have been heavily involved with this article, and I wonder if WP:OWN applies. Everything else looks great, but I would like to know why you feel that "Pixies band" is unacceptable to you when it, well, is a band and not a bunch of imaginary small people at the bottom of the garden (etc.). Of course there is no requirement to answer and I wish you well in your RfA. Pedro |  Chat  20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

   "Pixies (band)", I felt, was unnecessary in terms of disambiguation; the fact was (and still is) that nothing else is referred to by "Pixies" other than the band. Someone looking for Pixie (and typing in Pixies) would see a dablink at the top of the article, which I felt was a suitable compromise. CloudNine 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)