Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphachimp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Alphachimp

[edit]

Final (138/2/2) Ended 03:30, 2006-08-18 (UTC)

Alphachimp (talk · contribs) – While I haven't talked to Alphachimp directly, I have been keeping my eye on him for a while now. Not to sound cliché-ish, but I seriously thought he was an admin already -- he is already helping out with many admin tasks, including AIV and AfD. From what I've seen from this user, there is a clear understanding of policy. In addition, he is a prolific vandal-fighter. With over 10,000 edits (a fair chunk of which is in Wikipedia namespace), I can only imagine how much more he can do with the mop; he's truly one of Wikipedia's finest. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Aeon would be honored to Co-Nom Alphachimp. This editor up hold the spirit of Wikipedia with a zeal that is almost unmatched. Alphachimp is an experienced Vandal Fighter, involved in several Wikiprojects and has thousands of Main Space and Talk page edits. This is one editor who should be given the Mop and Bucket as it would be an enhancement of is already considerable skills on the Wiki. Also I would like to add I thought he was an Admin to when I first ran into him……..he gives off the aura of a SYSOP. Æon Insane Ward 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I'm honored and humbled to receive this nomination, and hereby submit it for community approval (sorry for the long wait, this just seemed like a very important decision that I should not make lightly). alphaChimp laudare 03:23, 11 August 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 love backlogs. If I do get chosen to be an administrator, I would start off with a relatively low level of involvement in administrative tasks. I don't believe it's appropriate for an administrator just learning the ropes to engage in controversial actions, particularly since a new admin is granted the same level of access as significantly more experienced administrators. That being said, I can forsee my involvement in the following:
  • CAT:CSD. Having done new page patrol and contributed quite a bit to the backlog on this page, I can say that CSD is a never-ending administrative task. My interpretation of the CSD tends to be on more strict side.
  • WP:AIV. I've posted here many times in the past. I've also watched vandals languish here for over an hour. I won't be removing every single vandal from this page, but another set of administrative eyes could certainly help.
  • WP:BRFA. I've been active on this page for the last month. The procedure for approving bots has always interested me, as has the quality and specificity of many of the requests I've seen. Bots are obviously a part of Wikipedia's future, but their level of involvement should be strictly regulated and approved. Administrators have recently raised concerns regarding bot trials occuring without any special administrative attention. It's possible for a large bot trial (think >500 edits) to cause substantial damage without administrative monitoring. If I do become an admin, I'd always be monitoring BRFA and be completely attentive to new trial-run bots.
  • WP:AFD. I say this cautiously. I'm already closing unambiguous keep AfDs. I'm not going to close any controversial AfDs, at least until I get a few months of further administrative experience and I feel comfortable with the decision.
  • Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Users languish there for days. There's just no good reason for that, and I intend to end that practice. (Admins are needed because the AWB check page is fully protected.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I've actually been active on Wikipedia since later in 2004, but I got an account on April 27, 2005. I don't recall the IP I edited from, making that experience somewhat irrelevant to this page.
I've worked extensively within Wikiproject:New York City Subway. I've edited most (and started a few) of the articles related to public transportation in the New York Metropolitan Area. Despite my realization that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I've added template links to bus routes to many New York City Subway Stations and Avenues in New York City (the project is ongoing). Setting up the link template and entering all bus routes into AWB was actually pretty tedious, but tedious Wikipedia work tends to the work I enjoy most. The links are pretty cool...they take you to the individual bus depot from which the bus is based. The goal of these changes is to establish the interconnectivity of the NYCT system, as well as drive traffic to our NYCT bus depot articles (which will hopefully lead to some good edits and history on these oft-neglected pages). I've improved other articles (such as Grove City College and MTA New York City Transit buses). In the long term, I'd love to improve Childhood Obesity more. Before I got a username (and a little bit after), I made some smallish edits to Stuyvesant High School (which is a FA). I do not claim to have written it or to have brought it to FA status. I often complete cleanup and wikification in the wake of Alphachimpbot.
I run Alphachimpbot. I feel that my bot has made some pretty basic improvements to Wikipedia. Namely (amongst many other things), it has: a) taken over Pearle's job of sorting articles marked with the {{cleanup}} template (and close variants), b) subst'ed user talk warnings and welcomes, c) migrated userboxes to userspace per WP:GUS, and d) fixed links to www.cia.gov. Several other tasks are pending, and a number of tasks have been completed with Typochimp. I'm proud to say that, in over 15,000 edits of the bot, I've received less than 10 complaints...with only 2 truly pointing out a bot mistake. I often respond to and help out with requests on the Wikipedia:Bot requests page, and I post frequently on Wikipedia:Bot Requests for Approval (not just to request, but to query new proposals).
As referenced in the nomination, I've also been quite active in vandal fighting and article maintenance. I've reported a good number of number of vandals to WP:AIV (over 90 edits to that page), including research to report some aliases of the North Carolina Vandal that had been missed by admins. I've assisted with New Page Patrol (although I have no record of many of those edits).
I operate the Typochimp sock account, which I use for spellchecking (manually, using mboverload's settings) and any edit I see as too tedious, simple, and repetitive to include within my primary account edit history. These edits are still manual, however, and bear mention for that reason alone.
All that said, I'm sure I'll think of more things as the RfA progresses. These are just those edits with which I'm particularly pleased.
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:
To be quite frank, I really haven't been stressed out that much by conflicts on Wikipedia. My over-arching philosophy is to always Assume Good Faith and to keep disputes with editors over content separate from disputes with the editor. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, and I do it often (just check my talk page contribs). I really hate to see a simple disagreement go far enough to corrupt a relationship, and I'm always cautious in responding to a dispute. I'm a fairly strict adherant to WP:NPA, and, if at all possible, refuse to escalate a conflict. I've never been blocked or been in any conflict that really bears note on this page. All that said, I apologize to any editor I may have inadvertantly offended in the past (it certainly was not intentional). Incidentally, my usertalk has been the site an attempt at mediation (on my part) of an editing dispute (see here).


Optional question from User:Kevin Breitenstein Copyright, images, and their use being, what seems like, a growing issue, can you tell me what might be wrong with the following images in relation to wikipedia policy and guidlines? I've only tried asking an image question to an RfA candidate once before, so bear with me, but at least one I personally believe to be elligible for an image deletion process. This is to judge how well you understand image policy and copyright issues.

A::I'll preface this by saying that image deletion (although now apparently reversible with some effort) is not something I would do immediately except in obvious cases. It's also not something I plan to do until I get some substantive admin experience. Also, I'm no lawyer. That said, my responses:
  • Image:Oli.jpg - It's a vanity image. It's got a license tag that requires a fair use tag (there is none) or criteria. The criteria exist, in a vague single-line form. It's only appropriate for userspace, but it's not currently linked from anywhere, even userspace. It also seems (suspiciously) like he could be using WP for free vanity hosting. I'd keep it for the time being, but request some clarification and fair use tagging from the uploader. If that was not forthcoming, I'd delete it. With that level of restriction, unless it's being used, we don't need it.
  • Image:Barbara_McClintock.png - I'd rather not have a fair use image. Obviously, if a Wikipedian would release their personal photo, that would be preferable, but she has been dead since 1992. I'd keep it, but replace it immediately if anything with a free license (even of lower quality) became available. Incidentally, I did such a replacement when I replaced Image:Vatican coa.png with Image:Emblem of the Papacy.svg across Roman Catholic related articles.
  • Image:0f1fc72d.jpeg - Copywritten image. The uploader claims to have consent from the rights holder, but I see no evidence to that effect. I visited the website, but I can't read Russian. I'd like to see more on the consent of the rights holder. Although the photo makes me queesy, I probably wouldn't delete it unless the rights holder contacted us to request removal. If called upon to make a decision, I'd probably consult a Russian admin with more legal background than me(wonder who that would be).
I hope that answer clarifies my position. I'll reiterate that I would be very hesitant about deleting images early in my adminstrative career. Copyright criteria can confuse me to some extent. alphaChimp laudare 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, any use of Image:Oli.jpg would be fair use. Since it's orphaned it would need to be deleted after several days anyway. alphaChimp laudare 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying, you don't really need to be fully clued up on the complex image copyright policies to be a good admin. I bet many admins that have little experience on images have passed. So I'd still support if the answers weren't totally correct :).--Andeh 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Crzrussian (talk · contribs): If promoted, do you plan to take the optional step of joining Category:Administrators open to recall and why? If yes, what course of action will you take if recalled? (Feel free to answer in the negative, abolutely no pressure.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: Wikipedia, especially in lieu of recent Colberorism, is becoming a larger and larger community with more and more noted and respectable editors. I suspect that growth will continue for some time. As the community expands, it's going to be more and more easy to find 6 editors in good standing that assume a particular, strong opinion. With tools like navigation popups and other scripts, anyone could get 500 edits in less than an hour. If they wait a month, they qualify to recall an admin. As such, I would not, assuming the current stipulations of the category, agree to be formally open for recall. In my humble opinion, the standard of 6 users is simply too rigid to accomodate the growth of Wikipedia. All that said, I love the idea of the category, and might consider accepting later down the road. I have always been open to comments from other users and would welcome their opinion that I should be voluntarily desysopped. Were said users in good standing (a term I would define in lieu of the current situation), I would probably graciously accept their opinion and step down.
In a nutshell: I won't join the category in its current form, but I like the idea and would be open to the voluntary possibility. alphaChimp laudare 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note of course that 6 people saying there's something that might need looking into (which is what a recall is) is not the same as being turned out of office. Czrussian chose one option, there are others. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that. That said I like your answer a lot, it shows thoughtfulness which I think is exactly what is needed. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Andeh: How have you managed to get nearly 5,000 user talk edits? Which is nearly half of all the edits you've done. Mass vandal fighting?

A: Thanks for asking an easy question. I was considering pre-answering this above, but I couldn't see a place to fit it in. Three reasons:
  • I welcome new users (certainly >500, probably a bit more) and warn vandals. Sometimes I revert an edit that has already been reverted, but warn a user anyway (hence the difference). Other times, I warn users of speedy deletion tags.
  • A while ago, I realized that in the case of small articles, it was probably more efficient to contact other users rather than post on the talk page. I've been using usertalk a lot instead of article talk (for smaller articles with 1 or 2 contributors).
  • A month ago, I got into the habit of posting responses to comments on my talk on both my talk and the questioner's talk, which, sadly, inflates that count.
I hope that helps and answers your question. alphaChimp laudare 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I stopped doing the double posting thing. It was just too much effort, too count inflating (although edit count isn't everything, it was just ridiculous), and not standard enough. I know a lot of users do it, and it does seem effective, but it's not for me. alphaChimp laudare 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people still do the double post method, argh I don't understand how people can be so bothered to do it every time in a conversation!? Too much time/hassle.--Andeh 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

When viewing my contributions, don't forget to check:

Username Alphachimp
Total edits 11561
Distinct pages edited 7887
Average edits/page 1.466
First edit 01:32, April 27, 2005
(main) 4491
Talk 204
User 493
User talk 4823
Image 37
Image talk 2
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 23
Template talk 5
Help 2
Category 111
Category talk 14
Wikipedia 1188
Wikipedia talk 168
Portal 4
Support
  1. Support Can't believe you're not an admin already! Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Damn, I almost beat the nom AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Nvm, I did beat the nom(s). An excellent candidate! AmiDaniel (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support This is the guy right here AdamBiswanger1 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Alphachimp seems to be similar in actions to me (I sure hope that's a good thing). He does well in maintaining a good deal of upkeep and general maintance. I know he will do quite well with the tools. Yanksox 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support looks excellent. Wikipediarules2221 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support from slowpoke nominator. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Michael 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support It's about time. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Excellent editor and an asset. Also gets an insane amount of cliché points. Will have a question probably, just to be sure. Kevin_b_er 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support with the whole "thought you were an admin" cliché. --james(talk) 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Rama's arrow 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support MediaWiki_talk and Portal edits? Wow! (Just kidding, everything else looks great too :) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Another cliche support--Kchase T 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongest support. Alphachimp reeks of adminship. The guy's contributions can't be quantified. Hurry up and kick him upstairs already. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I could barely restrain myself from prevoting yesterday. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support very level-headed, well-rounded --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Experienced, dedicated user. Zaxem 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Edit conflicted Strong support a very worthwhile editor. ViridaeTalk 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I've-been-waiting-for-his-RfA support - Ever since he left me a comment on my talk page, I've sort of trailed him; but how couldn't I? I see his prolific signature everywhere, indicating heavy participation in many aspects of the project. =) Kalani [talk] 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. As if he needs more support shoe-in for the position. --WillMak050389 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Super-strong huge-ass gargantuan support Give him the mop already! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 04:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Super-speedy given him the mop already Support As the Co-Nom and as an ediotr who really respects him Æon Insane Ward 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes yes please support! I've been waiting for this for a long time, weeks even. A valuable contributor, combined with a great level of kindness and thoughtfulness. Not the slightest hint of doubt that he'll be an awesome admin. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. editconflict Strong Support per everythingeveryonseelsehassaid. Teke 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per everyone, in view of his love for backlogs, and consistent with my RfA criteria. Joe 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support strong answers to Qs, mad vandal fighting using VP (wonder why Ami voted?), should be good asset to anti-vandalism force.--Andeh 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Extreme Primate Support Give it up for the Chimp, Ladies & Gentlemen. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not already an admin? This injustice is so great and terrible that I am <sarcasm>leaving Wikipedia forever and deleting the main page on my way out!</sarcasm> RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support from the Yellow Computermonkey - Image:Blnguyen.JPG.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:04Z
  33. Support, plain and simple, no primate pun here (as tempting as it is). Good editor, will be good admin. Agent 86 08:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support When I first encountered Alphachimp, I assumed he was an admin, because he was doing work like one. When I realised he wasn't, I offered to nominate him, but others got there first... He is dedicated, conscientious, balanced, humble, helpful and knowledgeable. Did I miss anything out? Hard working too. Tyrenius 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I also thought he was an admin already. He certainly has the experience and temperement to do a great job. Kevin 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. — Vildricianus 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I have known AlphaChimp for quite a long time (in wikiyears that is). I have been nothing short of impressed. I think Wikipedia would be harmed if we didn't give Alphachimp the mop =D. I know he will put it to great use and so do the other users above and below me. Godspeed Alphachimp. --mboverload@ 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I don't know, you go to sleep for a few hours and along comes a great candidate like Alphachimp and suddenly you're at the end of a long, long list to support. That's it, I'm never going to sleep again... About time this editor got the mop. Gwernol 11:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, will make a great admin. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Alphasupport per.. well, hell, everyone. Excellent user, and will make an excellent admin. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 12:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - what a great candidate!! Srose (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support He will be a good admin. Give him a banana. Weird Bird 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support – presses all the right buttons. Oh, and I've liked his username ever since I first joined :p — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 6 edit conflicts later Strong Support! - tried to vote earlier and after my 6th edit conflict gave up! Been waiting for his RfA for sometime, well deserving :) - Glen 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - I had a recent positive interaction with him over something that looked like a mistake on his part; he was polite, responsive, and posted the appropriate explanations quickly to the involved users. Also followed up with me to let me know the status later, which was great. Mike Christie 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 14:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support a primate of the first order. Fully deserving of moppage. MLA 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per above, as the oppose vote seems unconvincing. Republitarian 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Long overdue. — FireFox (talk) 15:33, 11 August '06
  53. Support per good answers, and all of the above. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support {{RfA cliche #1}} plus excellent answers to the questions. Eluchil404 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. "Thought this user was already an admin" support Fabricationary 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Very good responses to the Q/A. Also with that edit count, should have been admin long time ago. Very good. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - will be a perfect admin. NCurse work 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Mais oui! G.He 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, no problem Just zis Guy you know? 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Failed to meet Masssiveego's criteria, and per nom. --Kbdank71 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support because of lots of positive contributios (even though it says above >15000 edits for Alphachimp and tool says 11561 on 11 August - that's fast typing!). Stephen B Streater 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I should probably clarify. Alphachimpbot has the 15000 edits. My main user account only has 11500. alphaChimp laudare 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: not enough edits Stephen B Streater 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. The way he presses the keys on his keyboard and buttons on his mouse increases the quality of this project. Martin 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No problems here. A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Excellent contributor, very mature attitude. Be cautious when you must, but remember to be bold too. - Meersan 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I have seen nothing but great things. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Flying-Monkey-Support. SURRENDER VANDALS... --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: per everyone above. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support. Not that this vote will make much of a difference given the overwhelming amount of "Oppose" votes ... but indeed we need more administrators like Alphachimp, good luck!. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support Alphachimp ticks all the right boxes, and then some ;) Thε Halo Θ 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support Normally I don't express an opinion when it is pretty clear what the outcome will be (and I agree with it) as this isn't really supposed to be a "vote" so a "me too" doesn't add much. However, in this case, I have to say that I've seen a lot of the work that Alphachimp has done and would like to be sure that my voice is included in the support of Alhpachimp as an admin. There is no question in my mind that AC knows the rules, is Civil, Assumes Good Faith, and is deserving of the Mop. If anyone really needed citations of the quality of AC's work I'd be glad to go dig them out. I find Massiveeego's opposition interesting. It seems ME wants perfection - well, perfection doesn't exist in the world we live in. Maybe in some Platonic ideal but what counts here is good will, learning from mistakes, the ability to rectify mistakes as much as possible and adequate experience so that we can expect that the inevitable mistakes won't be too many or too severe. From my personal experience with AC and from reviewing AC's edits, along with everything said here so far, I am personally convinced that AC meets all the requrements to be initiated as an admin: sufficient experience, demonstrated knowledge of the policies and guidelines, demonstrated ability to learn and rectify mistakes, civility and assumption of good faith. I say "Give Alphachimp the mop!" Brian 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  71. Steel 23:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support "...but I thought that he was..." Spare the mop and spoil the admin.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. DarthVader 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Excellent editor. DVD+ R/W 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support. Alphachimp. He always works a lot which means dedicated wikipedian. I would support him for admin because He always demonstrates kindness, and there should be more admin like Alphachimp who revert all vandals to protect Wikipedia, and kindness Wikipedian. He always uses his own bot to fix some templates. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Overdue Jaranda wat's sup 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support beyond all support You aren't one already? You're one of the few people on Wikipedia I admire (not sucking up :-P). Good luck as admin! --Nishkid64 01:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support meets almost all my criteria, so many edits it's hard to discern a 'pet' project, but I'll skip that one for this candidate. Just in case you need my vote, LOL Pedant 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Seems like a good guy. Attic Owl 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Good editor, good answers. Garion96 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per Garion96 abakharev 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Need there be anything more said? KOS | talk 08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Merovingian - Talk 11:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support.  Grue  18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Positive contributor, and should make a postitively contributing administrator. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - have seen him around several times. Strikes me as very helpful on many fronts and valuable to the project. Czj 22:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Would make a good admin. -Royalguard11Talk 02:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. A quick check of first 100 and last 100 edits leaves me with no doubt; this mop's for you. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support no concerns here. BryanG(talk) 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per track record and first three words of answer to Q1 (with the implied word "clearing" between the second and third words, and thankfully not "creating"). theProject 04:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, already assumed Alphachimp was an administrator. Who doesn't like chimps? --Yamla 05:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Hand the mop and bucket over, and make sure there are plenty of bananas in there. SynergeticMaggot 06:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Should've become an admin when he created an account. Jrcog@Insert something here 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support (ugh... edit conflict) Excellent contributor. One of the most obvious candidates who should receive adminship that I've come across. — NMChico24 10:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support A prolific vandal-fighter and fine editor. Will make a good admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. "Yeah" sums it up. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support no probs. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100. --Ligulem 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to WP:100, Alphachimp[1] =D Yanksox 15:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundredth_Monkey! Newyorkbrad 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Love to jump on a bandwagon. Fan-1967 18:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Über Strong Support I know this guy, hes a very good person, and he deserves my vote. °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Exploding Pinapple Support Viva La Vie Boheme!
  104. Support - User has made quite a few valued contributions Bakaman Bakatalk 22:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, also hate to fire out the cliché, but I'd have bet money Alphachimp already was one. -- Deville (Talk) 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong Support. I would've tried to nominate this editor myself if I hadn't been on Wikibreak. He helped hunt down a whole bunch of sockpuppets of the North Carolina Vandal, which I blocked, and has a knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia that rivals a large number of current admins, I think. An obvious choice. Grandmasterka 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Valentinian (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support will use the mop well, bring it on. --Alf melmac 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Excessively strong support. Had I not been on a week-long trip, I would have voted here a lot sooner. AlphaChimp's work on WikiProject New York City Subway has been exemplary. I, like many others here, at first thought he was already an administrator and was frankly quite shocked to find out that he wasn't. His work (as well as the contributions of his bots) has been a great contribution to Wikipedia. Unreserved vote of confidence; AlphaChimp is the epitome of what a Wikipedia sysop should be. –Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support thoughtful solid editor ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - 1FA policy is ridiculous, IMO, seems like a good contributor. No reason not to support. CFIF (talk to me) 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Strong support per answers to questions. Meets my 2k edit requirements; 1FA would be nice, but is entirely superfluous. I did already think he was an admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Strong candidate. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. I have never had interactions with this candidate, but I was swayed by the excellent and well thought out answers to questions.--Danaman5 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. "You mean he's not an admin yet?" support. I guess I just figured you were humble. :) I haven't had much significant interaction with you, just yet, but so far every experience indicates that you have fair judgement and won't abuse the new buttons. Congrats. Luna Santin 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Strong support -- Samir धर्म 08:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support VegaDark 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support wasn't an admin? Fredil Yupigo 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Good editor, soon to be a good admin. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong support — great user. — Deckiller 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Alphachimp has been nothing but pleasant to work with. —Mira 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support – Gurch 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support with pleasure. A good editor and very helpful user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - over 11,000 edits!Easily should be an administrator-SOADLuver
  126. Strong support will be a great admin -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support A dedicated Wikipedian. Marc Shepherd 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I have observed Alphachimp in numerous AfD discussions. Clearly an editor with a solid understanding of the project. Meets all significant RfA criteria. --Satori Son 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support, whadda guy!　Ashibaka tock 02:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support its an even number now --Musaabdulrashid 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support And now it's prime. StarryEyes 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. Seen the chimp around a lot, all good work. Budgiekiller 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support, everytime i've seen alphachimp has been good, and don't see any reason to oppose. Thanks/wangi 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. The very model of a modern wikipedian--he's even got portal edits! Bucketsofg✐ 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support without reservations, will make a great administrator. Bahn Mi 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Didn't know you weren't an admin already Support. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Thought he was an admin already (how original, I know). Also, prime number. --Daniel Olsen 07:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. The bureaucrats are slow so I can still support! Kusma (討論) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I resemble that remark! Er, I uh, was sleeping. But since this is officially closed, you can't respond. Muuuhuuwaaaaaaa! - Taxman Talk 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fails to meet my criteria. --Masssiveego 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You oppose almost every nominee, Masssiveego. Presuming these are your criteria, how does Alphachimp fail them? I'll assume (AGF) that your examples are facetious, since we're not electing popes, but choosing administrators.--Kchase T 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I'm really confused and more concerned by the edit summary used when posting here than the oppose itself (since I am familiar with his voting behavior, like most of us are). Perhaps you could be kind enough to elucidate what you meant, dear Masssiveego? Do you find his use of the User:Typochimp account objectable for a specific reason? Thank you in advance, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May have mistaken the users bots as sockpuppets.--Andeh 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, Typochimp is a sockpuppet (Alphachimpbot is the bot). Both fall under the auspices of WP:SOCK. I have no intention of using them in RfAs, XfDs, or any discussion scenario. They're single-purpose accounts that link directly back to my account. alphaChimp laudare 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think any policy has been broken here.--Andeh 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither do I, which is the reason why I'd really appreciate a short clarification by Masssive, if possible. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Masssiveego gave some exlanation here. Apparently admins aren't allowed to make mistakes; that's news to me.--Kchase T 08:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's old news, I guess you don't visit RfA much. See some previously unsuccessful noms for further proof that your not allowed to make more than a few mistakes or you'll get a flood of oppose votes.--Andeh 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this why are you oposing? Alpha may or may not have made a mistake but that is not reason to opose him unless it was a major error and in this case he has not made any major mistake....very confused at this one. Æon Insane Ward 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is discussion is getting to long, I'll explain after the AFD is over on your talkpages. --Masssiveego 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you can move this discussion to the talkpage, and answer there, thus keeping the discussion in together. Thε Halo Θ 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand Massiveego's concern. I do see the mistakes that AC made. What's important to me is that AC learned from the mistakes, and, IMO, won't make mistakes as an admin that will be too severe or too difficult to rectify. Said another way, to me the evidence says that AC is likely to be an admin significantly avove average right out of the blocks. But that is just my opinion. Said yet another way, I see absolutely nothing in the disussion so far, or in AC's record, to give me any concern of AC abusing (advertly or inadvertly) the new capabiliies that AC would be given as an admin. Brian 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
    Please don't hassle Ego, he has the right to vote the way he wants. Remember the Golden Rule someday you might want to oppose, but find a pig pile on you. Attic Owl 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's the "Ego" person? --mboverload@ 11:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Masssiveego perhaps? — FireFox (talk) 12:03, 12 August '06
  2. Tough one, I even lost some (just some) sleep over this. Apparently a very well-respected editor, since the only oppose is (not surprisingly) from Massiveego. I looked at/sampled some WP:NYCS articles, and unfortunately didn't see any extraordinary article... :( I will have to oppose under 1FA, though even Mailer diablo supported...) -- Миборовский 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. NeutralA great editor, but refusal to join the open to recall category raised some doubts.--Bonafide.hustla 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What doubts has that raised, if I may ask? KOS | talk 08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubts about the open to recall category maybe? Tyrenius 11:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my ignorance, but I'm afraid I do not understand that reply. Perhaps I should be more thorough with my original question. Does Alphachimp's refusal to join this category, raise a doubt that he is not willing to be held accountable for his actions as an admin, or doubts about his ability to use the admin tools? KOS | talk 13:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tyrenius was referring to the reasons Alphachimp listed in his thorough explanation of why he does not wish to join the category, the main reason being the perceived ease of finding six people to perhaps unfairly put an administrator "out of office" by the whim of a fringe group's opinion. I personally don't see this as a reason to fault Alphachimp, as it's not like an administrator can't be de-opped in the current system. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure those are not the doubts Bonafide.hustla was referring to, but I think they're more appropriate than ones about this fine candidate (see also CfD.Tyrenius 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I don't know... I think I'd rather stay out of this. Alastor Moody (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People who would rather stay out of this usually don't make an entry on the page! However, as you have, I wonder if I could ask what is the cause of your uncertainty? Tyrenius 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't have any doubt of wether to support for him or oppose him but I'd rather keep out of this. Alastor Moody (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is 12 years old, don't worry about it :)　Ashibaka tock 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your answer, Alastor. Tyrenius 18:28, 17 August 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/Alphachimp&oldid=1147963195"