Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garden

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

Garden (talk · contribs)

End date: 28 April 2009, 17:00 UTC

I'm going to take the plunge and file a request for adminship on the Simple English wikipedia. Before you quickly oppose for my rather humble number of edits, I would ask you to look at the content I have contributed in that space of time. Bloc Party is currently sitting at proposed very good articles, and I have written around sixty stubs. I consider myself to be an effective vandal-fighter as well, as well as contributing to Simple Talk and the Admin Noticeboard.

I have experience with the admin role, having had the sysop bit since May 2008 on the English Wikipedia. I believe I can greatly benefit this project with the tools and would perform at a much higher efficiency with them. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination, so evidently I do accept.

1. Of course. Competent enwiki admin; I have full trust in him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support because although Simple is not EN, Juliancolton on EN is the same person as Juliancolton here. No problems on EN and EN is a far more difficult place to get by on. So automatic support, just as I've previously opposed users, and will continue to do so, for past actions elsewhere Soup Dish (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not Juliancolton. :)  GARDEN  16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, I shouldn't type when on the phone. But the point stands. Secret here is Secret there and it's the person behind the username, not the username, that is important! Soup Dish (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support I trust you know the rules. ;) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Isn't greatly active here, but I trust him not to abuse the tools. Kennedy (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Garden is the same person at en that he is at simple. Don't believe he will abuse the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I dislike him. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Majorly talk 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. his edits seem to be ok so far... why not give him a chance to be an admin here? -- Mercy (☎|✍) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I keep edit conflicting with Garden when doing anti-vandalism. That, to me, is a good sign for an administrator candidate... and mildly frustrating. ;) EVula // talk // 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support – Although more activity is preferred, I trust you enough not to abuse the tools. TheAE talk 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support --Chris 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak support. He may not be very active here, but I have confidence he will not abuse the tools given to him.-- Tdxiang 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. --vector ^_^ (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - I only did see you editing here recently, but that's ok if you edit here every month or so. иιƒкч? 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support - Self nominated for adminstrator 1 day, 2 hours and 26 minutes after beginning regular activity. SnofuKall 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indented !vote of now indefinitely blocked trolling/sock account. Either way (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support - I've found Garden to be an exceptionally smart editor, both here and at enwiki. X! (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. We buried our trusts in the garden (couldn't resist). -- Mentifisto 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - sure, no reason not too. Been very helpful here so far. Goblin 10:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Excellent admin on other projects. As Goblin said, no reason to oppose. Didn't I make it Garden's Day just a couple days ago on en.wikipedia? :) --Dylan620 ^{Autumn leaves} 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Great editor, had one of the best admin coaches over on en (:p), no reason not to trust him here. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - After thinking about it, I support. Yottie ^=talk= 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - good user. but please not so a big gap in your edits again. Barras (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support yep. --Kanonkas_(talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose this user has not been here long enough IMO, I just noticed this user about 4 days ago. This user has only been really active in January, then there are gapped edits between then and April 19 and then really active again. Not the activity I'd like to see out of an Admin. Just because this user is an admin at en (which is impressive) doesn't automatically give him the right to be an admin here. I'd like to see at least 4 or 5 months of solid activity before I think about supporting.--  † CM₁₆  17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Really quite long discussion moved to talk page.  GARDEN  20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Before yesterday, you had less than a hundred edits on this Wiki (most of which were from several months ago). In my opinion, you're too new to this wiki to be well acquainted enough to know all of its ins-and-outs and serve as an administrator. It takes a while to get to know everyone and gain community trust. Furthermore, there are subtle but important differences between SEWP and ENWP. I would have supported if you had been here a month, maybe a week, but two days? Sorry. EhJJ^TALK 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This RfA closes in 6 days. As long as your edits continue to be as good as they've been, I see no reason to oppose. Keep up the good work! EhJJ^TALK 15:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose NFW

   Please log in to vote. EhJJ^TALK 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of curiosity, aren't you also a sysop on the Scots Wikipedia? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I edit fairly sparsely there.  GARDEN  16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I think I'll make my mind up when it comes closer to its end. And please, people who have supported, find a better reason than "he's great at en". Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a perfectly valid reason. If a user can pass an RFA in the EN environment, where they are scrutinised far more, they may as well be given the mop automatically here Soup Dish (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Soup Dish! How are you today? Done any good editing today? I've got an idea which might please you: Why not make all en.wiki admins admins here, if you are sugesting being an admin at en is enough (as it's harder to get the bit there). I do no doubt Garden would make a good admin. Anyway, have a really nice day, yours, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garden at enwiki is still Garden at simplewiki. His behavior at enwiki is the same behavior at simplewiki. If he can be trusted to block people and delete articles on one of the most highly-viewed websites in the world, surely he can help out here, yea? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, sure! I don't doubt he will be ok, as I have got to know him a bit, but I'm not sure the other 1500 admins on wiki would all be welcomed here. Anyway, have a nice day, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other 1500 admins aren't running for adminship here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only referring to Soup dish's idea which was to make all en admins, simple admins too =). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rollback is granted on request to users with rollback on other projects. I see no reason for adminship not to follow the same guidelines in that adminship is granted on request or, perhaps more realistically, via a simplified RFA process Soup Dish (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No point arguing with you, it'll go nowhere. Good day, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Who is arguing? I'm merely expressing an opinion that is different from the one you hold no need to defenestrate the discussion Soup Dish (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Didn't you understand? I said it's not use for me to start arguing with you. Kind regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Uh, guys, can we get back to the RfA please?--  † CM₁₆  17:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed as successful Kennedy (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2009 (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.