Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Fruitsmaak

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.

Steven Fruitsmaak[edit]

Final (73/6/4); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs) - A Wikipedian since 2005, Steven is an expert and long-term contributor on the subject of medicine. He has a broad range of experience, from creating and improving articles, anti-vandal work, to being an active contributor to AfD discussions. Admin tasks should present him little difficulty since he is already an admin on Wikinews. Polite, patient and approachable, Steven is a pleasure to work with and an excellent candidate for administrator. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accept Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep it short and let my user page, answers below and contributions speak for themselves. I became active in 2006, and I don't know if I have a "great deal" of experience in AfD, as Tim Vickers said. I just recently started to become more active on the medicine-related deletion discussions. In addition to my work on Wikipedia, I'm an administrator and accredited reporter (press card holder) on Wikinews (recently shifting more attention back to Wikipedia). Whatever the outcome here, I'm in no hurry, as there will always be more than work enough on health topics in Wikipedia. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, you just keep appearing on my AfD watchlist! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I mostly intend to work with images: since I move a lot of images to Commons, I could delete these directly and perhaps help with WP:IFD. I'm mostly the article writing type; I haven't needed WP:AIV in a long time because few vandals have crossed my watchlist recently, neither have I been around pages needing protection recently.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: These are mentioned on my user page: I haven't created any specifical featured articles (although I'm a maintainer of the featured Portal:Medicine), but I take proud in several articles such as gestational diabetes, transient synovitis, cystatin C, solitary pulmonary nodule etc. I was one of the driving forces behind WP:MEDMOS. I'm also quite proud of my work on other Wikimedia projects; via Commons and my Wikinews press card, I can provide images for Wikipedia.
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 can't remember any stressful conflicts or edit wars I regret (and I hope not too many will emerge during this RfA . User:Desarda comes around every once and a while, adding his research to hernia-related articles. I had a little discussion recently on irritable bowel syndrome and UpToDate but not to cause any stress.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
4. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: They are advised against solely for the purpose of cooling down (imaginably simply leading to more anger).
Optional question from Aqwis
5. What are your views on our civility policy?
A: The fact the we are a community interacting via text alone most of the time means that a minimal amount of civility and wikiquette is needed, together with assuming good faith. I think it's equally important not to feed the trolls when being confronted with incivility -an attempt at de-escalation is a lot more likely to be successful. I like the English way of dealing with stress, which involves large quantities of TEA. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think WP needs "a minimum amount of civility" i.e. "WP needs as many dicks as possible"? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

6. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A: I would decline the unblock request, as it seems very unlikely to represent a genuine change to the editor's attitude. After the block expires he can still prove he's serious, but unblocking most likely will result in more vandalism. Of course it would be preferable for other admins to review the block, to get a second opinion. I presume a WHOIS shows this IP is not shared or anything, but still I would probably have blocked for shorter periods of time. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to follow a roughly exponential scale, 24 h, 48 h, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months etc Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/User:Stevenfruitsmaak before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator Tim Vickers 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Looks like a fine candidate. And we need more users working in images. :) Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Naerii 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom tabor-drop me a line 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Per the answer to question 2, if only for WP:MEDMOS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Plans to help with images, and we need more admins willing to work in that area. Trustworthy nominator as well. Acalamari 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Another good user with experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No concerns here. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - I've only ever seen good things from Steven at WP:MED, where he's a regular and dedicated contributor. I looked through his talk page archives and was blown away: consistently polite and friendly; de-escalating potential disputes with grace and skill; adopting and welcoming newcomers, encouraging them to get involved, helping with their questions; long, thoughtful, friendly responses when people come to him with potential problems; lots and lots of great collaboration. Very impressive! delldot talk 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Supporting this nomination, as I find no reason not to do so. S. Dean Jameson 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Per answer to Q.1. - no burning need for the tools, obviously the right type to give them to per everything else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks great to me. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Most definitely. Right attitude, great experience, and (though I realize this has nothing to do with Wikipedia) is a trusted user at Wikinews. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. No concerns here. And I love admins who write articles and know image policy (or want to learn it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2008
  16. Support Definitely. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support rootology (T) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I didn't see anything to make me !vote oppose, and we could always use more experts. Leonard(Bloom) 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support per my guidelines on how I vote and the fact that I didn't dig too deeply into his edits. From what I saw everything looks good.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Looks good all around. We're always in desperate need of more admins with knowledge around specialized subjects such as medicine. Also, the trust of WikiNews counts for something in my book--shows an ability to function within a community. --JayHenry (t) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The image work specifically got my attention because of some recent confusion (discussed here) about how duplicates of commons images were being tagged for deletion and their uploaders notified. An image specialist admin will be an immense help to the project. — Athaenara ✉ 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, excellent editor. JC Petit 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support fine and competent contributor, the demure response to an anti-fence sitting question notwithstanding. :) Protonk (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support per Tim. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Looks like a great editor.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support More image admins are always helpful. GlassCobra 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Magic 8-ball says Support Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I trust him enough to ask his opinion on image sourcing and licensing, why wouldn't I trust him with the tools to delete said images. Also per his excellent commons essay on images. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I often notice this editor doing good work. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Finest administrator material. Strong work and experience as an editor, fair-minded, polite, intending to do genuinely useful work. Mr. IP (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Image administrators + excellent track record means this is a definite support. Rudget (logs) 10:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Sounds like a sensible user with a great track record in working on images and articles, it can only help us to have him as an admin. So#Why 11:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support for sure. the wub "?!" 11:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support...and glad to see some people are actually going to pass RFA for a change. = ) Good luck, --Cameron* 11:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - got plenty of experience, there is no dirt so there is nothing to be concerned about. Plus - I like people who declare they will be involved especially in a particular subset of Wikipedia (in this case Medicine). --Carbonrodney (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Excellent contributor and fine admin qualities across multiple projects. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Hard working with a good mix of experience. Certainly has my support. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Another who maybe should have been mopped sooner. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak support — support, because we need more admins who aren't afraid to work with images, but weak because I'd like to see more of a willingness to offer {{second chance}}'s. But I have taken into consideration he said he wouldn't have blocked for a whole week on the second offense, which might change the landscape a bit. –xeno (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    by the way, you should almost never decline an unblock request on a block you've applied. –xeno (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sure. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. About time. Axl (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Excellent contributor, would make a fine admin. Soxred 93 04:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Excellent lead on WP:MED project, and helping to initially create and continue the refinement of WP:MEDMOS shows has a grip on a wide range of core policies & guidelines. Polite in all interactions I've come across. David Ruben Talk 02:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 'Support - Great user. - Shudde talk 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Seen his work on Wikipedia, have worked more closely with him on Wikinews; he is a very trustworthy candidate and I have no qualms giving him the mop. :) Mike H. Fierce! 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Per Q4. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support per nom, in addition to high-quality article and guideline (i.e., WP:MEDMOS) contributions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Easy one! Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - good contributor + reasonable communicator + well-informed editor = really easy decision. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Unlikely to abuse the tools, good collaborative work, and focused on high-quality content. Could I clarify that the "Fruitsmaak" in his username means "fruit flavour"? JFW | T@lk 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Synergy 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, meet my standards, no concerns, great answers to questions. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No reason to oppose. The project will benefit from this candidate's access to buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support He has made substantial contributions to medicine-related articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Medical cabalism. Seriously, though, has a very creative way of getting people to constructively contribute. Antelan 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - of course :) I know Steven well from both medical and Belgian articles where he's a super editor. He'll be a great admin! - Alison ❤ 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Good and experienced editor. Always need more admins to work with images. Lradrama 11:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support Couldn't miss this one. Steven does excellent work both on actual content and on admin-like drudgery. Absolutely no problem with the answers to Q4 and Q5. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Judgment appears worthy of community trust -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support A serious editor with a long experience; seems highly improbable he will ever abuse the tools.--Aldux (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Trustworthy. KnightLago (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per good, varied contributions, and also for covering things I didn't even know existed and would rather not, truth be told :-)  Frank  |  talk  03:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Seen his work, trust him with the tools. Cool Hand Luke 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Colin°Talk 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support good pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Doubt the user will abuse the tools. America69 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — Can't get off the fence and give a straight answer to a simple question. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a simple question for you: Is there any potential answer for which you would not have opposed? user:Everyme 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See his response here for the explanation, and Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Remove discouragement of cool down blocks from the policy here for the RFC on changing the wording on cool down blocking. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he did give a straight answer, which was no. Mike H. Fierce! 04:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are advised against solely for the purpose of cooling down (imaginably simply leading to more anger)" is not a straight answer to the question of whether or not cool-down blocks are acceptable. He's merely stating what the policy says, whereas the question was clearly worded to get the editor's opinion on the matter. Steven did not answer the question asked. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per answers to Kurt, Aqwis' and Xeno's questions, dodges Kurt's question, says "a minimal amount of civility is needed", and doesn't AGF or let a more removed admin handle the unblock request on Xeno's question. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    +Points to you for a hilarious interpretation of "a minimal amount of civility". Antelan 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose Don't much care for the answer to Q4. SashaNein (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - (you never saw me do this) Oppose per Kurt Weber.  Asenine  22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. 'Oppose you blocked one of my ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd1905 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give some more details? Also, could you please elaborate on how you feel your interaction signifies that this user will perform poorly as an administrator? GlassCobra 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat: Steven has never interacted with SfD1905 and has no idea what this user is talking about. This seems to be a fairly obvious bad faith oppose. GlassCobra 20:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per answer to Kmweber's question. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per user Juliancolton. --LAAFan 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to sound nosey, but what exactly troubles you about his/her answer? --Cameron* 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Per Q4. Although nothing would make Kurt support the nom, it was intriguing to read a particularly tentative response to an anti-fence sitting question. I think it is an interesting question, but only in that form. In other words, the underlying question is fatuous, but the answers are revealing. Cool-down blocks are not a burning issue and the administrator's knowledge or ignorance of the current consensus on them is not that important. But the way the question is phrased "are they ever appropriate" is almost designed to lure out a heterodox answer. I might be tempted to say, "the community says no, but c'mon, guys, we all hand them out, right? Right?" or "Never in a million years, even though they might be a good idea" or some other infelicitous response. Likewise "this is a stupid question" would probably go over like a lead balloon. But back to why I'm neutral. I think treating this meta-question at face value puts the respondent on a bad path, but he would be better served simply saying "no". Protonk (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Nuts to that, I just finished looking over this guys first 600 contributions. Switching to support. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per the three questions from the users. They are not very clear answers (especially the one about cool down blocks) so for now I have to say that I'm neutral. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeing pink elephants (one of only two AfDs we both participated in was obviously inconsistent with consensus). Not enough to oppose, but enough for me to be hesitant with support. The the other one we were both in was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), again on opposite sides, although this time I was the delete, and again the close was opposite of the candidate; however, that discussion was after looking it over close enough to a no consensus that I couldn't really fault any keepers). As with the other RfA I justed commented in, I do like that the candidate notes articles worked on and barnstars on the user page, as that's always encouraging to see. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, Le Grand, since you both argued for keeping the pink elephant article (which I still think should be deleted!) why do you see his "keep" as something to give you pause? Didn't you agree with him? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may say so, I share Tim's confusion. Steven's keep votes in both AfDs, although I personally don't agree with the Adult-child sex one, were sound comments. In both AfDs he argued on the basis of verifiability, at least as I understand it. user:Everyme 09:43, 21 July 2008 (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/Steven_Fruitsmaak&oldid=1147984676"