Support Not enough image talk contribs....just kidding!!! Looking at edit history, this user should be a shoe in for admin!!!
Mike(
TC)21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Edits look good, amazing amount of image uploads, FA etc. I'm only wondering about the wish to work on
WP:AFD closings, with only 10 votes (5 of them in 7 March) on AFD articles...
feydey02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - my second bandwagon vote in a row from the look of my contribs, but have noticed this editor many times for their quality edits. -
dharmabum08:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support From his work on the Wikipedia 1.0 project, I know he's dedicated and hardworking, definitely the kind of person you'd trust with the mop and bucket.--
Shanel04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot21:00, 9 March 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:
A. For sysop specific tasks, I'll mainly focus on
WP:AIV and
CAT:CSD, but I'll periodically help out
moving pages and closing
WP:AFD. This may change once I become more experienced as an administrator.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've been involved in many aspects of WP, so it's difficult to specify just one special article. I think my biggest contribution was bring
Antarctica from practically a stub to FA status. Other contributions I'm proud of are expanding core topics such as
Toy,
museum, and
Andes mountains for
WP:1.0. To combat systematic bias, I improved Mexico-related articles by adding content to
Cantinflas, and
Literature and
Cinema of Mexico. More "fun" tasks involve greeting new users, helping out at
#wikipedia-bootcamp, fixing
typos and cleaning
dab pages.
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. As a user who tries to conform to the Manual of Style and other guidelines, I've had a few minor conflicts dealing with dab pages and wikilinking, but getting a second opinion has usually resolved the situations. Other than than that, there hasn't any edit wars. I bring all conflicts to the talk page to avoid any escalation of hostility and I think my
assuming good faith also helps, too.
Questions from
NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).
You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
I would bring it up in
WP:ANI to get some input from other admins and then use
WP:CHECK to confirm the editor is using a sockpuppet. Then I would add the {{sockpuppetProven}} tag to the editor's userpage.
While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at
CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is
patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
I would immediately speak to said admin. Depending on the vote count and article, I'll get some feedback from those who voted and contact other admins not involved the the speedy deletion.
You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
Well, if he vandalizes my userpage, I consider that a serious offense, especially considering the fact he's been blocked before and is acting hostile. I would consider a temporary block. I'd assess if the articles do, in fact, deserve to be speedily deleted. If so, then the user is in the wrong. However, if the anon has a good reason to keep, I'll give him another warning for his vandalism and comments and try to sort out our differences.
An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected
WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to
WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
First, I would try to convince them that RFC may help the conflict. Depending on specifics, I think I would respect the admin's decision to block, as I think they need to cool down a bit. I would follow the case and present any relevant evidence to ArbCom. If need be, I'd request assistance from other admins.
The above 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.