Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TSO1D: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
support
oppose
Line 92: Line 92:
# '''Oppose'''. All Wikipedia namespace edits are mostly on AFDs, and there is a big gap in editing periods as stated in the self-nomination. Not sure if the editor has a good grasp of policy. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if user can provide diffs of useful contributions/engagements in community matters. Another concern is the too narrow set of articles in which the user edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. All Wikipedia namespace edits are mostly on AFDs, and there is a big gap in editing periods as stated in the self-nomination. Not sure if the editor has a good grasp of policy. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if user can provide diffs of useful contributions/engagements in community matters. Another concern is the too narrow set of articles in which the user edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
#:I agree that my edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been rather narrow in scope, as they have been mostly on AFD's and certain topic-specific projects, and this is one aspect of my participation that I would like to amend by branching out. I believe, however that I have learned much through AFD's as diverse debates have encompassed a wide array of policies (such notability criteria, standards for verification, what constitutes original research, etc). I also participated on the development of [[WP:SCIENCE]], and while helping draft that policy, I consulted similar sets of criteria and more general sets of policy which I had to understand before I could offer my own suggestions. On various RFC's, and even general article discussion, I also have often referred to various policies of the encyclopedia. As for providing diffs of useful contributions on community matters, I am not sure what I can present, however perhaps you could look at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)]] and its archives, or browse through various AFD's so that you can assess my familiarity with policy. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
#:I agree that my edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been rather narrow in scope, as they have been mostly on AFD's and certain topic-specific projects, and this is one aspect of my participation that I would like to amend by branching out. I believe, however that I have learned much through AFD's as diverse debates have encompassed a wide array of policies (such notability criteria, standards for verification, what constitutes original research, etc). I also participated on the development of [[WP:SCIENCE]], and while helping draft that policy, I consulted similar sets of criteria and more general sets of policy which I had to understand before I could offer my own suggestions. On various RFC's, and even general article discussion, I also have often referred to various policies of the encyclopedia. As for providing diffs of useful contributions on community matters, I am not sure what I can present, however perhaps you could look at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)]] and its archives, or browse through various AFD's so that you can assess my familiarity with policy. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I know the activity of this editor and in my opinion the quality of his edits is low, with the exception of spelling correction, where indeed he is doing a good job. Not enough for an admin.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral'''
#
#

Revision as of 19:37, 16 January 2007

TSO1D

Voice your opinion (46/1/0); Scheduled to end 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

TSO1D (talk · contribs) – I have used this encyclopedia for a few years now, having started editing Wikipedia in June 2005. Although initially, my edits have been more sporadic, I have always maintained an interest in Wikipedia, and I never ceased using this encyclopedia, even if during certain periods more as a reader than as a righter. Since the beginning of 2006, I have been active continuously as an editor. My activity on Wikipedia has reflected my diverse interests, both in the subject and the nature of my edits. I have worked on diverse articles, and through this experience I have learned the meaning of the policies and standards of the encyclopedia, as well as how to cooperate with others. A major part of my activity has been involved in conflict resolution, in articles such as Transnistria or Kosovo, and certain WP:RFC topics. I have also been involved in more technical areas, such as article deletions, and policy definition (especially in the case of WP:SCIENCE. Although I understand the great responsibilities that come with the status of an administrator, I feel I can succeed in this position and I am eager to participate in the project in this new capacity. TSO1D 22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: How can I refuse! (self nom). TSO1D 23:06, 11 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate rendering my services, wherever I can. As an editor, my main emphasis was creating and improving articles, and I would like to help ensure a constructive atmosphere for other writers and to facilitate their work by responding to requests on WP:AIV, monitoring 3RR violations, placing and removing page protections, page moves, as well as other venues where I can offer my assistance. I have also been active on deletion debates, especially Articles for Deletion, and I wish to have the authority to close debates there, although I will be cautious at first. I also want to help reduce the various backlogs that exist across Wikipedia, such as speedy deletions. TSO1D 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article to which I have helped develop the most has been Germany. During the last two months, I have spent a great amount of time trying to reorganize the article, improve the quality of its text, and provide citations for all the facts presented in it. A few days ago, Germany has been promoted to Featured Article status, and this probably remains my greatest success as an editor on Wikipedia. Although the FAC process was tedious at times, I believe that this experience has helped me like no other to understand the standards of the encyclopedia and how to achieve them. Another article that I have been closely involved with has been Transnistria. Although I am not fully content with the quality of the text, I mostly prize my involvement in trying to reach agreements with other contributors. This topic is extremely controversial, and this article has been the subject of numerous personal conflicts and edit wars, and I believe that my ability to forge compromises has helped to reduce the tension, although the article considers to suffer (it is actually locked now). TSO1D 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes, unfortunately I have been involved in numerous conflicts due to the nature of the articles that I edit the most. As I have previously mentioned, Transnistria is one such article, others include: Moldova, Kosovo, Moldovans, etc. I have also responded to multiple RFC's, such as Guernica (town), and these have also had a charged setting. I have tried to remain calm and objective in these disputes (though not always with perfect success), however in spite of the stress that I have often experienced, I feel that this experience has been instrumental in increasing my ability to resolve and prevent conflicts. I always try to Assume good faith unless I have evidence to suspect foul play (such as vandalism, or using socks), however even in those cases, I do not insult these users but try to ask them to remain constructive (and have even received thanks for this by some). I believe that the vast majority of people are inherently good and reasonable, and that it is possible to come to an agreement if you show respect and present logical arguments. TSO1D 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question (or questions) from :: Eagle 101 (Need help?)

4. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?
Here on Wikipedia, as well as on every other location where spam is present, its effects can range from being a minor nuisance to a major problem. Although I agree with your assessment that the quantity of spam being introduced is increasing, I believe that the tools available on Wikipedia and dedicated patrolmen have been able to minimize its effects. I am confident that for the present, Wikipedia editors are able to cope with this issue, which fortunately is still less of a problem (qualitatively) than vandalism.
On the mattter of external links, I believe that their number should be kept low and that only important, credible, and relevant sources should be included. The purpose is to give readers the opportunities to explore the subject more using additional resources not available in the article. Although, I generally disfavor the inclusion of blogs, myspace accounts, or youtoube submissions, I do not wish to categorically say that I want to exclude them. Certain exceptions (such as an offical myspace account of a personality), might be relevant in certain contexts, although great care must be taken to ensure their quality, and such instances should not be too frequent. TSO1D 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from :: Heligoland

5. Can you please describe some details on the WP:FU policy and describe when it's not acceptable to use a fair use image. In what circumstances would an image that a user has created and agreed to licence under a free licence be unsuitable for Wikipedia?
An image that satisfies the requirement for "fair use" should be used only if it's truly needed. Even if it meets all legal requirements, that in itself does not mean that the image can be included. The most important point that needs to be considered, is whether the picture is truly critical to illustrate a certain aspect of the article, and whether there are any free alternatives. If the image does not directly act as a visual aid to the information presented, or if there is another one available under a free license, then the first image should not be used. As for a free image created by a user, the same process needs to be applied. The fact that it is free does not mean that it should be used unless there is sufficient reason to do so. Of course, there are myriads of situations that would make such an image unsuitable, so from this respect, it is impossible to generalize. But again, as always, it needs needs to illustrate an element of the article, and if there are any doubts as to whether it is necessary or proper, the Wikipedia guideline you mentioned above gives a much more detailed set of criteria through which such candidates can be screened. TSO1D 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Contributions, wikispace experience, etc. look good. Good luck! -- Renesis (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as I see no reason not to. Keep up the grood work, Dar-Ape 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support-contribs good and pretty well spread out. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support good, well-balanced range of edits. Answers good. I am sure will use the tools wisely and well.--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No-cliche-here Support. --tennisman sign here! 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Great editor. Khoikhoi 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Contribs. are comendable. Loads of experiance and great answers to the questions. Best of luck.Ganfon 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Impressed by TSO1D's conscientious and thoughtful work on Germany. Should be an equally conscientious admin. Raymond Arritt 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good editor. —dima/s-ko/ 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Contributions well spread out. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. A great user who is willing to admit where he's been wrong, and has learned from the incident. I think this valued editor will be even more valued as an administrator. Yuser31415 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, will be a great admin. I invite people to check out TSO1D's exemplary interaction with other users and his relentless work during the month-long FAC for Germany. See also the contrast between the current Germany with the version prior to his involvement [1]. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - the mainspace contributions are lower than my requirements, but I guess well-rounded participation in such flamebaits as Kosovo or Transnistria make up for the difference. Good luck Alex Bakharev 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Mediation is one of the most important tasks for an admin, and this Wikipedian seems fit. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks good. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, only good experiences with this user. Kusma (討論) 06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Active in AfD and RC patrolling + quality editor. Will make a good administrator - Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Pascal.Tesson and strong answer to #5. --BigDT 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - good answers to questions, trustable. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support - outstanding answer to Q1 and shows strong streak of humility, which is a useful virtue in an admin. Particularly keen to promote users who have an interest in conflict resolution. Get mopping. --Dweller 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Name keeps poping up in positive context. Wikispace contributions are very good. Agathoclea 10:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support sounds like a great candidate to me. James086Talk | Contribs 11:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Jusjih 12:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I would prefer it if this user would diversify beyond doing AFD work, but nevertheless xe appears to be a good candidate. >Radiant< 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support An amazing attitude throughout the tiresome FAC process. Gzkn 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, definitely. Proto::► 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support great editor --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Have seen around at AfD a lot, but I was most impressed with the way the FAC for Germany was handled (and obviously the result). This here must seem a doddle compared to the heat and pressure at that forum. :) Bubba hotep 14:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak Support. Most of your edits are in the same locations, and it makes you look unwilling to branch out though. Great answers to the questions pushed me to support though.--Wizardman 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Great editor. Great candidate. Answers are good. Trustworthy. ← ANAS Talk? 17:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Terence Ong 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Transnistria is a good article about a contentious topic. If he can handle that kind of stress, he should be good at other administrative duties, too. Coemgenus 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support because I have no reason not to. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Joe I 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as non-nominator. JorcogaYell! 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Don't remember seeing the nominee around afd, but seems to have an excellent reputation after being heavily involved in editing controversial articles, so thats good Bwithh 07:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good editor. --Mardavich 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Cbrown1023 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per user contributions, answers, comments above. Newyorkbrad 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support as per bibliomaniac15. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. All Wikipedia namespace edits are mostly on AFDs, and there is a big gap in editing periods as stated in the self-nomination. Not sure if the editor has a good grasp of policy. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if user can provide diffs of useful contributions/engagements in community matters. Another concern is the too narrow set of articles in which the user edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that my edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been rather narrow in scope, as they have been mostly on AFD's and certain topic-specific projects, and this is one aspect of my participation that I would like to amend by branching out. I believe, however that I have learned much through AFD's as diverse debates have encompassed a wide array of policies (such notability criteria, standards for verification, what constitutes original research, etc). I also participated on the development of WP:SCIENCE, and while helping draft that policy, I consulted similar sets of criteria and more general sets of policy which I had to understand before I could offer my own suggestions. On various RFC's, and even general article discussion, I also have often referred to various policies of the encyclopedia. As for providing diffs of useful contributions on community matters, I am not sure what I can present, however perhaps you could look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) and its archives, or browse through various AFD's so that you can assess my familiarity with policy. TSO1D 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I know the activity of this editor and in my opinion the quality of his edits is low, with the exception of spelling correction, where indeed he is doing a good job. Not enough for an admin.--MariusM 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TSO1D&oldid=101157124"