Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StuffOfInterest 2

StuffOfInterest

Voice your opinion. (22/0/1) Ending 12:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

StuffOfInterest (talk · contribs) – Although my account was created back in May of 2005 I don't really consider myself as having become an editor until October 2005 when I did some cleanup on the Crew Exploration Vehicle (now named Orion) article. Since that time I've spread out into creating a few articles (Global knives and a bunch of Silver Line stubs), performing major cleanup on one article (D-STAR), started a WikiProject (Amateur radio), and done lots and lots of vandalism repair. That last one is my biggest reason for desiring adminship at this time. There have been too many cases where the backlog on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP has been to the point that vandalism on pages could continue for far too long.

Alkivar was kind enough to nominate me back in February, but at the time I felt obligated to decline due to my own limited availability and concerns that I should have some more time under my belt. Now, some months later, I feel that I will have enough time to monitor a few of the action lists and my experience has certainly built up. Hopefully, if my contributions are considered worthy, I can use the mop and bucket to help keep the backlogs a little more under control. --StuffOfInterest 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted as self nomination. --StuffOfInterest 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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: As mentioned in the introduction, my biggest goal is to keep an eye on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP to manage the backlog. In addition, I've been involved with a number of page rename discussions where once a consensus was reached everyone had to wait for an admin to come along and help out by clearing a destination point or doing some other fixing so that the move could be performed. Hopefully, by monitoring WP:RM, I can help in reducing the wait time for those actions.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: A few of my prouder involvements are mentioned above, but let me try listing them with a little more detail:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio - This one is my most recent area of activity. I was able to go from project proposal to gathering interested parties and on to activating the project in just a few days. Since then I've been working on tagging articles related to the project. Most of this is really just clerical type work, but it needs to be done.
2. Silver Line (Washington Metro) - My involvement here has been to sub-articles and related templates rather than the main Silver Line article. I was able to convert a number of station red links into clean stubs as well as build the needed templates for line configuration dealing with this being the first line to share track with two other Washington Metro lines. In particular, I'm happy with the articles for the four stations in Tysons Corner (Tysons East, Tysons Central 123, Tysons Central 7, and Tysons West).
3. D-STAR - This is an Amateur radio related article which I decided to take under my wing after seeing what a sorry state it was in. After a couple of days editing I had it to a state that although not perfect I felt it was ready to have the cleanup tag removed.
4. Global (cutlery) - I was surprised to find out that there wasn't an article for this brand of knives so I decided to get one started. This included authoring some basic text and uploading a photo of my own set of the knives. Some time soon I hope to get around to working on Thermador, whose brand of ranges is in the background of the photo.

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: The closest thing I've had to a direct confrontation with another editor was with Karmafist back in December when he decided to list me in a RfC over a template I had made exactly one edit to. As that template has since been deleted and salted, I can't point to the actual edit. Karamafist later had other problems, so I hope that will be weighed when counting this dispute. Beyond that one, I've tended to avoid any direct person-to-person disputes. I've had a few general philosophy disputes, but I've always tried to work them out on various project and article talk pages so as to keep the forum open to all. On occasion, editors (both signed and anonymous) have had issue with reversions I've performed, but I've usually been able to defuse those with an explanation and/or short discussion. A history of that is readily available on my talk page.

4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A: As with an unestablished (meaning new, low edit count, or anonymous) user, anything demanding a block should have good documentation on the talk page or a report on WP:AN/3RR to back it up. As well, such blocks should be preventative and not punative, being used to keep further damage from happening and let the community at large or ArbCom in particular examine incidents and sanction if necessary. As long as standard procedure and policy is being followed there is no reason to treat an established user differently than a new one. Now, there are cases where I would recuse myself from issuing a block. The most distinct example would be in the event of a 3RR violation of an article where I'm actively editing (or performed a revert of my own of an edit by the party in question). In a case like this the incident should always be reported to the appropriate notice board and left to an uninvolved admin to sort out. It is essential that conflict of interest be avoided when using admin functions.

General comments

• See StuffOfInterest's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit stat in the talk page --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support - Seems like a good enough user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support - a good user, familiar with policy, and having good experience with the wiki. Full support. --Draicone ^(talk) 13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Note: IPs second edit. MER-C 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I deleted my cookie because of the wikibreak. About my 2500th edit :) And next time just strike IP votes, I'm pretty sure thats policy. --Draicone ^(talk) 13:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Support He seems like a pretty good user and has good experience. I'll give him my support. Hello32020 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Seen him around doing good work. --Alex (Talk) 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Has a good level of experience and a solid editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Great user, but I'm a bit scared that he likes to write about knives. *scared* That's my saddest attempt at a joke. --Nishkid64 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Michael 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Regarding the idea of Wikipedia being a "chore," I can attest to this. There's a bare level of editing required to satisfy the addiction, which explains why I'm here instead of staying on break where I belong. Incidentally, it appears I was one of several sysops to delete the template in question... Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Enthusiastic editor despite the chore remarks (we've all been there at some point); the admin tools will be used sensibly. (aeropagitica) 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for the support, but please note that the word "chore" hasn't passed my fingers. It was a comment by another editor which others have been reacting to. --StuffOfInterest 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

10. Support.  Doctor Bruno  21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per the above comments. RFerreira 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Canderous Ordo 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support and 73s de --Aaron 23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support: Contribs looking good, no reason not to trust user with the tools. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - per above really -- Tawker 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Very yes! Seen a lot of good things from StuffOfInterest, and I'm sure they'll do well with the tools. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, only seen + stuff out of StuffOfInterest, and Wiki would be better if this user had the buttons. Daniel.Bryant 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, StuffOfInterest does good work and wants to help out further, I see no reason to hinder this goal. Thryduulf 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Good work, good tenure, and I like the work on transit related articles.-- danntm ^T _C 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I have seen this user around WP:AIV and WP:RFPP before and it all looks good to me, so I have no reason not to support. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Looks like an honest, hardworking user. NauticaShades^(talk) 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose anyone with POV-advocacy userboxes and categories on their user page. I thought we had moved beyond that. Instead, upoon visiting the user page, I am confronted with SOI's point of view on religion, sexual preference, political party affiliation, capital punishment, censorship, church and state, and, incredibly, POV userboxes themselves. Not someone whose userpage (and judgment thereof) reflects well upon the encyclopedia, and certainly not someone I trust with adminship at this point. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Unsure. He doesn't seem well rounded, mostly doing reversions and jumping into conflicts, but that in itself isn't enough to oppose. Looking at his diffs, it appears he treats Wikipedia like a chore, and that makes me nervous. People Powered 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Can you please provide solid evidence to support your statement regarding this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Please expand on this with examples/evidence, thank you.--Andeh 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Sure. Basically edit summaries like these [1],[2] and this edit war at the end of August.(diff from the middle of it)[3].

   Mackensen probably states my reason for voting most eloquently though: I feel uneasy with an "addict" being given more control over something other than reducing their own addiction. Of course, that's not enough for an oppose vote IMO, so thus my neutral vote here. People Powered 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)