Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dream out loud: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EVula (talk | contribs)
39,066 edits
m updating tally
Line 57: Line 57:
#'''Support''' I have faith enough in you to offer my Support. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.]][[User talk:Dfrg.msc|msc]] 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I have faith enough in you to offer my Support. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.]][[User talk:Dfrg.msc|msc]] 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' Low project space edits, but there is still good reason to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' Low project space edits, but there is still good reason to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Although wiki edits are a little low, still see many reasons to support. '''[[User:Ganfon|<font color="Blue">Gan</font>]][[User Talk:Ganfon|<font color="Green">fon</font>]]''' 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''

Revision as of 00:04, 5 July 2007

Dream out loud

Voice your opinion (talk page) (15/4/6); Scheduled to end 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dream out loud (talk · contribs) - This user has been an inspiration to a lot of other less experienced users. He has done what others could not. He has created templates galore, and with them, made at least four WikiProjects some of the best in Wikipedia. Dreamy 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much for the nomination, Dreamy. I would like to accept the honor. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an admin, I would like to help keep Wikipedia organized and protect it from vandalism. When I come across a user contributing useless or vandalizing material to the encyclopedia, I send the user a warning, and report them to WP:AIV, if necessary. I have a strong resentment towards excessive vandalism, and as an admin, I would to have the access to block and unblock users and IP addresses on my own, while adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to be able to add protection to pages that are being vandalized, and easily revert or delete vandalized edits. In addition to handling vandalism, I frequently tag redundant or obvious copyright violated material for speedy deletion, and I would like to help out with the speedy deletion process to keep unwanted material off of Wikipedia. I would like to have the ability to delete material that has been tagged for speedy deletion, and be able to close discussions for deletion and delete the nominated material, if necessary.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: With close to 6000 edits on Wikipedia, it can be hard to pinpoint specific contributions that stand out over the rest. Without noting a specific contribution, I can say that I feel that my grammar Wikification edits in general, have greatly contributed to the encyclopedia. Many editors have much information to contribute, however many contributions lack formal or even correct grammar. Whenever I come across even the slightest grammar error, I fix it immediately. Those few edits can add up and contribute a lot of grammar cleanup to the encyclopedia, which I think is just as important as contributing facts. Wikifying articles is very important, and I enjoy cleaning up articles for any reason. One notable recent cleanup I performed was to List of airport circulators, where I reformatted the entire article from its original unorganized list ([1]) to a neater table format, and then moved it to a more suitable page name.
In terms of more specific contributions, I have edited and created many templates, especially infoboxes, most of which appear in many articles. For example, as a member of WikiProject Rapid transit, I have made over 20 edits to {{Infobox Station}}, which appears over 1500 articles, with each edit adding a new parameter or formatting idea that comes to mind. With all the articles about music venues and theatres, I was curious as to why none of them had an infobox, so I took the initiative to create {{Infobox Venue}}, which is currently only in a handful of articles, but has potential to eventually appear in hundreds or even thousands of articles.
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: One conflict, which happened over two months ago, involved a group of users who began edit wars in various high-speed rail-related articles, claiming certain rail systems were not high-speed. As a prospective transportation engineer, I was well aware certain rail systems were in fact high-speed, despite many users claimed that high-speed rail systems must travel at least 125 mph (201 km/h). Eventually a discussion took place, which I finally put an end to (with my old user name, Crashintome4196), citing that the International Union of Railways states "there is no single standard definition of high speed rail."
A second conflict, which is somewhat still taking place at the moment, involved the template {{Access icon}} and the copyright status of the notorious International Symbol of Access, better known as the "wheelchair symbol." Although the symbol is found just about anywhere, it is copyrighted and cannot be used in templates according to fair-use guidelines. A free alternative was created, but much disliked by Wikipedians. This caused countless users to revert the template to the copyrighted symbol, which would just get reverted back to the free one. I tried to explain the reason for using the free symbol to many users, but they refused to listen, therefore edit wars continued to break out for over a month ([2]). Finally, I took initiative to request protection for the template, and so far there has been no more issues. I even went a step further and revised the free symbol (Image:Wheelchair.svg ) to look more appealing. Various versions of the copyrighted symbol are still posted on Commons, and I am trying to reach a consensus on the discussion about whether they should be deleted.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dream out loud before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom support Can't see any big reason not to, and the handling of the handicapped symbol really stuck out. But ten bucks someone nails him for low project space edits. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Low project space edits is OK, however I assume once you become an admin that will go up, as almost all admin tasks involve pages in project spave (RFPP, AIV, UAA, OP, COIN, ANI, etc) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People are not going neutral because of the editcountitis. They're opposing because of a lack of contributions in XfDs, AIV, RFPP (and so on) -- all of which are found in the project namespace. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance of having all those acronyms in plain English at some point guys - not everybody knows what they all mean. Nick 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The answers demonstrate sufficient experience with the Wikipedia community and the operating system. Shalom Hello 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Why not? Contributions look alright with a good edit count and experience. Good luck. E talk 10:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I see no reason not to. Pax:Vobiscum 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Sufficient experience; although I agree that some experience in projectspace/processes is important, I don't think that a low number necessarily reflects inexperience. Raw editcount is not a good determiner of suitability for adminship; someone who makes 1000 projectspace edits by writing humorous essays or playing around with trivial projects is less suitable for adminship than one with 100 good edits to XfDs and AIV, for instance. Waltontalk 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - largely agree with the neutral voters, however his/her role in the wheelchair logo debacle, where s/he resolved the conflict by creating a free use logo, tips the balance to support. Addhoc 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Contribs are solid and numerous enough to form an opinion. The Wikipedia namespace has little, if anything, to do with adminship in my opinion. I've been an admin for nearly a year and I don't have any WP pages watchlisted (it's a personal rule of mine) I read WP:AN and AN/I, but almost never participate. I have a barnstar for my work in closing debates I never participated in before I became an admin. Becoming an admin changes one's editing patterns so much it's pointless to use namespace balance to evaluate how a candidate will perform when/if given the tools. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I do not see any big reasons to oppose you.--†Sir James Paul† 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Because when I asked him for help,he helped me and has a knowledge about wikipedia. --Sarah sofía 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support There doesn't appear to be anything to be concerned about here. Looks like a good candidate. Majorly (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Experienced user, no evidence of poor behaviour. That the user's behaviour is usually so uncontraversial it doesn't need to be discussed at length is not a down side. WilyD 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have faith enough in you to offer my Support. Dfrg.msc 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support Low project space edits, but there is still good reason to support. Captain panda 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Although wiki edits are a little low, still see many reasons to support. Ganfon 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Minimal experience in project-space gives no record on which to judge candidate's capabilities in this area vital to adminship. Xoloz 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. More experience in project-space is needed. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Based upon the lack of the project space edits. I just believe you need much more in-depth experience within the project before there is even a need for tools. Jmlk17 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. I'm not bothered by the number of project space edits, but there's a dearth of interaction with other users through talk page edits. They've certainly improved in content over time (from Talk:List of longest live Dave Matthews Band songs to recent comments at User talk:Sarah sofia), but there's not enough of a record here to allow me to understand how this user responds to conflict. Dekimasuよ! 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Low project space edits. (hands over the $10) Seriously, though, a little more participation both there and also in talk space is really needed. Article talk, user talk, project talk, whatever, I'm not bothered, just a bit more communication with other users before I can trust this candidate with adminship – WikiProjects are all very well, but administrators should be able to deal with conflict – Gurch 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bugger! I wanted the $10! Actually the WP space isn't what bothers me as much as the talk page count. While I admire his help in the wheelchair debacle, I still don't feel comfortable with a full support. On the other hand, no real issues seem present for an oppose. David Fuchs 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Per above comments, the candidate needs to have a better developed track record of communicating with other editors. Majoreditor 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral There is so much to admire here, but some heavy automation of edits, and the lack of interaction push me to neutral. Admins inevitably will be interacting with other users during times of conflict and stress and at present nothing in the contributions provides any evidence of an ability to deal well with people. Of course, nothing indicates an ability to not deal well hence neutral. I guess that's probably not assuming the faith that all will be okay, but I like to be able to back up a support with evidence. Sorry, but I wish you well in your RFA and editing. Pedro |  Chat  11:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral- per Pedro. Eddie 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning support essentially using the same reasoning as Pedro. I have no problem trusting he won't abuse the tools but I'm concerned that he may not have the experience to deal with the not always pleasant interaction with users who disagree with his admin actions. In that sense, the lack of project-space edits don't bother me that much because looking at his contributions I feel he understands policy well enough and looks responsible. But the lack of interaction with other users is too big a question mark. Pascal.Tesson 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dream_out_loud&oldid=142563500"