User:Mdd4696/Request for adminship (draft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mdd4696[edit]

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mdd4696|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/0/0) ending ??:?? ??? ??, ???? (UTC)

Mdd4696 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. As I continue to broaden my involvement on Wikipedia, it seems that I am finding more and more areas where I cannot participate because I lack the tools to do so (specifically, the ever-backlogged Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons). I consider experience with several different areas of the project, good communication skills and a positive attitude to be vital qualities in administrators, so I've tried to exemplify them in my work. I hope that this nomination leads to new duties to fulfill, but I welcome the constructive criticism all the same.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Without furthur ado, I accept. ~MDD4696 ??? ??, ???? (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Initially I believe I would work on some of the images in CAT:NC and CAT:NCT (as mentioned above), since I have been active in the untagged images project and those categories are quite backlogged. I'm always looking for new things to do though, so I'll will be keeping an eye on other areas that need work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm happiest with my work when I see a positive impact, so I'm generally pleased with my entire edit history. I enjoy monitoring the technical section of the Village Pump, working on scripts, and discussion or debate with others, for some more specific examples. I'd like to add a few new features to my Image Autotagger tool before I say I'm happy with it, but I believe it's been helpful to some users. I'm also proud of a few articles that I've worked on, despite their smallish size, because I see them as strong bases for future contributions.
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. Yes, I have had the edit conflict screen come up on multiple occasions... oh wait. Conflicts over editing? I have had a differing opinion on several issues, but there hasn't been anything serious that wasn't resolved through discussion. I admit that I may be a bit of a tiger, but I try very hard to keep my point of view in check. William Pietri's advice works well for me. ("Give it a few days to see how people react ... a couple of days later, see how you like your work.") Should something come up that I strongly disagree with I would take the customary step back and assess the situation; if need be I would then request an outside opinion or otherwise pursue the appropriate channels.

Additional NSLE questions:

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 ;)).

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A. I've seen similar situations come up several times over on the administrator's noticeboard, and it's a difficult issue to tackle. I don't believe there should be exceptions to the policies we all agree to abide by, and as such I would discuss the appropriate response with other admins. A short temporary block may be all that's warranted, depending on the situation. I understand that some believe blocking long-time contributors may hurt the project more than it helps, but it is my position that making such exceptions erodes our ability to enforce policies in the long term.
5. 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?
A. If the article truly wasn't patent nonsense, I feel that I would be able to write a sufficiently sourced replacement article such that its factual content would no longer be ambiguous. A polite note on the involved users' talk pages would probably be appropriate as well, to notify them of the new article and to obtain feedback. If I could not create such a replacement, then I'd have no basis for believing it wasn't patent nonsense in the first place!
6. 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?
A. It would be an abuse of my administrator privileges to delete an article to spite an anonymous editor. In the case where the criteria for speedy deletion actually apply, I would follow through with the (albeit temporary) block I warned him about and utilize the {{deletedpage}} template. Each situation is different, but I think the generally acceptable process is to warn, block if warranted, and then clean up the mess.
7. 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?
A. I would always keep discussion open; to decide whether or not I agreed with the other admin's actions I would need to be sure that I had as much information as possible. Since I place a certain amount of faith in other administrator's judgement, I would only reverse the block if I strongly disagreed.
If I could provide a constructive statement to the request for arbitration, I would most certainly do so. If the Arbitration Committee were to reject the case and no furthur progress was made through discussion, I would have to let the block run its course. It's not a perfect resolution, but I would hope that it would provide time to let a little steam off.