Support. Excellent response to my question. If a Ph.D. wants admin privileges to do some specific tidying, it's fine by me.
Xoloz08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
We are an encyclopedia first, a community 2nd. Wikipedia namespace edits are not necessary to make the encyclopedia great. —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:49
Support Users don't have to be uber-active, in my mind, to warrant having the tools necessary to complete the jobs that they see themselves doing. I believe that every user has a niche that they fit into, and if this user has found their niche, then more power to them! --
Martin Osterman16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. The candidate may not expect to use admin powers often, but is clearly a good contributor and can be trusted with them.-
gadfium18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Candidate has shown to be trustworthy, any small amount of admin duties this candidate does will be less that another admin will have to do --
Rogerd02:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I really don't see the problem with people who focus on articles and plan to use their admin privileges very infrequently. Restraint is, after all, something quite a few of our existing admins could improve upon. --
Michael Snow03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. The user explained perfectly clearly his lack of project edits--he is only requesting admin privileges for one specific function. He's obviously trustworthy, and he does indeed need to be an admin to perform the current events archiving, so I don't see the problem here.
Chick Bowen05:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like a good editor who can be trusted. Also, I agree with Palmiro's and DS1953's arguments below- this isn't meant to be a "big deal". --
G Rutter15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
#Oppose Good science editor but I dont like his responces especially number 1 and I also dont see this user very active in Wikipedia namespace which is a must for me --
Jaranda(
watz sup)
00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
#Weak Oppose as above, you have less than 25 Wikipedia-space edits in the last six months or so, that's quite poor. If you just ramp it up slightly, I think many of the opposers would gladly defect to support. NSLE(
讨论+
extra)02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages. If you want to become an admin for a once-a-month duty, I seriously advise that you reconsider.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to neutral.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: is there a set of requirements for what an admin must do? Do admins have a quota of tasks to perform? There is no limit to the number of admins, so why shouldn't someone who is trusted by the community (and crucially, nobody has suggested that this candidate isn't) have the tools if he can help the community with them, even in a restricted field? After all, it's meant to be "no big deal".
Palmiro |
Talk16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The power to block users and delete articles is by definition a big deal, and we don't need more admins. As others have noted, Awolf isn't even offering to handle admin jobs.
202.58.85.807:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued
WP:POINT violations. --
LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
When trying to archive the Current event page to its respective month the "move" operation tries to overwrite the exisiting page, which is a redirect. This is no longer allowed for non-admin users.
Awolf00204:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Agreed, if practice makes perfect I should not need to edit this page before the "move". Still, each time I mess up I will come running to an admin, again...
Awolf00212:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
We often refer to the admin tools as a "mop and bucket." I think a better analogy is a Swiss Army knife. Here we have a good, valuable and long-time editor coming to us and saying that he needs a pair of pliers and a Phillips screwdriver. We tell him that we have the tools he needs but that they are combined with other tools and that he doesn't really need an ice pick, pocket knife, tweezers or fish scaler (and consequently he may not have shown that he knows how to use those other tools, even though he has shown very good judgment in other matters). Therefore, despite the fact that we have a bottomless supply of Swiss Army knives, he should keep struggling to do his job without the two tools he needs. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me. --
DS195319:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
As stated above I concur with this comment, and I find it dismaying that so many people are still opposing. The way I see it, giving him admin tools will have a positive effect on the project. Maybe only slightly positive, but who cares? Denying him admin tools means he will continue to have to ask the help of another admin to do this task which he is perfectly capable of and trustworthy to do (is anyone disputing this? I don't see it if so), time they could have spent doing those tasks that he does not have interest in doing. There is absolutely no requirement that admins engage in every task they are capable of, nor should there be. There is no quota, and so promoting him does not deny a place that could have been taken by someone who will more efficiently use the tools; I see no reason to not promote.
Mindspillage(spill yours?)20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
As indicated I plan to help with archiving Current events pages in a monthly basis. I may consider other chores, if asked or they come to my attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased with helping to bring biographies of important scientists to WP. I also learned a lot during this (ongoing) work.
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 few 'spats' here and there. I try to focus on the issues regarding the article in question and to ignore attacks or grandstanding. I also do feel fine when voted down or persuaded by a good argument.
4. As of now, your responses to the above questions are a bit brief. Please consider expanding them, if possible. Please share your view on WP:IAR, for one thing, to help us understand exactly how much you plan on doing with admin powers?
Alright, I see that I might be an "unorthodox" candidate, since I do not seek "power" or "status" with my adminship. All I like to do is keep on working and improving WP, which I did with no problem up to now without adminship. However, with the latest restrictions on "move" operations I decided to request this privilege, so I can keep on serving the community. Serving is what I thought a candidate for adminship is striving for and that is my intention.
When you check my contributions you will find that I regularly revert vandalism on the pages I watch, trying to be nice to newbies at the same time. This can be done with no special powers and so (as many others do) I have served in this work and will do this in the future, whatever the outcome of this request. My first answer was meant to show my openness to new "chores" that would require special powers, of which I might be unaware.
Regarding "rules" in WP, my philosophy is to follow them as "precedent" as long as the outcome does not interfere with the goal to improve and expand WP. I approach these precedents with the assumption that somebody thought about them and that there are good reasons for them. If they clearly interfere with obvious progress, I would first try to find consensus for changing them, and most likely not just charge ahead. Being bold is good for article text and lively prose, but not necessarily for making or breaking rules.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support. Excellent response to my question. If a Ph.D. wants admin privileges to do some specific tidying, it's fine by me.
Xoloz08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
We are an encyclopedia first, a community 2nd. Wikipedia namespace edits are not necessary to make the encyclopedia great. —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:49
Support Users don't have to be uber-active, in my mind, to warrant having the tools necessary to complete the jobs that they see themselves doing. I believe that every user has a niche that they fit into, and if this user has found their niche, then more power to them! --
Martin Osterman16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. The candidate may not expect to use admin powers often, but is clearly a good contributor and can be trusted with them.-
gadfium18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Candidate has shown to be trustworthy, any small amount of admin duties this candidate does will be less that another admin will have to do --
Rogerd02:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I really don't see the problem with people who focus on articles and plan to use their admin privileges very infrequently. Restraint is, after all, something quite a few of our existing admins could improve upon. --
Michael Snow03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. The user explained perfectly clearly his lack of project edits--he is only requesting admin privileges for one specific function. He's obviously trustworthy, and he does indeed need to be an admin to perform the current events archiving, so I don't see the problem here.
Chick Bowen05:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like a good editor who can be trusted. Also, I agree with Palmiro's and DS1953's arguments below- this isn't meant to be a "big deal". --
G Rutter15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
#Oppose Good science editor but I dont like his responces especially number 1 and I also dont see this user very active in Wikipedia namespace which is a must for me --
Jaranda(
watz sup)
00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
#Weak Oppose as above, you have less than 25 Wikipedia-space edits in the last six months or so, that's quite poor. If you just ramp it up slightly, I think many of the opposers would gladly defect to support. NSLE(
讨论+
extra)02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages. If you want to become an admin for a once-a-month duty, I seriously advise that you reconsider.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to neutral.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: is there a set of requirements for what an admin must do? Do admins have a quota of tasks to perform? There is no limit to the number of admins, so why shouldn't someone who is trusted by the community (and crucially, nobody has suggested that this candidate isn't) have the tools if he can help the community with them, even in a restricted field? After all, it's meant to be "no big deal".
Palmiro |
Talk16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The power to block users and delete articles is by definition a big deal, and we don't need more admins. As others have noted, Awolf isn't even offering to handle admin jobs.
202.58.85.807:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued
WP:POINT violations. --
LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)reply
When trying to archive the Current event page to its respective month the "move" operation tries to overwrite the exisiting page, which is a redirect. This is no longer allowed for non-admin users.
Awolf00204:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Agreed, if practice makes perfect I should not need to edit this page before the "move". Still, each time I mess up I will come running to an admin, again...
Awolf00212:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
We often refer to the admin tools as a "mop and bucket." I think a better analogy is a Swiss Army knife. Here we have a good, valuable and long-time editor coming to us and saying that he needs a pair of pliers and a Phillips screwdriver. We tell him that we have the tools he needs but that they are combined with other tools and that he doesn't really need an ice pick, pocket knife, tweezers or fish scaler (and consequently he may not have shown that he knows how to use those other tools, even though he has shown very good judgment in other matters). Therefore, despite the fact that we have a bottomless supply of Swiss Army knives, he should keep struggling to do his job without the two tools he needs. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me. --
DS195319:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)reply
As stated above I concur with this comment, and I find it dismaying that so many people are still opposing. The way I see it, giving him admin tools will have a positive effect on the project. Maybe only slightly positive, but who cares? Denying him admin tools means he will continue to have to ask the help of another admin to do this task which he is perfectly capable of and trustworthy to do (is anyone disputing this? I don't see it if so), time they could have spent doing those tasks that he does not have interest in doing. There is absolutely no requirement that admins engage in every task they are capable of, nor should there be. There is no quota, and so promoting him does not deny a place that could have been taken by someone who will more efficiently use the tools; I see no reason to not promote.
Mindspillage(spill yours?)20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
As indicated I plan to help with archiving Current events pages in a monthly basis. I may consider other chores, if asked or they come to my attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased with helping to bring biographies of important scientists to WP. I also learned a lot during this (ongoing) work.
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 few 'spats' here and there. I try to focus on the issues regarding the article in question and to ignore attacks or grandstanding. I also do feel fine when voted down or persuaded by a good argument.
4. As of now, your responses to the above questions are a bit brief. Please consider expanding them, if possible. Please share your view on WP:IAR, for one thing, to help us understand exactly how much you plan on doing with admin powers?
Alright, I see that I might be an "unorthodox" candidate, since I do not seek "power" or "status" with my adminship. All I like to do is keep on working and improving WP, which I did with no problem up to now without adminship. However, with the latest restrictions on "move" operations I decided to request this privilege, so I can keep on serving the community. Serving is what I thought a candidate for adminship is striving for and that is my intention.
When you check my contributions you will find that I regularly revert vandalism on the pages I watch, trying to be nice to newbies at the same time. This can be done with no special powers and so (as many others do) I have served in this work and will do this in the future, whatever the outcome of this request. My first answer was meant to show my openness to new "chores" that would require special powers, of which I might be unaware.
Regarding "rules" in WP, my philosophy is to follow them as "precedent" as long as the outcome does not interfere with the goal to improve and expand WP. I approach these precedents with the assumption that somebody thought about them and that there are good reasons for them. If they clearly interfere with obvious progress, I would first try to find consensus for changing them, and most likely not just charge ahead. Being bold is good for article text and lively prose, but not necessarily for making or breaking rules.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.