I'm not going to go into it.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall any conflicts with you whatsoever, so I'll assume it's on the basis of the general criteria you outline in
User:Blankfaze/admin. Fair enough. --
Curps 20:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A Vandalism reversion would be a little bit less work with fewer clicks (especially when the site is very slow as it has been lately and every click sometimes takes a long time). Also perhaps occasional blocking. I haven't had much interest in admin stuff (other than routine vandalism reversion which I've been doing anyway), but recently had the unpleasant experience of waiting half an hour for a persistent defacement anon IP vandal to be blocked even after posting to
Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. So it would be nice to do such things myself occasionally without having to seek out an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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 will deal with it in the future?
A Along with several other users, I was involved in a conflict with
User:Plautus satire in early
2004; Plautus was eventually blocked for 12 months. Last July, I was involved in one of the
lamest edit wars ever over a single phrase in
Miss Kitty Fantastico; see
Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles/Principle of least astonishment for my reasoning. More recently, I was involved in a 3RR conflict with
User:Bobchalk, first getting involved in the edit war only after Bobchalk had already singlehandedly reverted 10 times against consensus and four other users reverting back, but eventually breaking the 3RR rule myself; this was eventually resolved amicably — all of us eventually changed our minds about the change Bobchalk had wanted to make (splitting the article). I was also recently involved (along with a fairly unanimous consensus) in a disagreement with
User:Kenkam, see
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asian tsunami : The earthquake.
It's the nature of Wikipedia that disagreements are infrequent though occasionally inevitable but they can usually be resolved and I never get stressed out or emotional. I do not try to force through any changes against consensus, and in most cases have been in agreement with the consensus opinion.
I'm not going to go into it.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall any conflicts with you whatsoever, so I'll assume it's on the basis of the general criteria you outline in
User:Blankfaze/admin. Fair enough. --
Curps 20:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A Vandalism reversion would be a little bit less work with fewer clicks (especially when the site is very slow as it has been lately and every click sometimes takes a long time). Also perhaps occasional blocking. I haven't had much interest in admin stuff (other than routine vandalism reversion which I've been doing anyway), but recently had the unpleasant experience of waiting half an hour for a persistent defacement anon IP vandal to be blocked even after posting to
Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. So it would be nice to do such things myself occasionally without having to seek out an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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 will deal with it in the future?
A Along with several other users, I was involved in a conflict with
User:Plautus satire in early
2004; Plautus was eventually blocked for 12 months. Last July, I was involved in one of the
lamest edit wars ever over a single phrase in
Miss Kitty Fantastico; see
Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles/Principle of least astonishment for my reasoning. More recently, I was involved in a 3RR conflict with
User:Bobchalk, first getting involved in the edit war only after Bobchalk had already singlehandedly reverted 10 times against consensus and four other users reverting back, but eventually breaking the 3RR rule myself; this was eventually resolved amicably — all of us eventually changed our minds about the change Bobchalk had wanted to make (splitting the article). I was also recently involved (along with a fairly unanimous consensus) in a disagreement with
User:Kenkam, see
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asian tsunami : The earthquake.
It's the nature of Wikipedia that disagreements are infrequent though occasionally inevitable but they can usually be resolved and I never get stressed out or emotional. I do not try to force through any changes against consensus, and in most cases have been in agreement with the consensus opinion.