Flowerparty (
talk·contribs) – Flowerparty is my senior, being a registered, contributing Wikipedian since April 2005. Since that time, this Briton has made over 7,000 edits, including 5,000 edits where it counts, article space. This one's already quite good with a mop and bucket, as I've observed the user's clean ups, disambiguation fixes and, lately, a good use of the page move button (780 moves, and not one on wheels ;). With those few extra buttons, I think Flowerparty would exercise good judgment, as I've seen good judgment at AfD; this one's also an occasional RfA voter and thus probably knows what an administrator should be. Altogether, a good candidate, long overlooked.
CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
I guess the obligatory stuff - checking
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AfDs, and so forth. I already use the move button quite often, as my
log may indicate. Back in September I went through
Category:Albums by year and tried to fix all the titles to comply with our naming conventions, but the odd one that needs administrator help is always infuriating, and I'd like to go through the categories again, mop/flamethrower/machete in hand, and fix those. I'd also anticipate fixing cut and paste moves and helping out at
WP:RM as well. I've not really had great stamina for this recent changes patrol lark - I'm continually in awe of those people who can sit for days relentlessly rolling back vandalism and administering slaps to the backs of perpetrating hands - but I try to chip in where I can, and obviously the extra buttons would be handy.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Nothing I'm particularly proud of, I wouldn't say, in fact now that I look back it feels like I've not really done much here. The bulk of my edits have been music-related, which I suppose is a symptom of some internal malaise on my part. I've started a fair few articles for LPs by various people,
The Fall being an ongoing project, and probably the longest article I've started is
Scout Niblett, and that's not particularly long. I've also occasionally started articles for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, and those I find particularly interesting, plus it's always nice to fill in any gaps in Wikipedia's giant catheter of knowledge, if I can call it that.
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?
Well, there's probably been 2 or 3 occasions that might qualify, and these have been around deletion discussions at AfD and TfD. Those problems were resolved, I hope, through talking, and I wouldn't wish to handle a dispute in any other way. I don't like conflict and I'll generally do anything for a quiet life, so I always try to assume good faith and be civil, and all the other Scoutly virtues.
Questions from
NSLE:
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 ;)).
You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
You've been pitching that question a lot. Not the sign of a guilty conscience, I hope! Well, to be honest I find it pretty unlikey that I'd be the first to notice if a well-known editor was operating a flock of abusive sockpuppets. And I know from past experience that when something looks bad it's very often because I've misinterpreted the situation, so the first thing I'd do would be to ask this editor about it on their talk page. I think I'd only seek the input of another admin if they failed to provide an explanation.
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?
I'm not sure I understand this question - if an article has merely been tagged for speedy deletion then where is this discussion? Either way, I wouldn't generally have a problem deleting something, or leaving it deleted, if there was community consensus to do so. If I felt particularly strongly about it I'd consult the deleting admin before undermining any of their adminny actions.
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?
Well, the second one if I felt there actually was a conflict of interest. Otherwise I'd probably leave them another note on their talk and give them a chance to calm down, rather than just applying a kneejerk block.
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Flowerparty (
talk·contribs) – Flowerparty is my senior, being a registered, contributing Wikipedian since April 2005. Since that time, this Briton has made over 7,000 edits, including 5,000 edits where it counts, article space. This one's already quite good with a mop and bucket, as I've observed the user's clean ups, disambiguation fixes and, lately, a good use of the page move button (780 moves, and not one on wheels ;). With those few extra buttons, I think Flowerparty would exercise good judgment, as I've seen good judgment at AfD; this one's also an occasional RfA voter and thus probably knows what an administrator should be. Altogether, a good candidate, long overlooked.
CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
I guess the obligatory stuff - checking
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AfDs, and so forth. I already use the move button quite often, as my
log may indicate. Back in September I went through
Category:Albums by year and tried to fix all the titles to comply with our naming conventions, but the odd one that needs administrator help is always infuriating, and I'd like to go through the categories again, mop/flamethrower/machete in hand, and fix those. I'd also anticipate fixing cut and paste moves and helping out at
WP:RM as well. I've not really had great stamina for this recent changes patrol lark - I'm continually in awe of those people who can sit for days relentlessly rolling back vandalism and administering slaps to the backs of perpetrating hands - but I try to chip in where I can, and obviously the extra buttons would be handy.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Nothing I'm particularly proud of, I wouldn't say, in fact now that I look back it feels like I've not really done much here. The bulk of my edits have been music-related, which I suppose is a symptom of some internal malaise on my part. I've started a fair few articles for LPs by various people,
The Fall being an ongoing project, and probably the longest article I've started is
Scout Niblett, and that's not particularly long. I've also occasionally started articles for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, and those I find particularly interesting, plus it's always nice to fill in any gaps in Wikipedia's giant catheter of knowledge, if I can call it that.
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?
Well, there's probably been 2 or 3 occasions that might qualify, and these have been around deletion discussions at AfD and TfD. Those problems were resolved, I hope, through talking, and I wouldn't wish to handle a dispute in any other way. I don't like conflict and I'll generally do anything for a quiet life, so I always try to assume good faith and be civil, and all the other Scoutly virtues.
Questions from
NSLE:
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 ;)).
You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
You've been pitching that question a lot. Not the sign of a guilty conscience, I hope! Well, to be honest I find it pretty unlikey that I'd be the first to notice if a well-known editor was operating a flock of abusive sockpuppets. And I know from past experience that when something looks bad it's very often because I've misinterpreted the situation, so the first thing I'd do would be to ask this editor about it on their talk page. I think I'd only seek the input of another admin if they failed to provide an explanation.
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?
I'm not sure I understand this question - if an article has merely been tagged for speedy deletion then where is this discussion? Either way, I wouldn't generally have a problem deleting something, or leaving it deleted, if there was community consensus to do so. If I felt particularly strongly about it I'd consult the deleting admin before undermining any of their adminny actions.
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?
Well, the second one if I felt there actually was a conflict of interest. Otherwise I'd probably leave them another note on their talk and give them a chance to calm down, rather than just applying a kneejerk block.
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.