Final (64/2/0) ended 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Freakofnurture (
talk·contribs) – I have been involved in a number of discussions with Freakofnurture, and I have come to trust his contributions. I saw a comment on his user page that he would like to be an admin and found myself thinking "I thought he already was one." So, I thought I might check out his record and consider nominating him myself. A quick yet moderately thorough check of his contributions reveals no violations of guidelines or questionable edits. He is active in AfD and reverts a lot of vandalism. He also has a pretty good sense of humor, but he doesn't get carried away. For those who are interested in number of edits, Interiot's tool counts 2956 with acceptable use of edit summaries. And for those who must consider the age of the account, he has been contributing consistently since February 2005. --
TantalumTelluride01:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Nothing but good interactions with this editor. He showed very good composure when I threw him to the school lions without warning. Will make a perfect admin/mediator.
David D.(Talk)05:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong support I've seen nothing but good edits from this user while on RC patrol, and my recent discovery of his clever customizations of the ever-popular godmode-light script is enough to push my Support to Strong. --
PeruvianLlama(
spit)07:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. In addition to article editing and vandalism reversion, FREAK OF NURxTURE also does terrific work in areas that often are overlooked (such as our template setup). And what a clever username! :) —
Lifeisunfair16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I seem to dimly recall (but can find no supporting evidence of it) that this candidate and I didn't agree over something minor in passing once, possibly. VfD? IRC? Something? Anyway, it probably happened. And he was right. So he must be punished for this with admin duties. Simple as that ;) ➨
❝REDVERS❞19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
When asked recently about my signature, I stated
my reasoning and posted a link to it on your talk page, but it was never addressed. When I offered
a compromise, it was ignored. You said if I shortened my signature template, you
would run a bot to handle the substing. I have complied with this request. Seeing no reply, I began doing some substing, and you say I'm being disruptive. Yet there's been no further word at my talk page, only here. When I explained the purpose of a certain redirect, you effectively
call me a hippie? You've searched for other means to assassinate my character, as well. Let it be realized that "edit war with a vandal" is an oxymoron, as the rules regarding "edit warring" do not apply to simple vandalism. What you are refer to is "preserving the integrity of a page". Of course, the downside of having dozens of javascript-enabled non-admins patrolling RC is suddenly discovering none of one's RC teammates are real admins. I've already addressed this in questions below, which I doubt you've taken the trouble to read. Now I've responded to your comments. Please respond to mine. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK)09:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose Do not trust user to close AFD, reacts hostily when asked/told to fix his transcluded sig (which is wasting server resources for vanity purposes.)
Hipocrite -
«Talk»17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. Closing AFD discussions, first of all, though I'm sure many voters reading this expected that response, as I have extensive experience with the AFD process already. Despite what some might say, I don't think this is a bad thing to focus on, as I think the worst problem with Wikipedia can be found by clicking on
Random page. There are too many bad articles that go unchecked, but I do not think the AFD system is "broken". Furthermore, I feel I have a good sense of what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia, as most of the articles I nominate for deletion do, in fact, get deleted.
B. Looking at the backlog link, I anticipate helping to clear out quite a few requested page moves, unwanted redirects, and overpopulated categories, as these tasks don't involve a great deal of difficulty, but seem to be too boring for many to bother with.
C. Blocking vandals is another aspiration of mine. Whilst engaged in a recent one-on-one vandalism/reversion war with a vandal, I was told that it would have been better to stop for a second and post the incident for admin attention. I disagree somewhat. The RC patrolling tools available (and in wide use by admins) should make
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism more or less obselete. The primary focus should be keeping pages in an unvandalized state for the greatest possible percentage of the time. If non-admins have to revert the same vandalism ten times in a row with an edit summary that screams "block this guy!", it's a good indication that we need more admins.
D. Deleting patent nonsense on sight, protecting it from re-creation, rather than having the author of the nonsense remove the speedy deletion tag, and then copy his nonsense onto my userpage.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think my most significant contribution to Wikipedia has been helping to remove things that make it worse. Arithmetically, though, 5 - (-5) = 10, does it not?
B. I'll admit openly that I haven't created very many articles, you don't have to check. I guess it's a paradox, in that the things I know enough to write a decent article about don't meet my standards for encyclopedic inclusion. Let me know if that makes no sense. I created
John Gorka when I was a very new user. At the time, I thought for sure he would be deleted the next day, not knowing about the trip-cord bar set by
WP:MUSIC. I don't think he's even on my watchlist anymore. He's on my MP3 player, though.
C. I have done a lot of copy-editing and link-fixing on topics I found interesting.
D. As
Peruvianllama points out, my customization of the faux-rollback script (for non-admins) is also a valuable contribution. It allows the user to specify what type of edits he or she is reverting.
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. Most of my conflicts have been with vandals, which shouldn't be surprising. As for legitimate users, there was this one guy (I don't feel the need to give his name, but we'll hear from him soon in the oppose column I predict) who I've been in two heated arguments with. Both times I took the step of continuing the discussion to a more appropriate location than an AFD page, and both times I ended up leaving and finding something better to do with my time. To be honest, the second argument should not have happened, as I should have learned from the first one. As as for creative differences in editing an article, no. I've never come anywhere close to the breaching the three-revert rule, except in cases of vandalism, where it does not apply, and I do believe in the so-called "one-revert rule" for all other cases.
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.
Final (64/2/0) ended 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Freakofnurture (
talk·contribs) – I have been involved in a number of discussions with Freakofnurture, and I have come to trust his contributions. I saw a comment on his user page that he would like to be an admin and found myself thinking "I thought he already was one." So, I thought I might check out his record and consider nominating him myself. A quick yet moderately thorough check of his contributions reveals no violations of guidelines or questionable edits. He is active in AfD and reverts a lot of vandalism. He also has a pretty good sense of humor, but he doesn't get carried away. For those who are interested in number of edits, Interiot's tool counts 2956 with acceptable use of edit summaries. And for those who must consider the age of the account, he has been contributing consistently since February 2005. --
TantalumTelluride01:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Nothing but good interactions with this editor. He showed very good composure when I threw him to the school lions without warning. Will make a perfect admin/mediator.
David D.(Talk)05:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong support I've seen nothing but good edits from this user while on RC patrol, and my recent discovery of his clever customizations of the ever-popular godmode-light script is enough to push my Support to Strong. --
PeruvianLlama(
spit)07:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. In addition to article editing and vandalism reversion, FREAK OF NURxTURE also does terrific work in areas that often are overlooked (such as our template setup). And what a clever username! :) —
Lifeisunfair16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I seem to dimly recall (but can find no supporting evidence of it) that this candidate and I didn't agree over something minor in passing once, possibly. VfD? IRC? Something? Anyway, it probably happened. And he was right. So he must be punished for this with admin duties. Simple as that ;) ➨
❝REDVERS❞19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
When asked recently about my signature, I stated
my reasoning and posted a link to it on your talk page, but it was never addressed. When I offered
a compromise, it was ignored. You said if I shortened my signature template, you
would run a bot to handle the substing. I have complied with this request. Seeing no reply, I began doing some substing, and you say I'm being disruptive. Yet there's been no further word at my talk page, only here. When I explained the purpose of a certain redirect, you effectively
call me a hippie? You've searched for other means to assassinate my character, as well. Let it be realized that "edit war with a vandal" is an oxymoron, as the rules regarding "edit warring" do not apply to simple vandalism. What you are refer to is "preserving the integrity of a page". Of course, the downside of having dozens of javascript-enabled non-admins patrolling RC is suddenly discovering none of one's RC teammates are real admins. I've already addressed this in questions below, which I doubt you've taken the trouble to read. Now I've responded to your comments. Please respond to mine. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK)09:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose Do not trust user to close AFD, reacts hostily when asked/told to fix his transcluded sig (which is wasting server resources for vanity purposes.)
Hipocrite -
«Talk»17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
A. Closing AFD discussions, first of all, though I'm sure many voters reading this expected that response, as I have extensive experience with the AFD process already. Despite what some might say, I don't think this is a bad thing to focus on, as I think the worst problem with Wikipedia can be found by clicking on
Random page. There are too many bad articles that go unchecked, but I do not think the AFD system is "broken". Furthermore, I feel I have a good sense of what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia, as most of the articles I nominate for deletion do, in fact, get deleted.
B. Looking at the backlog link, I anticipate helping to clear out quite a few requested page moves, unwanted redirects, and overpopulated categories, as these tasks don't involve a great deal of difficulty, but seem to be too boring for many to bother with.
C. Blocking vandals is another aspiration of mine. Whilst engaged in a recent one-on-one vandalism/reversion war with a vandal, I was told that it would have been better to stop for a second and post the incident for admin attention. I disagree somewhat. The RC patrolling tools available (and in wide use by admins) should make
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism more or less obselete. The primary focus should be keeping pages in an unvandalized state for the greatest possible percentage of the time. If non-admins have to revert the same vandalism ten times in a row with an edit summary that screams "block this guy!", it's a good indication that we need more admins.
D. Deleting patent nonsense on sight, protecting it from re-creation, rather than having the author of the nonsense remove the speedy deletion tag, and then copy his nonsense onto my userpage.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think my most significant contribution to Wikipedia has been helping to remove things that make it worse. Arithmetically, though, 5 - (-5) = 10, does it not?
B. I'll admit openly that I haven't created very many articles, you don't have to check. I guess it's a paradox, in that the things I know enough to write a decent article about don't meet my standards for encyclopedic inclusion. Let me know if that makes no sense. I created
John Gorka when I was a very new user. At the time, I thought for sure he would be deleted the next day, not knowing about the trip-cord bar set by
WP:MUSIC. I don't think he's even on my watchlist anymore. He's on my MP3 player, though.
C. I have done a lot of copy-editing and link-fixing on topics I found interesting.
D. As
Peruvianllama points out, my customization of the faux-rollback script (for non-admins) is also a valuable contribution. It allows the user to specify what type of edits he or she is reverting.
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. Most of my conflicts have been with vandals, which shouldn't be surprising. As for legitimate users, there was this one guy (I don't feel the need to give his name, but we'll hear from him soon in the oppose column I predict) who I've been in two heated arguments with. Both times I took the step of continuing the discussion to a more appropriate location than an AFD page, and both times I ended up leaving and finding something better to do with my time. To be honest, the second argument should not have happened, as I should have learned from the first one. As as for creative differences in editing an article, no. I've never come anywhere close to the breaching the three-revert rule, except in cases of vandalism, where it does not apply, and I do believe in the so-called "one-revert rule" for all other cases.
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.