final (49/5/1) ending 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Fred chessplayer (
talk·contribs) – Hello. I have been on Wikipedia since February 2005. First I expanded
Emanuel Swedenborg, then the
Archbishop of Uppsala, then worked on Swedish geography, and I'd say I've been involved in 90% of Swedish geography articles (at least 500). Now I'd suggest granting me administrative privileges to make my maintenance chores easier. If adminship is truly no big deal as Jimbo suggests, then my answers below should show that I'm a trusted user and that the community would benefit from having me as an admin.
Fred-
Chess 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Self-nomination
Support
Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
Swatjester 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - balanced editcount shows at least some knowledge of Wikipedia policy, especially in areas of image rights. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- seems like a nice person.
Thumbelina 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - No big deal ;)
Dr Debug (
Talk) 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support could have more project namespace edits, but I like admins who actually contribute to articles. -
Greg Asche(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good to have someone who knows a specific subject well
Dannycas 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, with a bit of concern regarding
my own RFA. It seems the problems that most of the "oppose" people have here is a lack of project namespace edits. Huh? He has nearly 500 edits there. I suppose this community has become much more stringent since October; I only had 150 or so =\. --
tomf688{
talk} 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no evidence that he will abuse admin tools.--
MONGO 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a hard-working wikipedian who's clearly requesting admin tools for use, not show, and is highly unlikely to abuse them. (And a self-nom, good!)
Bishonen |
talk 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).reply
Support. Needs the tools, as Bish points out. As for not having enough experience of project space, that is not exactly true, but most of his project space edits are on the
Swedish Wikipedia, where he has been involved in many policy discussions.
u p p l a n d 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, user seem sompetent, unlikely to abuse tools, and experience can be gained. If a user only has interest in editing articles, the tools are still useful, and adminship should not be seen as a process based role. Good editors are good editors, regardless of where their edits lie. Adminship is no big deal.
Hidingtalk 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Of course I support chess players! (But mostly becuase Fred is a good and responsible contributor.)
Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Stöder förstås, den här är en fin advändare.
JIP |
Talk 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, browsing through his contributions, I see nothing but good things from him. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't normally vote on users I haven't had any experience with, but I'll make an exception here, because I like the answers to the questions.
Hermione1980 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support an easy vote -
lethetalk+ 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support upon reviewing the candidate's contributions. Hopefully he won't abuse the tools to push a Swedish POV the way Wiglaf did. --
Ghirla |
talk 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: if you will revert my attempts to make constructive edits with edits summaries such as "(rv fierce POV-pushing by a wannabe admin)"
[1] then don't expect me to behave different than Wiglaf. I'd suggest you change to Oppose again. /
Fred-
Chess 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I didn't oppose you as yet, but I think I would. If you fail to see that the words "suffer from ravaging" are inherently POV, inflammatory and aimed at spawning revert wars, especially when there is no background presented and no data is given as to which side actually started the "ravages" and spawned the wars, yes, I think you are not ready for adminship. You need more experience in editing controversial subjects, as I said earlier. --
Ghirla |
talk 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Unlikley to abuse powers
Hipocrite -
«Talk» 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support seems to be a hard-working editor with a good expertise on a specific area
abakharev 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Jusjih 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. User appears competent and unlikely to abuse tools. Experience in WikiSpace is likely to grow according to the answers to questions below.
Essexmutant 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, more experience needed in project edits as per King of Hearts.
Stifle 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, more experience needed in project edits.
bbx 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as King of Hearts above: more experience needed in project edits. //
Habj 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral. Well-balanced user, except lack of project and project-talk edits, indicating lack of familiarity with the project.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 06:45, 4 February 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:
A. I have been active in the
Category talk:Images with unknown source, includinging tagging images with "unknown" and tracking image sources. However-- I will actually mainly contribute by fixing things in articles related to Sweden, such as moving issues, and deleting images I've moved to Commons; notice all the NowCommons and NCT in my image-contribution history
[2].
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've improved the standard of (almost) all Swedish municipalities and cities. Go to
Category:Municipalities of Sweden and select one, check its history and you'll see my name in 95%. This includes inserting the infobox, making the map and inserting a coat of arms (when I was able to find one). I am also proud of the archbishops, although they have a very small reader base.
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. Actually, I can say no. This last week I decided to be more daring and have been boldly diving into the conflict articles
talk:Kven and
talk:Jamtlandic, but otherwise I've exclusively edited "nice" articles and can't recall any serious conflicts. I'm a mild mannered person who dislikes conflicts, especiall unfair ones, and have sometimes been complemented e.g.:
[3]. In fact, I like to mediate and get on with conflicts. I'm not perfect, but I don't think I have any enemies on Wikipedia at all. I do like to speak out and say what I consider necessary, but after that I don't push the issue further. I intend to continue this way.
4. Would you apply "ignore all rules" to your admin powers if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed?
Ashibakatock 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
5. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
Hermione1980 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I'd discuss it with them on their talk page. /
Fred-
Chess 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 (49/5/1) ending 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Fred chessplayer (
talk·contribs) – Hello. I have been on Wikipedia since February 2005. First I expanded
Emanuel Swedenborg, then the
Archbishop of Uppsala, then worked on Swedish geography, and I'd say I've been involved in 90% of Swedish geography articles (at least 500). Now I'd suggest granting me administrative privileges to make my maintenance chores easier. If adminship is truly no big deal as Jimbo suggests, then my answers below should show that I'm a trusted user and that the community would benefit from having me as an admin.
Fred-
Chess 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Self-nomination
Support
Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
Swatjester 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - balanced editcount shows at least some knowledge of Wikipedia policy, especially in areas of image rights. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- seems like a nice person.
Thumbelina 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - No big deal ;)
Dr Debug (
Talk) 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support could have more project namespace edits, but I like admins who actually contribute to articles. -
Greg Asche(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good to have someone who knows a specific subject well
Dannycas 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, with a bit of concern regarding
my own RFA. It seems the problems that most of the "oppose" people have here is a lack of project namespace edits. Huh? He has nearly 500 edits there. I suppose this community has become much more stringent since October; I only had 150 or so =\. --
tomf688{
talk} 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no evidence that he will abuse admin tools.--
MONGO 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a hard-working wikipedian who's clearly requesting admin tools for use, not show, and is highly unlikely to abuse them. (And a self-nom, good!)
Bishonen |
talk 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).reply
Support. Needs the tools, as Bish points out. As for not having enough experience of project space, that is not exactly true, but most of his project space edits are on the
Swedish Wikipedia, where he has been involved in many policy discussions.
u p p l a n d 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, user seem sompetent, unlikely to abuse tools, and experience can be gained. If a user only has interest in editing articles, the tools are still useful, and adminship should not be seen as a process based role. Good editors are good editors, regardless of where their edits lie. Adminship is no big deal.
Hidingtalk 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Of course I support chess players! (But mostly becuase Fred is a good and responsible contributor.)
Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Stöder förstås, den här är en fin advändare.
JIP |
Talk 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, browsing through his contributions, I see nothing but good things from him. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't normally vote on users I haven't had any experience with, but I'll make an exception here, because I like the answers to the questions.
Hermione1980 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support an easy vote -
lethetalk+ 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support upon reviewing the candidate's contributions. Hopefully he won't abuse the tools to push a Swedish POV the way Wiglaf did. --
Ghirla |
talk 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: if you will revert my attempts to make constructive edits with edits summaries such as "(rv fierce POV-pushing by a wannabe admin)"
[1] then don't expect me to behave different than Wiglaf. I'd suggest you change to Oppose again. /
Fred-
Chess 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I didn't oppose you as yet, but I think I would. If you fail to see that the words "suffer from ravaging" are inherently POV, inflammatory and aimed at spawning revert wars, especially when there is no background presented and no data is given as to which side actually started the "ravages" and spawned the wars, yes, I think you are not ready for adminship. You need more experience in editing controversial subjects, as I said earlier. --
Ghirla |
talk 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Unlikley to abuse powers
Hipocrite -
«Talk» 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support seems to be a hard-working editor with a good expertise on a specific area
abakharev 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Jusjih 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. User appears competent and unlikely to abuse tools. Experience in WikiSpace is likely to grow according to the answers to questions below.
Essexmutant 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, more experience needed in project edits as per King of Hearts.
Stifle 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, more experience needed in project edits.
bbx 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as King of Hearts above: more experience needed in project edits. //
Habj 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral. Well-balanced user, except lack of project and project-talk edits, indicating lack of familiarity with the project.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot 06:45, 4 February 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:
A. I have been active in the
Category talk:Images with unknown source, includinging tagging images with "unknown" and tracking image sources. However-- I will actually mainly contribute by fixing things in articles related to Sweden, such as moving issues, and deleting images I've moved to Commons; notice all the NowCommons and NCT in my image-contribution history
[2].
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've improved the standard of (almost) all Swedish municipalities and cities. Go to
Category:Municipalities of Sweden and select one, check its history and you'll see my name in 95%. This includes inserting the infobox, making the map and inserting a coat of arms (when I was able to find one). I am also proud of the archbishops, although they have a very small reader base.
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. Actually, I can say no. This last week I decided to be more daring and have been boldly diving into the conflict articles
talk:Kven and
talk:Jamtlandic, but otherwise I've exclusively edited "nice" articles and can't recall any serious conflicts. I'm a mild mannered person who dislikes conflicts, especiall unfair ones, and have sometimes been complemented e.g.:
[3]. In fact, I like to mediate and get on with conflicts. I'm not perfect, but I don't think I have any enemies on Wikipedia at all. I do like to speak out and say what I consider necessary, but after that I don't push the issue further. I intend to continue this way.
4. Would you apply "ignore all rules" to your admin powers if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed?
Ashibakatock 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
5. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
Hermione1980 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I'd discuss it with them on their talk page. /
Fred-
Chess 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.