Mdd4696 (
talk·contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. As I continue to broaden my involvement on Wikipedia, it seems that I am finding more and more areas where I cannot participate because I lack the tools to do so (specifically, the ever-backlogged
Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and
Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons). I consider experience with several different areas of the project, good communication skills and a positive attitude to be vital qualities in administrators, so I've tried to exemplify them in my work. I hope that this nomination leads to new duties to fulfill, but I welcome the constructive criticism all the same. ~
MDD469600:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Strong Support per a review of this user's edits. Good all around contributer. One slight criticism is your high user space edit count; however, I don't have much room to criticize in that regard as I made a lot of edits early on. I see no reason to oppose, excellent!
¡Dustimagic!(
T/
C)01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support You're looking fine to me. And I learned something new when I checked out your talk page. (I really need to look into 3D photography now...) --
Mmounties (
Talk) 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, response to user and user talk pages are almost same. Approximately 10% of the edits with your own userspace does not suit to me. I won't support at this stage.
Shyam(
T/
C)07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) very nice work on monobook. See support subpart for my vote.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.
Mathbot00:45, 31 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:
A: Initially I believe I would work on some of the images in
CAT:NC and
CAT:NCT (as mentioned above), since I have been active in the
untagged images project and those categories are quite backlogged. I'm always looking for new things to do though, so I'll will be keeping an eye on other areas that need work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm happiest with my work when I see a positive impact, so I'm generally pleased with my entire edit history. I enjoy monitoring the
technical section of the Village Pump, working on
scripts, and discussion or debate with others, for some more specific examples. I'd like to add a few new features to my
Image Autotagger tool before I say I'm happy with it, but I believe it's been helpful to some users. I'm also proud of
afewarticles that I've worked on, despite their smallish size, because I see them as strong bases for future contributions.
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:Yes, I have had the edit conflict screen come up on multiple occasions... oh wait. (
Rats...) Conflicts over editing? I have had a differing opinion on several issues, but there hasn't been anything serious that wasn't resolved through discussion. I admit that I may be a bit of a
tiger, but I try very hard to keep my point of view in check.
William Pietri's advice works well for me: "Give it a few days to see how people react ... a couple of days later, see how you like your work." Should something come up that I strongly disagree with I would take the customary step back and assess the situation; if need be I would then request an outside opinion or otherwise pursue the appropriate channels.
1. Could you please expand on your answer to question 3 above, if possible with specific difs.
A: When I disagree with something I usually end up writing in an argumentative tone, which I think can be interpreted negatively at times. However, I also try to stick to the facts, and to make concessions where I think it's reasonable. Revisiting issues at a later point in time also gives me a different perspective on them and allows me to better distinguish between my own point of view and a neutral point of view. In this manner, I have been able to discuss and resolve issues to my satisfaction, even if the resolution was not entirely in my favor.
Although out of context, I think some of the following edits demonstrate the above:
Wikipedia:Root page - I disagreed with this project's aims; the project's main supporter has now modified its goals.
Wikipedia:Wikihalo - I still don't really understand the point of this project, but I voiced my opinion and voted on its MfD (closed as no consensus), so I've conceded that it's not really doing any harm.
Naruto popularity - I was put off by this anonymous user's comments at first, but by revisiting them a while after they were posted, I could see that he has some valid points that need to be addressed.
2. Under what circumstances would you issue an indefinite block to a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
A: It is difficult to answer this question without simply reiterating Wikipedia's
blocking policy. I imagine that most of my indefinite blocks would apply to accounts with inappropriate usernames. Other than that, a user would have to commit a very serious infraction (I'm thinking personal attack that places users in danger) for me to consider blocking them indefinately, on the spot. It seems to me that lengthy but finite blocks are more suitable for other non-trivial infractions, because I want to give people a chance at eventual reform.
A: I haven't used
Duesentrieb's image tool much yet, but I would guess that it's not detecting the categories being included through the license templates. All of the images I've uploaded are in at least one category, and all but
Image:Piratey.svg are used in at least one article. Now that you mention it, I should probably mark that image for deletion, since other users beat me to an SVG version of the
Pirate FPC.
2. Under what circumstances does a "Users who exhaust the community's patience" be used?
A: When I read about this catch-all in the
blocking policy I brushed it off as something that I would know when I see it. This is a very subjective area, and would most certainly require feedback from others prior to any blocks. I haven't yet encountered a user who has crossed the line in this regard, but I think it's conceiveable that someone who regularly disregards the manual of style (in such a way that it makes articles more difficult to read) could be blocked for a short period of time under this "patience provision".
3. How do you investigate an A7 claim?
A: This seems like a rather simplistic question... I hope I'm not forgetting something! Either an article has a claim to notability (that satisfies our guidelines for inclusion), or it does not. If it does, then that claim is contested and the claimant should be referred to AfD. Otherwise, the article could reasonably be deleted. However, I favor the use of the {{importance}} tag at first, with the hope that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject can improve the article.
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.
Mdd4696 (
talk·contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. As I continue to broaden my involvement on Wikipedia, it seems that I am finding more and more areas where I cannot participate because I lack the tools to do so (specifically, the ever-backlogged
Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and
Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons). I consider experience with several different areas of the project, good communication skills and a positive attitude to be vital qualities in administrators, so I've tried to exemplify them in my work. I hope that this nomination leads to new duties to fulfill, but I welcome the constructive criticism all the same. ~
MDD469600:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Strong Support per a review of this user's edits. Good all around contributer. One slight criticism is your high user space edit count; however, I don't have much room to criticize in that regard as I made a lot of edits early on. I see no reason to oppose, excellent!
¡Dustimagic!(
T/
C)01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support You're looking fine to me. And I learned something new when I checked out your talk page. (I really need to look into 3D photography now...) --
Mmounties (
Talk) 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, response to user and user talk pages are almost same. Approximately 10% of the edits with your own userspace does not suit to me. I won't support at this stage.
Shyam(
T/
C)07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) very nice work on monobook. See support subpart for my vote.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.
Mathbot00:45, 31 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:
A: Initially I believe I would work on some of the images in
CAT:NC and
CAT:NCT (as mentioned above), since I have been active in the
untagged images project and those categories are quite backlogged. I'm always looking for new things to do though, so I'll will be keeping an eye on other areas that need work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm happiest with my work when I see a positive impact, so I'm generally pleased with my entire edit history. I enjoy monitoring the
technical section of the Village Pump, working on
scripts, and discussion or debate with others, for some more specific examples. I'd like to add a few new features to my
Image Autotagger tool before I say I'm happy with it, but I believe it's been helpful to some users. I'm also proud of
afewarticles that I've worked on, despite their smallish size, because I see them as strong bases for future contributions.
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:Yes, I have had the edit conflict screen come up on multiple occasions... oh wait. (
Rats...) Conflicts over editing? I have had a differing opinion on several issues, but there hasn't been anything serious that wasn't resolved through discussion. I admit that I may be a bit of a
tiger, but I try very hard to keep my point of view in check.
William Pietri's advice works well for me: "Give it a few days to see how people react ... a couple of days later, see how you like your work." Should something come up that I strongly disagree with I would take the customary step back and assess the situation; if need be I would then request an outside opinion or otherwise pursue the appropriate channels.
1. Could you please expand on your answer to question 3 above, if possible with specific difs.
A: When I disagree with something I usually end up writing in an argumentative tone, which I think can be interpreted negatively at times. However, I also try to stick to the facts, and to make concessions where I think it's reasonable. Revisiting issues at a later point in time also gives me a different perspective on them and allows me to better distinguish between my own point of view and a neutral point of view. In this manner, I have been able to discuss and resolve issues to my satisfaction, even if the resolution was not entirely in my favor.
Although out of context, I think some of the following edits demonstrate the above:
Wikipedia:Root page - I disagreed with this project's aims; the project's main supporter has now modified its goals.
Wikipedia:Wikihalo - I still don't really understand the point of this project, but I voiced my opinion and voted on its MfD (closed as no consensus), so I've conceded that it's not really doing any harm.
Naruto popularity - I was put off by this anonymous user's comments at first, but by revisiting them a while after they were posted, I could see that he has some valid points that need to be addressed.
2. Under what circumstances would you issue an indefinite block to a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
A: It is difficult to answer this question without simply reiterating Wikipedia's
blocking policy. I imagine that most of my indefinite blocks would apply to accounts with inappropriate usernames. Other than that, a user would have to commit a very serious infraction (I'm thinking personal attack that places users in danger) for me to consider blocking them indefinately, on the spot. It seems to me that lengthy but finite blocks are more suitable for other non-trivial infractions, because I want to give people a chance at eventual reform.
A: I haven't used
Duesentrieb's image tool much yet, but I would guess that it's not detecting the categories being included through the license templates. All of the images I've uploaded are in at least one category, and all but
Image:Piratey.svg are used in at least one article. Now that you mention it, I should probably mark that image for deletion, since other users beat me to an SVG version of the
Pirate FPC.
2. Under what circumstances does a "Users who exhaust the community's patience" be used?
A: When I read about this catch-all in the
blocking policy I brushed it off as something that I would know when I see it. This is a very subjective area, and would most certainly require feedback from others prior to any blocks. I haven't yet encountered a user who has crossed the line in this regard, but I think it's conceiveable that someone who regularly disregards the manual of style (in such a way that it makes articles more difficult to read) could be blocked for a short period of time under this "patience provision".
3. How do you investigate an A7 claim?
A: This seems like a rather simplistic question... I hope I'm not forgetting something! Either an article has a claim to notability (that satisfies our guidelines for inclusion), or it does not. If it does, then that claim is contested and the claimant should be referred to AfD. Otherwise, the article could reasonably be deleted. However, I favor the use of the {{importance}} tag at first, with the hope that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject can improve the article.
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.