PS2pcGAMER (
talk·contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia heavily since mid-November, but I was a casual editor for 3-4 months before that. I realize a big part of being an admin is to do maintenance for the project. I have participated in
Wikipedia:Bad links and have closed nominations at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates both of which are very labor intensive maintenance duties. I have also tried to participate at least partially in many different aspects of Wikipedia including all of the XfD pages, editing templates, etc to make myself more well-rounded and familiar with Wikipedia. I have also participated in policy discussion some, especially at
WP Talk:FPC. Furthermore, I have fought vandalism regularly, especially as I see it on my watchlist and in #vandalism-en-wp (the IRC CVU channel). Occasionally I'll go on RC patrol, but I tend to just remove vandalism as I come across it instead of actively searching for it. I am also proud of my contributions to the articles, everything from fixing spelling to rewriting large portions of an article. Finally, I spent time greeting new users with a personalized message as I come across them on my watchlist and I have also guided new users with any questions or problems that they may have. Feel free to ask me any questions, big or small, that you may have. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support seems to be a good, well-rounded user. I thought editcountitis on RfAs died a while ago, but apparently I was wrong. for the record, I had about 1,800 edits when I became an admin. edit count means very little. good luck.--
Alhutch18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I don't remember where I saw this user, but I remember thinking to myself at the time, "here's a good future admin." So, here we are.
Xoloz18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. It seems that people need more and more edits to become an admin. First the edit limit is 1500, then 2000, now 3000~40000. Editcountitis is scary. Anyway, you deserve the mop, regardless of your editcount.--
ExirKamalabadiJoin Esperanza!02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Although I've heard of the user, I've not (to my knowledge at least) seen any of his work so my reasoning is twofold: 1) To attempt to cancel out those opposers who feel that 2,800 isn't enough edits. That sort of criterion is totally unreasonable in my opinion and 2) I trust a lot of the supporters above. Good luck! --
Celestianpowerháblame14:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Not that I am suggesting you change your vote, but I figured I should mention that contrary to my username, I don't do much editing related to video games. I created my online username about 5 years ago and just kept using it even though my time spent gaming has decreased dramatically. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support PS2pcGAMER has been more than helpful at
WP:FPC recently and his/her contributions to several policy discussions I've witnessed recently have demonstrated a clear commitment to consensus. This is not someone who will act hastily or without the consent of the community and s/he deserves a mop if he wants one! ~
Veledan •
Talk21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to lack of experience in project namespace - it makes it seem to me that you don't have much knowledge of policies.
Stifle21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
#:No reason to oppose, but still sitting on fence. Drop me a talk message if I don't decide within 2 days.
NSLE(
T+
C) at 02:54
UTC (
2006-04-01)
Neutral until questions are answered: Emacs or vi? Pepperoni pizza or sausage? How many sealed seals that seals sealed could a seal steal if a seal could steal sealed seals that seals sealed? If you become a "made man", what delicious foodstuffs would you provide your fellow admins with? --
maru (talk) contribs06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral leaning support. If the user had, lets say, another 500-1k edits and perhaps another month of experience I'd give my strong support. If this RfA, for some reason, fails - you'll have my support next time round!
Computerjoe's talk19:22, 1 April 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.
Mathbot02:00, 1 April 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 foresee myself primarily working on
speedy deletions and helping with
WP:AIV. I remember a few instances of adding a user/ip to
WP:AIV and it taking quite a bit of time for an admin to block the user and the user, so that the user was able to keep vandalizing. I also foresee handling
WP:RFPP, especially semiprotecting pages that have been heavily vandalized recently or full protecting pages that are in the middle of an edit war by users until the conflict is solved. I realize that protecting pages is a last choice, but sometimes a necessary one. I'd also like to be able to delete images that are copyright violations or have no source information.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As far as mainspace articles is concerned, I am most proud of my contributions to
Top Gear. I have slowly but consistently been working to improve this article up to standards.
Changes since I've started editing. I'm proud to say I have brought in a number of additions to the article including rewriting the intro and history sections and adding the awards and criticism sections along with bring in references (there were originally none) to make the article more balanced. This article has been a particular challenge as it has a tendency to get filled with
fancruft. I am also very proud of my contributions to
Wikipedia:Bad links (a dull, but necessary task) and discussing policy and closing nominations on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates which is a very time consuming task.
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: I'm sure everyone who has spent at least a few weeks on Wikipedia has ran into a conflict of some sort. Fortunately, I have been luckily for in that the people I have disagreed with have been very level headed for the most part. I have participated in the contentious and emotional (for some people) of the
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim name dispute on the
Talk:Anaheim Angels. I ran into an odd situation on
Talk:Ferrari Enzo Ferrari#What exactly is going on? where an IP addressed accused me of some odd things that never took place. It ended up spreading over to
my talk page. I tried to rationally discuss it with the IP, but s/he never responded so I let it go.
SFoskett gave me a barnstar for keeping my cool. I also ran into a
similar situation with another user,
Zoicite, after
warning him about editing closed AfDs. He proceeded to
attack me but I still tried to further explain to him the AfD process. In all of these situations I am proud to say that I have kept a level head and to be honest, I never became stressed out. I feel this is partly responsible due to my editing style as I bring up potentially contentious issues on talk pages before making the changes to an article and while this goes against
being bold, I have found that this is a better approach sometimes as it minimizes tensions. I plan to handle future potential stressful situations the same way.
1 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
I would use great reserve in blocking users indefinitely. However, I've seen new users blocked indefinitely for vandalizing the featured picture with genitalia and I feel that is appropriate. As per
WP:BP, I'd block any so called "public accounts" if I were to come across one. Any username that violated the username policy would be subject to being indefinitely blocked. For example, a username that was "Jimb0 Wales" would be subject to an indefinite block. Also, if a user who is indefinitely blocked, creates a new username and vandalizes more, they should be indefinitely blocked, although the users would need to be verified as the same. The most excessive repeat vandals are also subject to a blocking, but they might also be given lengthly blocks instead.
2 Are there any admin-powers that you think all users should have, and if so why?
This is an interesting question. I followed
Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges fairly closely, although I did not participate greatly in it. Although the policy didn't suggest to, but to answer your question, I'm not sure if I'd go so far to give all users the rollback button so liberally, but I wouldn't be opposed to there being an easy way for any user to get it (and lose it, if abused). I think giving all users any one of the admin powers would lead to abuse. You certainly wouldn't want to give all users the ability to delete articles as a vandal could simply create an account and wreak havoc. To sum it up, I don't think all users should be given any admin powers, but I wouldn't be opposed to a level between regular user and sysop with the powers to revert, etc.
A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
Answer I am confident with my ability to deal with stressful situations. To me (and I suppose most people who are reading this), Wikipeida is a very serious project. I wouldn't jeopardize the project because I was emotional about an issue. I feel that I am able to maintain an objective point of view. If I feel that my objectivity was somehow compromised, I would remove myself from the situation and let another admin handle it.
Why do you want to be an administrator?
Answer With sysop powers I'll have the capability to help out the project in different ways than I previously could. It seems like every day that I run into a situation where I can't fix myself because I lack sysop powers. Depending on the situation, it may allow me to cut out a step in the process. For instance, there was an issue with the PotD recently where it linked to the wrong article. I posted about it on
Talk:Main Page, but it still took over a half an hour for it to be corrected. If I were an admin, it would have taken seconds.
In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
Answer I feel that administrators primarily hold a technical position, but with a project of this scope, the political side of things seems to be playing a bigger or maybe just a more visible role. The majority of what administrators typical do is maintenance work... closing xFDs and carrying them out, maintaining the front page, (semi-)protecting pages, etc. But as we have seen recently with the bureaucrats, there is a definitely a political nature to having such a visible position and as we know, Franc's judgement was questioned after the whole RfA debacle and it led to his to resignation.
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.
PS2pcGAMER (
talk·contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia heavily since mid-November, but I was a casual editor for 3-4 months before that. I realize a big part of being an admin is to do maintenance for the project. I have participated in
Wikipedia:Bad links and have closed nominations at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates both of which are very labor intensive maintenance duties. I have also tried to participate at least partially in many different aspects of Wikipedia including all of the XfD pages, editing templates, etc to make myself more well-rounded and familiar with Wikipedia. I have also participated in policy discussion some, especially at
WP Talk:FPC. Furthermore, I have fought vandalism regularly, especially as I see it on my watchlist and in #vandalism-en-wp (the IRC CVU channel). Occasionally I'll go on RC patrol, but I tend to just remove vandalism as I come across it instead of actively searching for it. I am also proud of my contributions to the articles, everything from fixing spelling to rewriting large portions of an article. Finally, I spent time greeting new users with a personalized message as I come across them on my watchlist and I have also guided new users with any questions or problems that they may have. Feel free to ask me any questions, big or small, that you may have. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support seems to be a good, well-rounded user. I thought editcountitis on RfAs died a while ago, but apparently I was wrong. for the record, I had about 1,800 edits when I became an admin. edit count means very little. good luck.--
Alhutch18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I don't remember where I saw this user, but I remember thinking to myself at the time, "here's a good future admin." So, here we are.
Xoloz18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. It seems that people need more and more edits to become an admin. First the edit limit is 1500, then 2000, now 3000~40000. Editcountitis is scary. Anyway, you deserve the mop, regardless of your editcount.--
ExirKamalabadiJoin Esperanza!02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Although I've heard of the user, I've not (to my knowledge at least) seen any of his work so my reasoning is twofold: 1) To attempt to cancel out those opposers who feel that 2,800 isn't enough edits. That sort of criterion is totally unreasonable in my opinion and 2) I trust a lot of the supporters above. Good luck! --
Celestianpowerháblame14:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Not that I am suggesting you change your vote, but I figured I should mention that contrary to my username, I don't do much editing related to video games. I created my online username about 5 years ago and just kept using it even though my time spent gaming has decreased dramatically. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support PS2pcGAMER has been more than helpful at
WP:FPC recently and his/her contributions to several policy discussions I've witnessed recently have demonstrated a clear commitment to consensus. This is not someone who will act hastily or without the consent of the community and s/he deserves a mop if he wants one! ~
Veledan •
Talk21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to lack of experience in project namespace - it makes it seem to me that you don't have much knowledge of policies.
Stifle21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
#:No reason to oppose, but still sitting on fence. Drop me a talk message if I don't decide within 2 days.
NSLE(
T+
C) at 02:54
UTC (
2006-04-01)
Neutral until questions are answered: Emacs or vi? Pepperoni pizza or sausage? How many sealed seals that seals sealed could a seal steal if a seal could steal sealed seals that seals sealed? If you become a "made man", what delicious foodstuffs would you provide your fellow admins with? --
maru (talk) contribs06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral leaning support. If the user had, lets say, another 500-1k edits and perhaps another month of experience I'd give my strong support. If this RfA, for some reason, fails - you'll have my support next time round!
Computerjoe's talk19:22, 1 April 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.
Mathbot02:00, 1 April 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 foresee myself primarily working on
speedy deletions and helping with
WP:AIV. I remember a few instances of adding a user/ip to
WP:AIV and it taking quite a bit of time for an admin to block the user and the user, so that the user was able to keep vandalizing. I also foresee handling
WP:RFPP, especially semiprotecting pages that have been heavily vandalized recently or full protecting pages that are in the middle of an edit war by users until the conflict is solved. I realize that protecting pages is a last choice, but sometimes a necessary one. I'd also like to be able to delete images that are copyright violations or have no source information.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As far as mainspace articles is concerned, I am most proud of my contributions to
Top Gear. I have slowly but consistently been working to improve this article up to standards.
Changes since I've started editing. I'm proud to say I have brought in a number of additions to the article including rewriting the intro and history sections and adding the awards and criticism sections along with bring in references (there were originally none) to make the article more balanced. This article has been a particular challenge as it has a tendency to get filled with
fancruft. I am also very proud of my contributions to
Wikipedia:Bad links (a dull, but necessary task) and discussing policy and closing nominations on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates which is a very time consuming task.
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: I'm sure everyone who has spent at least a few weeks on Wikipedia has ran into a conflict of some sort. Fortunately, I have been luckily for in that the people I have disagreed with have been very level headed for the most part. I have participated in the contentious and emotional (for some people) of the
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim name dispute on the
Talk:Anaheim Angels. I ran into an odd situation on
Talk:Ferrari Enzo Ferrari#What exactly is going on? where an IP addressed accused me of some odd things that never took place. It ended up spreading over to
my talk page. I tried to rationally discuss it with the IP, but s/he never responded so I let it go.
SFoskett gave me a barnstar for keeping my cool. I also ran into a
similar situation with another user,
Zoicite, after
warning him about editing closed AfDs. He proceeded to
attack me but I still tried to further explain to him the AfD process. In all of these situations I am proud to say that I have kept a level head and to be honest, I never became stressed out. I feel this is partly responsible due to my editing style as I bring up potentially contentious issues on talk pages before making the changes to an article and while this goes against
being bold, I have found that this is a better approach sometimes as it minimizes tensions. I plan to handle future potential stressful situations the same way.
1 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
I would use great reserve in blocking users indefinitely. However, I've seen new users blocked indefinitely for vandalizing the featured picture with genitalia and I feel that is appropriate. As per
WP:BP, I'd block any so called "public accounts" if I were to come across one. Any username that violated the username policy would be subject to being indefinitely blocked. For example, a username that was "Jimb0 Wales" would be subject to an indefinite block. Also, if a user who is indefinitely blocked, creates a new username and vandalizes more, they should be indefinitely blocked, although the users would need to be verified as the same. The most excessive repeat vandals are also subject to a blocking, but they might also be given lengthly blocks instead.
2 Are there any admin-powers that you think all users should have, and if so why?
This is an interesting question. I followed
Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges fairly closely, although I did not participate greatly in it. Although the policy didn't suggest to, but to answer your question, I'm not sure if I'd go so far to give all users the rollback button so liberally, but I wouldn't be opposed to there being an easy way for any user to get it (and lose it, if abused). I think giving all users any one of the admin powers would lead to abuse. You certainly wouldn't want to give all users the ability to delete articles as a vandal could simply create an account and wreak havoc. To sum it up, I don't think all users should be given any admin powers, but I wouldn't be opposed to a level between regular user and sysop with the powers to revert, etc.
A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
Answer I am confident with my ability to deal with stressful situations. To me (and I suppose most people who are reading this), Wikipeida is a very serious project. I wouldn't jeopardize the project because I was emotional about an issue. I feel that I am able to maintain an objective point of view. If I feel that my objectivity was somehow compromised, I would remove myself from the situation and let another admin handle it.
Why do you want to be an administrator?
Answer With sysop powers I'll have the capability to help out the project in different ways than I previously could. It seems like every day that I run into a situation where I can't fix myself because I lack sysop powers. Depending on the situation, it may allow me to cut out a step in the process. For instance, there was an issue with the PotD recently where it linked to the wrong article. I posted about it on
Talk:Main Page, but it still took over a half an hour for it to be corrected. If I were an admin, it would have taken seconds.
In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
Answer I feel that administrators primarily hold a technical position, but with a project of this scope, the political side of things seems to be playing a bigger or maybe just a more visible role. The majority of what administrators typical do is maintenance work... closing xFDs and carrying them out, maintaining the front page, (semi-)protecting pages, etc. But as we have seen recently with the bureaucrats, there is a definitely a political nature to having such a visible position and as we know, Franc's judgement was questioned after the whole RfA debacle and it led to his to resignation.
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.