- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Staxringold
Final (3/8/3) ended 23:00 4 December at 23:00 (UTC)
Staxringold ( talk · contribs) - Self-nomination here guys. I've been around for a while, though I started editing more seriously around the beginning of this year and I finally got around to creating a username in August. I've built up some articles I'm very proud of (like Hopkins School), expanded a few lesser known topics I knew things on ( Cheers characters, eg), and I believe I've generally kept a calm face throughout my editing history. So, if you'll have me, I'd love to become a new admin and help out more seriously around Wikipedia!
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept (self-nom) Staxringold 22:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support You have been active in many different parts of Wikipedia, and seem to have a good understanding of its policies. I was looking at some of the comments you left on user pages, and they seem level-headed enough.
However, I think that your nomination would be stronger if you had a specific conflict to talk about; it would've given me a more specific idea of how you act diplomatically.Also, I hope that not being an admin hasn't kept you from "help[ing] out more seriously" around here! -- mdd4696 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Changing my vote to Oppose until your candidate questions are fixed. -- mdd4696 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Responses have been fixed. -- mdd4696 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- Holy Hannah! Surely that's just a copy-n-paste error. I'm sure I'm not that influential :) Cnwb 02:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have to stress, though, that the points raised by
User:Cleared as filed below are valid and important to me, too.
ナイトスタリオン
✉
07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) - Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose for now. I could be convinced otherwise by stories from others of working out problems with a reasonable and calm attitude, but my own limited experience with this editor has been fairly testy (for example, he reverted a change I made to the content of an article with "rvv" in the edit summary, despite the fact that I had left the rationale behind what I was doing in my edit summary [1]). That, actually, was one of the few edit summaries he left on an article I was looking at — most of them appear to have no edit summary at all, something particularly important when you're making changes that other people might disagree with. So my personal experience, combined with the comments of Scm83x below, the limited answers to the questions, and relatively short Wikipedia history compel me to oppose. — Cleared as filed. 13:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, I have no doubts that Stax is a well-intentioned user, but the points raised by Cleared as filed and Scm83x show me that Stax is a little too new or unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies to be a good admin right now. A quick glance of contributions also shows an underuse of edit summaries. I'm sure you'll make a great administrator if you take the comments and concerns raised in this RFA. -- D e ath phoenix 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Per Cleared as filed. Someone who can't tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute should not have a rollback button. — Cryptic (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cleared as filed. Quentin Pierc e 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Exactly the same thing as Cleared as filed happened to me with this editor. He reverted my revert of someone who was making unexplained removals in an article by saying "rvv". Better understanding before reverting is needed. Otherwise, please keep reverting vandalism if you see it and good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Stax seems like an excellent editor, but the problem brought up by Clear as Filed is fairly recent, so I think we need to give this user some time to clear his record.
- Unsigned vote by Aucaman
- Oppose per Cleared as Filed. Questionable reversion history prevents awarding of rollback button at this time. Learn from the above criticisms, and I will be happy to support reapplication in several months. Xoloz 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, per the above. └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Stax is a good editor, and I think administration should be in his future. However, in regards to question three, I believe the candidate is not being entirely truthful. His lack of diplomatic word choice in a recent AfD, recent newbie biting here following an edit conflict, and use of CAPS and put-down edit summaries lead me to believe that this editor may have to choose his words more carefully as an admin. However, all this being said, his actions have never been malicious, just sometimes angrier than I would hope to see from an admin. I will vote support if Stax can show me that these sorts of issues will not occur in the future. - Scm83x 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have the same reservations as Scm83x, but Stax is overall a good contributor, and I would be happy to support him next time. -- Merovingian 14:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral I see one (or maybe two) cases of bad judgement, but not a pattern. Please start using using edit summaries more. -- Rogerd 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Please use an edit summary when you contribute. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about
administrators and the
administrators' reading list.
- A. With my participation in the Counter Vandalism Unit, the more powerful vandal fighting (and potentially blocking) powers of adminship is particularly nice. I'm also a big fan of helping out Lonely Pages, which I'd be happy to focus more heavily on.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. As I said, I'm particularly proud of Hopkins School (I'll be meeting with the school's archivist in a couple weeks to signifigantly beef up the history section). I'm also proud of the Stargate technology template.
- 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. The only really big conflict I was involved with was over adding a section on a rumored connection between Firefly (television) and Outlaw Star, but I fixed that by just putting the content on my user page.
- 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Staxringold
Final (3/8/3) ended 23:00 4 December at 23:00 (UTC)
Staxringold ( talk · contribs) - Self-nomination here guys. I've been around for a while, though I started editing more seriously around the beginning of this year and I finally got around to creating a username in August. I've built up some articles I'm very proud of (like Hopkins School), expanded a few lesser known topics I knew things on ( Cheers characters, eg), and I believe I've generally kept a calm face throughout my editing history. So, if you'll have me, I'd love to become a new admin and help out more seriously around Wikipedia!
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept (self-nom) Staxringold 22:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support You have been active in many different parts of Wikipedia, and seem to have a good understanding of its policies. I was looking at some of the comments you left on user pages, and they seem level-headed enough.
However, I think that your nomination would be stronger if you had a specific conflict to talk about; it would've given me a more specific idea of how you act diplomatically.Also, I hope that not being an admin hasn't kept you from "help[ing] out more seriously" around here! -- mdd4696 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Changing my vote to Oppose until your candidate questions are fixed. -- mdd4696 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Responses have been fixed. -- mdd4696 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- Holy Hannah! Surely that's just a copy-n-paste error. I'm sure I'm not that influential :) Cnwb 02:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have to stress, though, that the points raised by
User:Cleared as filed below are valid and important to me, too.
ナイトスタリオン
✉
07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose for now. I could be convinced otherwise by stories from others of working out problems with a reasonable and calm attitude, but my own limited experience with this editor has been fairly testy (for example, he reverted a change I made to the content of an article with "rvv" in the edit summary, despite the fact that I had left the rationale behind what I was doing in my edit summary [1]). That, actually, was one of the few edit summaries he left on an article I was looking at — most of them appear to have no edit summary at all, something particularly important when you're making changes that other people might disagree with. So my personal experience, combined with the comments of Scm83x below, the limited answers to the questions, and relatively short Wikipedia history compel me to oppose. — Cleared as filed. 13:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, I have no doubts that Stax is a well-intentioned user, but the points raised by Cleared as filed and Scm83x show me that Stax is a little too new or unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies to be a good admin right now. A quick glance of contributions also shows an underuse of edit summaries. I'm sure you'll make a great administrator if you take the comments and concerns raised in this RFA. -- D e ath phoenix 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Per Cleared as filed. Someone who can't tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute should not have a rollback button. — Cryptic (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cleared as filed. Quentin Pierc e 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Exactly the same thing as Cleared as filed happened to me with this editor. He reverted my revert of someone who was making unexplained removals in an article by saying "rvv". Better understanding before reverting is needed. Otherwise, please keep reverting vandalism if you see it and good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Stax seems like an excellent editor, but the problem brought up by Clear as Filed is fairly recent, so I think we need to give this user some time to clear his record.
- Unsigned vote by Aucaman
- Oppose per Cleared as Filed. Questionable reversion history prevents awarding of rollback button at this time. Learn from the above criticisms, and I will be happy to support reapplication in several months. Xoloz 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, per the above. └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Stax is a good editor, and I think administration should be in his future. However, in regards to question three, I believe the candidate is not being entirely truthful. His lack of diplomatic word choice in a recent AfD, recent newbie biting here following an edit conflict, and use of CAPS and put-down edit summaries lead me to believe that this editor may have to choose his words more carefully as an admin. However, all this being said, his actions have never been malicious, just sometimes angrier than I would hope to see from an admin. I will vote support if Stax can show me that these sorts of issues will not occur in the future. - Scm83x 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have the same reservations as Scm83x, but Stax is overall a good contributor, and I would be happy to support him next time. -- Merovingian 14:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral I see one (or maybe two) cases of bad judgement, but not a pattern. Please start using using edit summaries more. -- Rogerd 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Please use an edit summary when you contribute. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about
administrators and the
administrators' reading list.
- A. With my participation in the Counter Vandalism Unit, the more powerful vandal fighting (and potentially blocking) powers of adminship is particularly nice. I'm also a big fan of helping out Lonely Pages, which I'd be happy to focus more heavily on.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. As I said, I'm particularly proud of Hopkins School (I'll be meeting with the school's archivist in a couple weeks to signifigantly beef up the history section). I'm also proud of the Stargate technology template.
- 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. The only really big conflict I was involved with was over adding a section on a rumored connection between Firefly (television) and Outlaw Star, but I fixed that by just putting the content on my user page.
- 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.