Final (17/9/13) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-14 (UTC)
Tarret ( talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I nominated myself because I believe that I can continue to improve the Wikipedia in various ways. Tarret 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
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:
Questions from
Tawker stolen borrowed from
JoshuaZ and
Rob Church and
NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)
1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
7. 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?
8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
All user's edits. Voice-of-All 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Viewing contribution data for user Tarret (over the 2235 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 290 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 08, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 93.51% Minor edits: 99.05% Average edits per day: 4.7 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 412 edits): Major article edits: 98.7% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 2235 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 2.06% (46) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.15% (48) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.06% (560) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 23 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 60.79% Special edit type statistics: All edits to deletion pages: 0.22% (5 edit(s)) Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.04% (1 edit(s)) Article deletion tagging: 0.04% (1 edit(s)) Page protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) Page moves: 0.36% (8 edit(s)) (2 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.72% (16 edit(s)) User talk warnings: 2.91% (65 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1369 | Average edits per page: 1.63 | Edits on top: 9.44% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 21.12% (472 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.69% (753 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.36% (254 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 30.16% (674 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 63.49% (1419) | Article talk: 6.09% (136) User: 2.86% (64) | User talk: 5.95% (133) Wikipedia: 15.75% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 1.43% (32) Image: 1.48% (33) Template: 1.97% (44) Category: 0.45% (10) Portal: 0.54% (12) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)
Username Tarret Total edits 2230 Distinct pages edited 1365 Average edits/page 1.634 First edit 19:09, 22 September 2005 (main) 1418 Talk 136 User 64 User talk 130 Image 33 Template 44 Category 10 Wikipedia 351 Wikipedia talk 32 Portal 12
#Neutral You seem a good user and one who would not abuse admin tools. I wonder, though, whether your relatively low contribution rate means that you have enough time and commitment to the project to be an admin? You seem to have picked up a decent range of page edits and experience. Perhaps a promise that you would be able to devote more time as an admin would persuade me to vote support --
Robdurbar 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) change to support
reply
Final (17/9/13) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-14 (UTC)
Tarret ( talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I nominated myself because I believe that I can continue to improve the Wikipedia in various ways. Tarret 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
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:
Questions from
Tawker stolen borrowed from
JoshuaZ and
Rob Church and
NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)
1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
7. 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?
8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
All user's edits. Voice-of-All 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Viewing contribution data for user Tarret (over the 2235 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 290 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 08, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 93.51% Minor edits: 99.05% Average edits per day: 4.7 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 412 edits): Major article edits: 98.7% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 2235 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 2.06% (46) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.15% (48) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.06% (560) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 23 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 60.79% Special edit type statistics: All edits to deletion pages: 0.22% (5 edit(s)) Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.04% (1 edit(s)) Article deletion tagging: 0.04% (1 edit(s)) Page protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) Page moves: 0.36% (8 edit(s)) (2 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.72% (16 edit(s)) User talk warnings: 2.91% (65 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1369 | Average edits per page: 1.63 | Edits on top: 9.44% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 21.12% (472 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.69% (753 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.36% (254 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 30.16% (674 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 63.49% (1419) | Article talk: 6.09% (136) User: 2.86% (64) | User talk: 5.95% (133) Wikipedia: 15.75% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 1.43% (32) Image: 1.48% (33) Template: 1.97% (44) Category: 0.45% (10) Portal: 0.54% (12) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)
Username Tarret Total edits 2230 Distinct pages edited 1365 Average edits/page 1.634 First edit 19:09, 22 September 2005 (main) 1418 Talk 136 User 64 User talk 130 Image 33 Template 44 Category 10 Wikipedia 351 Wikipedia talk 32 Portal 12
#Neutral You seem a good user and one who would not abuse admin tools. I wonder, though, whether your relatively low contribution rate means that you have enough time and commitment to the project to be an admin? You seem to have picked up a decent range of page edits and experience. Perhaps a promise that you would be able to devote more time as an admin would persuade me to vote support --
Robdurbar 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) change to support
reply