Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EVula (talk | contribs)
39,066 edits
m updating tally
Wikidudeman (talk | contribs)
19,746 edits
Line 39: Line 39:
'''Question from [[User:Rspeer]]'''
'''Question from [[User:Rspeer]]'''
:'''9.''' You say you would work at [[WP:UAA]], so I would like to know your position on it. In what cases do you think usernames should be blocked through [[WP:UAA]]? What would you do with borderline cases? Does [[WP:U]] ever trump [[WP:AGF]], or vice versa?
:'''9.''' You say you would work at [[WP:UAA]], so I would like to know your position on it. In what cases do you think usernames should be blocked through [[WP:UAA]]? What would you do with borderline cases? Does [[WP:U]] ever trump [[WP:AGF]], or vice versa?
::'''A:''' Obviously disruptive names should be blocked. [[WP:U]] does not trump [[WP:AGF]]. One can AGF but still assert that a specific name is not appropiate. Some names are obviously inappropiate even if made in good faith and should still be prohibited. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::'''A:''' Obviously disruptive names should be blocked. [[WP:U]] does not trump [[WP:AGF]]. One can AGF but still assert that a specific name is not appropriate. Some names are obviously inappropiate even if made in good faith and should still be prohibited. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I find your answer confusing and unspecific, so I'd like to ask a few follow up questions. You said "[[WP:U]] does not trump [[WP:AGF]]", but the next sentence makes it sound like you meant the other way around -- did you? Can you answer more directly how you would deal with borderline names? In response to your last sentence, if you encounter such a name that was made in good faith but is obviously inappropriate, what in particular do you do to prohibit it? [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I find your answer confusing and unspecific, so I'd like to ask a few follow up questions. You said "[[WP:U]] does not trump [[WP:AGF]]", but the next sentence makes it sound like you meant the other way around -- did you? Can you answer more directly how you would deal with borderline names? In response to your last sentence, if you encounter such a name that was made in good faith but is obviously inappropriate, what in particular do you do to prohibit it? [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::'''A:''' What I mean is that in cases where good faith is a possibility, names can still cause disruption. I was recently E-mailed by someone with the name "Eatmahass" or something like that. He said that it was short for his actual name, something like "Eaton Mahanon Assante." While this is unlikely and this user is probably a troll, there is a possibility that some people, especially non english speaking people, will come up with names that would be considered disruptive and thus shouldn't be allowed due to the possibility of disruption it might cause. I can't think of examples of borderline names though, however in such situations I wouldn't make any decisions on my own anyway. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


====General comments====
====General comments====

Revision as of 23:40, 15 January 2008

Wikidudeman

Voice your opinion (talk page) (50/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) - I am User:Wikidudeman and I have been on this encyclopedia for over a year and a half now and have about 19,000 edits. I have not been very active in the past month and a half due to the fact that I have been busy with other matters, however I now plan to dedicate more time to the project and thought that having the mop would be helpful in my endeavors. This is my second RFA and this time I have decided to opt out of allowing others to nominate me and simply make my request to the community personally. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would continue anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created a few hundred articles and have contributed substantially to many other articles. I was the driving force in bringing Anabolic steroid and Parapsychology to FA status and Homeopathy as well as Resveratrol to GA status. I have also worked a lot on the Bodybuilding, John McCain and John F. Kennedy articles. On the Homeopathy article disputes are still ongoing and will probably continue forever, however the article is currently far better than it was 6 months ago due in a large part to my efforts, though it couldn't have been done without the help of numerous others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in several conflicts since I first started editing wikipedia and I have learned many things from these conflicts. One of the first conflicts that I was involved in was at the African American Vernacular English article about a year ago. I argued in support of criticism of AAVE and mentions of Bill Cosby's criticism of it's use. From this conflict I learned the importance of discussing before editing and also learned that edit warring is ineffective. I have also been in various other conflicts in the past from which I learned to refrain from personal attacks, the importance of consensus, that deleted articles can be restored, etc. My hope is that the community will see past conflicts as the past and take note of my most recent several months of edits and see that I have learned from past conflicts.

Question from Icestorm815

4. What have you learned since your last RFA and how have you applied it to your present day editing?
A. My last first (and previous) RFA was about 5 months ago and failed primarily due to previous conflicts that had occurred several months before that. Since my last RFA I have learned even more about the importance of discussion, to keep a cool head as well as the futility of edit warring having seen more examples of it since then from other editors and the bad results that followed. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malinaccier

5. Is your password secure?
A. 'My password is not a real word and is difficult to guess. I also have a SHA-1 commitment to my identity and someone who can verify it incase my account is ever compromised, though its unlikely that it will. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith T/C 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Three years from now, I would like to see at least several thousand new articles of GA quality or better, A good number of wikipedias articles improved to at least GA quality, all backlogs removed as well as a much better view of wikipedia in the general news media. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question from User:SQL:

7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
A: It would be very valuable in fighting vandalism and I think that granting good users to use rollback would vastly improve their vandal fighting abilities. I think also that the permission and ability to do such should be revoked if abused. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Dweller:

8. How would you decide whether or not to block a vandal reported at AIV?
A: If the vandalism is minor and the vandal has received at least 3 warnings then I temp block them for a time depending on previous blocks. If the vandalism is major and only 1 or 2 warnings were issued then I may block out right for a time depending on previous blocks or the severity of the vandalism. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Rspeer

9. You say you would work at WP:UAA, so I would like to know your position on it. In what cases do you think usernames should be blocked through WP:UAA? What would you do with borderline cases? Does WP:U ever trump WP:AGF, or vice versa?
A: Obviously disruptive names should be blocked. WP:U does not trump WP:AGF. One can AGF but still assert that a specific name is not appropriate. Some names are obviously inappropiate even if made in good faith and should still be prohibited. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your answer confusing and unspecific, so I'd like to ask a few follow up questions. You said "WP:U does not trump WP:AGF", but the next sentence makes it sound like you meant the other way around -- did you? Can you answer more directly how you would deal with borderline names? In response to your last sentence, if you encounter such a name that was made in good faith but is obviously inappropriate, what in particular do you do to prohibit it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: What I mean is that in cases where good faith is a possibility, names can still cause disruption. I was recently E-mailed by someone with the name "Eatmahass" or something like that. He said that it was short for his actual name, something like "Eaton Mahanon Assante." While this is unlikely and this user is probably a troll, there is a possibility that some people, especially non english speaking people, will come up with names that would be considered disruptive and thus shouldn't be allowed due to the possibility of disruption it might cause. I can't think of examples of borderline names though, however in such situations I wouldn't make any decisions on my own anyway. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. support —DerHexer (Talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - good editor willing to get involved in messy content. We desperately need both. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems like a reasonable editor. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Great track and as per DerHexer and Sumoeagle179.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per the contributions and candidate's statement. Pundit|utter 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: For sure! - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: Yes, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — BillC talk 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Good editor, won't make stupid decisions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seen this user around many times and couldn't find a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. Wikidudeman has the battle scars to prove that he can handle tough situations. We need more admins with his patience to work in difficult areas of the wiki. --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2008(UTC)
  16. Support. Why not? Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Thought he already was an admin support. Excellent editor, will make an excellent asset. Trusilver (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support, he should have been one a long, long time ago. Marlith T/C 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I thought you were an admin already... :) Midorihana~いいですね？ 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dude Same as last time. Jmlk17 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Excellant conttributer with Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy. SpencerT♦C 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Thought-you-were Support :) GlassCobra 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Great user I've had experience with. (Do a barrel Roll!) Dfrg_msc 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Should've been an admin a long time ago. Useight (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Yes, I like what I have seen over the months. Mop-capable editor. docboat (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strongest Possible Support Per previous interaction and an ill-considered oppose then neutral on my part at your last RfA. Pedro :  Chat  08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I think he's made a lot of improvements since the last RfA, and I told him I would support him if he did. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Oxymoron83 09:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support no worries for me, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Insert-cliche-here Support - {{thought he was an admin}}. Great editor, definitely a worthy candidate. --tennisman 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Most definitely yes! Harland1 (t/c) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I honestly thought this was a reconfirmation - Jauerback (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportSeen him around. Dlohcierekim 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. A WTF? Support. Huh? Rudget. 16:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. · AndonicO Hail! 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per my own experience and the roll-call of approbation above! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support okay by me. - Philippe | Talk 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Wikidude. could clearly make use of the administrator tools, but I offer my support in the hope that he gets more involved in AIV work and XfD participation and/or closure, which he doesn't do much with at the moment. Otherwise, excellent work in the mainspace :) good luck! Anthøny 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - thought you were one already. Will make excellent use of the tools. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Oh, and whilst you're at it, some more support.. CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Clearly has the experience. Spellcast (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Another "I thought you were an admin already" Support Dadude3320 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. In spite of his nasty and unjustified attempt to get me kicked off Wikipedia (attempt, not person), this user has generally changed in an extraordinary way since the early days when I knew him around the paranormal articles. He has become a much more neutral editor, and he has stopped being a discordant influence. He has apparently been doing good work at Homeopathy (where in his early days he would have been a disruptor and sower of contention). I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools, and some reason to believe his is now a good editor. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolutely LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Already thought you were a mod support --Sharkface217 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikidudeman_2&oldid=184601406"