Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vegaswikian: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
change username I haven't used in over a year or so
Script-assisted categorization
Line 99: Line 99:


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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.

[[Category:Successful requests for adminship]]

Revision as of 22:12, 12 October 2008

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Vegaswikian

final (35/8/3) ending 19:45 January 28, 2006 (UTC)

Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) – Vegaswikian is a Wikipedian since March 2005. I would describe him as a user dedicated to make order here. His work on the CFD and categories in global is tremendous. According to Interiot's tool he has a stunning 16654 edits, from which 1300 is in Project namespace. Maybe he's not writing featured articles or dozens of articles at all, but he's the right one to own mop and bucket here. Users like him help keep Wikipedia clean. I honestly believe he will make a very valuable admin. Darwinek 11:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for your support and what I hope will be the support of many other Wikipedians. Vegaswikian 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. as a nominator. - Darwinek 11:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support of course, great user --Jaranda wat's sup 20:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support happily, with a "cliche" to boot. Xoloz 20:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems like a fine nomination. — Moe ε 20:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Especially liked the answer to question 3. David | Talk 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --TantalumTelluride 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. LordViD 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no question. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support everything appears to be in order.--Alhutch 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. King of All the Franks 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Terence Ong 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Hard worker. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support genrally good guy Benon 06:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support lots of edits.. and they look fine...please review Administrators to become more familiar.--MONGO 10:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Yes sure. --Bhadani 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. {{test1}} thing gave me pause, but heck, I'm sure Vegaswikian can be trusted, based on what I've seen of him. As per the eventualist philosophy, mistakes can be corrected. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support will be good admin --rogerd 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Sheer piles of edits. FCYTravis 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    forgive the intrusion, but sheer piles of edits do not an admin make.--Alhutch 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. support. Conscientious editor and good guy. Grutness...wha? 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Ugur Basak 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, but agree with MONGO. -- DS1953 talk 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support lots of good work done, will be a good admin I think --TimPope 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. — FireFox • T • 18:55, 23 January 2006
  26. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Need more admins. - Haukur 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Good editor, edits indicate he can be trusted with admin tools.--Dakota ~ ε 02:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. support this user poured gobs of effort and goodwill into trying to sort out a compromise in the "schools debate". I'm not sure I agreed with his position, but I can't imagine anyone doing a better job of trying to make consensus work in that situation. Pete.Hurd 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Stayed neutral at first, since I would have expected a future admin to have at least heard of {{test1}}. That said, Vegaswikian is clearly not lacking in experience or effort, and I'm sure he could be trusted with admin status. He's made plenty of good contributions, and I have to agree with his answer to q8. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Kbdank71 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, it's not all about what tags go where - a good editor whose judgment I trust and input I value. Thanks/wangi 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Nominee has been busy doing good stuff. Nominee will have to study and practice a bit to work in new areas; seems modest enough that I trust he will do that. Herostratus 08:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Active in cleaning up articles, participating and/or leading projects, and avoids losing temper with idiots who won't listen to reason. Dbinder 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --William Allen Simpson 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 'Oppose. very very little user talk editing. how do you fight vandalism this way?Pschemp | Talk 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the vandals in the articles I follow are from anon IPs who are inserting spam. I strongly believe that they know what they are doing and pointing this out on their talk page would not do anything to stop them. Once I did see an ip causing problems. As I recall when I looked into it, I was told that the IP was already blocked. Vegaswikian 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, per Alhutch and TantalumTelluride (even though they voted Neutral). I suggest that you take a look at admin activities (such as on WP:AN and WP:ANI) and maybe participate in more maintenance and article editing tasks. --Deathphoenix 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, appreciate the enthousiasm but please gather some more experience first. Radiant_>|< 09:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Mainly due to the answer of A1 which suggests inexperience and/or lack of communication with others. So far electing not to answer a couple of the optional questions, to me (perhaps unfairly) suggests that you don't have answers and I feel both are totally relevant to functioning effectively as an admin --pgk(talk) 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose this potentially valuable editor. Not active in the project space enough. Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see only semibot edits, 95% of them marked as minor.--Ghirla | talk 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose (moved from neutral) reconsidering my support. No offense, but I'm very surprised that the candidate had not heard of {{test1}} or {{bv}} before now. I don't understand how you fight vandalism without the test templates and the bv template. Also, I looked through Vegaswikian's User talk edits and I can't find a single warning of an anonymous user for vandalism. Correct me if I am wrong, but I actually can't find a warning of any user for vandalism.--Alhutch 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Answers (or lack thereof) to questions have really concerned me, especially the one regarding templates. Why haven't questions 6 and 7 been answered? I would expect an admin to have a reply to those, without thinking about it for too long. TigerShark 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    to be fair, those are optional questions.--Alhutch 02:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I would still expect a candidate who is ready to become an admin both to be able to answer them and to do so. A cursory look through the current RfAs indicates that all of the other candidates have answered them, why not this one? Perhaps the candidate can shed some light. Cheers TigerShark 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just forgot that they were not answered. Vegaswikian 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Feel he would do more harm than good with tools, regardless that his overall contribution is very much positive. Grace Note 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I was going to support, but then I read the answers to the questions and was left feeling distincly uncertain. Never heard of {{test1}} before?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs)
  2. Neutral. I agree with Alhutch. I don't want to entrust a user with the ability to block if he isn't familiar with the process of warning vandals with the appropriate templates. However, I also sympathize with Vegaswikian because of his answer to Question #8 below. --TantalumTelluride 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, pretty much per TantalumTelluride. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral per Splash. would have supported, as seems to have plenty of experience, but not convinced by the answers to the questions. I would expect a future admin to have at least heard of {{test1}} before being promoted. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC) changed to support └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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:

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. Right now, I'm not sure. I suppose that my main work would be in continuing to deal with vandals. My watch list keep growing and is now over 250 items. I suppose I'll find out over time exactly what I can do in areas like CfD to delete cats once they are empty. I suspect that whatever this is, it will change over time. Vegaswikian 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm not going to point to any article in particular. I feel that my overall effort is what matters. I'm still learning about this wiki and every time I enter a new area, I see something that steals my focus as I jump in and do what I think is necessary to straighten things out. If I had to point to something it would be doing a merge like ICAO airline code into ICAO airline designator and creating a navigation template so the article could be split to keep each section at a reasonable size. It's not an easy task and it can take a while, especially since it can be rather boring. Vegaswikian 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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, there have been problems over time. However I did not really experience stress but rather frustration. I think I'll continue to deal with it in the same way I am now. That's back away for a while then find a different approach. One good example was trying to get the Avi article moved to Edward Irving Wortis and the dab page located at avi. The first time did not go well. My last try I did through Requested moves and, as I recall, there was no opposition. So backing off and looking for a better way can work. Also asking questions rather then taking a position can avoid stress since most editors don't have problems with another editor who needs help. The other thing is that no matter how right you are, you are not going to prevail in every case. So if you accept that, it can keep your stress levels down.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Did not know those existed. If I had to use them, I'd choose {test1}}. Seems less likely to scare away a new user. {bv}} might be right if you see an editor creating problems in multiple articles, most likely as a follow up to having used 'test1' and leaving a note on their discussion page. Vegaswikian 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A.Probably leave a note on their discussion page. The 24 hours is specific for a reason. However if they have a habit of doing this, I'd consider treating it as having been within the 24 hours. Vegaswikian 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.If it clearly does not meet the criteria for notabiliy by making no claims then it is speedy. If there is a question then it needs to go to AfD. There is always the option of using an importance template to get other editors involved or asking the editor who created the article to add to the article so that it asserts importance. Vegaswikian 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A.Any editor probably believes that they are always making edits without taking sides. So I would continue to do just that, make edits that don't take sides. However in controversial articles that may be difficult to do given that there may be stong opinions to anything other then an editors point of view. So discussing any changes that might be controversial, on the talk page could avoid problems like reverts on the article. The goal is to reach consensus. Vegaswikian 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A.How complex it is. It has grown and there are so many rules that you wonder if you can ever get anything right. Vegaswikian 22:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vegaswikian&oldid=244858334"