Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd

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

[edit] Rogerd

Final (8/7/4) ending 03:55 September 30, 2005 (UTC)

Rogerd (talk • contribs • count) – Self nomination - Wikipedian since March 6, 2005. I have contributed to articles about baseball, American History, and aircraft. I have done a lot of reversion of vandalism and often go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. I have over 2,600 edits and keep 1,100 articles on my watchlist.Rogerd 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have been participating in Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project--Rogerd 22:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self nomination--Rogerd 06:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Good edit count.--Jusjih 07:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - as per my standards. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, unless there is some basis for opposition that I am not finding. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - Plenty of edits, answered the questions.--Alhutch 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, FireFox  ^{T C E} _{17:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)}
6. Support - I'm going to assume good faith based on the response below to Dragons flight that the num is familiar w/ policy and will further his efforts there (note: I am in no way saying that good faith is not being assumed elsewhere -- I'm just impressed by the response to a valid concern) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Good editor, member of the Elements of Style improvement project. ;) --Neutrality^talk 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose till user specifies an email id. User:Nichalp/sg 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for enabling it. User:Nichalp/sg 06:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I think that an admin-to-be should have good experience of admin-related areas before being given the tools to effect decisions in those areas. The edit count really is just too low on all the interaction areas, from User talk: to Wikipedia: to be able to judge how the candidate responds in a crisis or when under attack (as he most surely will be as an admin!). If you don't currently feel "comfortable" with the tasks you'd be able to carry out, I think it'd be better to wait until you are comfortable and then ask for the tools. I imagine if you come back in a couple of months with some presence 'behind-the-scenes', you'd have a pretty easy ride here. Meantime, you can grab Sam Hocevar's Godmode lite and get a one-click rollback that way. -Splash^talk 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Per Splash and the fact his answers here are extremely cursory. Marskell 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose Your lack of edits in the User talk: namespace is quite low, and you have only had 18 sections on your own talk page. If you can show community interaction, I will support in a few months. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Article edits seem fine, but far too few WP namespace edits for me to support. --Alan Au 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Conversational skills are crucial for an admin. Lack of Talk/User_talk edits and his terse answers below indicate someone who may be a good editor but avoids interaction as much as possible. Admins are public figures around here; I think Rogerd would have a tough time handling the barrage of questions, debates, taunting and accusations that admins face on a daily basis. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take issue with that comment. I have worked in information technology for 27 years and have dealt with disaffected users, fellow programmers, subordinates and superiors on a regular basis. I may not have done a lot of communicating with other users in wikipedia as of yet, but I assure you I have handled this kind of thing. I know how to stand my ground when needed, and I would do so. --Rogerd 00:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you! I am sure that in real life you can stand your ground, present your opinion, and get your thought across to your audience. However, here on Wikipedia, we have seen very little of that. You concentrate your efforts on editing articles, which is—without doubt—the most important job here. We don't have any way to gauge your conversational abilities, or the manner in which you treat people, based on what we've seen on WP. I find the terse way in which you answered the questions below troubling, especially considering this is a self-nomination. I could be wrong, but my guess is that you'd find the amount of correspondence required from you as a WP admin simply overwhelming. I would rather have you here as a productive editor than as a swamped admin. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral —High edit count, but 85% of them are done in article namespace. No edits in other namespaces have reached 100. The lack of community involvement slightly worries me. I see no reason to vote oppose, so Im stuck with neutral. Will consider changing in the future, though.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

2. Neutral As with Journalist, the lack of participation on talk and community pages makes me uneasy. In reviewing a selection of the few changess you have made in the Talk and Wikipedia spaces, I don't see any problems, but it give me little basis for judging whether you are well-acquainted with policy and community norms. Unless I miss my guess, I suspect you are here basically because you want a rollback button? If I could give you just that option, I wouldn't hesitate, but there is more to the mop and the bucket than that. As an admin, people may approach you to deal with vandals and explain policy. Are you going to be comfortable/equipped to do that? Dragons flight 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

   I certainly intend to do more than revert vandalism, but I wanted to make it clear that I had planned to work my way into other tasks as I get more comfortable doing so. I have placed the copyvio tag on several articles and images and have voted on several VdD's. I often read the talk and community pages, but don't contribute unless I have something original to say. I have gone through the admin reading list and am comfortable performing all tasks and helping other wikipedians. However, as a new admin (if confirmed by the Senate<g>), I would plan on using caution before performing some of the tasks. --Rogerd 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Neutral sadly have to neutral vote a baseball fan, but you dont have enough edits in the Wikipedia space. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 21:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral I do not know this user. Type O Spud 03:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Vandal patrol, and blocking if a vandal meets the blocking criteria, for one. Also, looking out for copyvios. Helping with articles for deletion and images for deletion. I have read the reading list and will perform the any admin tasks that I am asked to or discover the need for. As Jimmy Wales said, "This should be no big deal".

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Newburgh Conspiracy and the National Museum of the United States Air Force.

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. Not a lot. I usually back off, unless it is a persistent vandal.

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.