Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Comics

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

[edit] Comics

Requests_for_adminship/Comics|action=edit}} Vote here (0/6/0) ended 22:36 10/16/05 (UTC)

Comics (talk • contribs) - Self-nomination - I have been editing on Wikipedia for over a year now, and have been actively contributing and reading Wikipedia for much longer as an anonymous user. I am mostly interested in helping curb vandalism as this is one of the biggest problems in my view. The rollback feature would aid me in this task. When a new user first comes to Wikipedia, if he/she encounters vandalism, this is a major problem for Wikipedia's credibility and a common complaint of those who aren't aware of the intricacies of a wiki system.

Most of the work that I have done on Wikipedia is actually more in the line of administrative duties such as reverting vandalism, NPOV disputes, etc. Also, I am more involved in making minor corrections such as syntax and POV fixes than in the creation of new articles and major content additions. Given admin powers, I would like to get even more involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia such as helping out with the admin backlog, VfD and the other duties that I mentionned in my answers to the questions below.

My interest in Wikipedia is that it continues to strive to become an academically-viable source. It is personally important to me that knowledge and information remain free to all and without bias. For these reasons, I would like that you invest in me your trust and your vote for adminship. --Comics 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

On the advice of Andrevan, and unless someone can argue otherwise, I will withdraw my nomination as it appears that the lack of edit experience will cause this to fail. I thought I'd give it a try anyway. You'll be hearing from me again down the road, though!  :) --Comics 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose only 286 edits. freestylefrappe 22:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose for now - too few edits imo. Would make a fine admin of the future though. -- Francs2000 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Opppose - "Most of the work that I have done on Wikipedia is actually more in the line of administrative duties such as reverting vandalism, NPOV disputes, etc. Also, I am more involved in making minor corrections such as syntax and POV fixes than in the creation of new articles and major content additions" - These things can be done as a regular user. Until you prove yourself with more articles and edits, I cannot support you. Mtmdem 22:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now. You need to edit more.  Denelson83  23:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose for now, but user knows what (s)he doing, and is on the right track. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose, not enough edits. Dmn € Դմն 12:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• I figured this would be raised, and there are always some who will look at edit counts more than anything. While I have not made the thousands of edits that many being considered for adminship have, I ask that you try and look past the numbers and rather at the work that I have done, am doing, and what I have pledged to do. --Comics 22:06, 16 October 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

The majority of my work on Wikipedia to date has actually been more in the line of administrative duties than in the creation of new articles. I am actively involved in preventing and reverting vandalism and would like to continue even more in this area with the added help of the rollback feature.

Furthermore, I am interested in getting involved in VfD and the arbitration process for NPOV disuputes.

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

One of the articles that I am most proud of and was one of my first major contributions is List of atheists. At the time, many people wanted the page to either be merged with another or be deleted. It was a very loose page with almost no criteria on which to base the list. I began a movement to change that. Along with the help of another user, we established a criteria for inclusion and divided the list into numerous categories based on consensus. The page is now a much better ressource than it previously was and it is much clearer to determine is a person should be included on the list.

I was also pleased with this article because the Talk page has almost become a voting page where people discuss the merits of an inclusion on the list and also people who are being fact-checked before inclusion.

I am currently working on the Gentle Giant article, which is one of my favourite bands as well as their related discography and biographies of the band members. It is a work in progress, but already it has become a much better ressource than it was.

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?

No, I have not been involved in any conflicts to speak of. Generally if I feel an edit is inappropriate but debatable, I will always resort to using the Talk page in order to get comments from others or use user pages to discuss the reasoning behind an edit. In my experience, I have found that if you approach the topic in the right manner, a consensus can generally be found.

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.