Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DRosenbach

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

[edit] DRosenbach

Final (1/5/5) ended 14:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

DRosenbach (talk • contribs) – I think DRosenbach is a asset to the Wikipedia and to the Wikipedia community. He strives to add relevant content and edit out superfluousness. He would make for a good addition to the team.Dale 14:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Dale 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)DRosenbach

I hereby withdraw my request. Thanks a lot. Dale 19:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)DRosenbach

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I intend to improve Wikipedia, shifting it from what it is to what it could be. When I see a page that is noted to be "cleaned up" or "sorted out" or "unconfused" or "reorganized," and I feel that I have the knowledge and understanding of the subject to do so, I take it upon myself to redistribute the information on the page to add clarity, remove extraneous information, add important yet absent data, thus increasing the general esthetics and functionality of Wikipedia as a whole as a result of its parts.

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

A: I take particular pride in my additions to the dental genre; as a 4th year dental student, I feel like I have a thorough if not complete understanding of most of the topics, and was very upset about the lack of clarity, information, organization or proper linking from one article to the next among many of the articles in the category of dentistry. In particular, the dentures and temporomandibular joint articles were, in my opinion, horrendous. To think that there can be such detail given on some pages of Wikipedia and so little on others, which are so important in their own little worlds, was so strange to me. So I took it upon myself to redraw these two articles in particular, adding pictures and data and redistributing the information within what I felt would be a proper framework of chronology and systematic delineation. Then there are others which I was shocked to find absent, such as the entire category of developmental cysts and its contents. Additionally, so many of the topics which are integral in my oral path courses were not linked to the oral path page. Its great to have information, but if the information is unaccessibe to those who need or want it, what good is it really.

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: One thing in particular is in the realm of religion and in the genre of Judaism in particular. As an Orthodox Jew, I, of course, have certain perceptions of my own reigion as a whole and Orthodox Judaism as a portion of that, and sometimes, I feel as though other users, although no one in particular, have a truly skewed view of Judaism, and create a misconstrued sense of reality within the archives of Wikipedia. As most people are not Jewish, and most people who are Jewish are not Orthodox, i think there might be a lack of true compassion and understanding about the problems and issues I see and feel are present on some of the pages, but over the course of the last year or so, I have made many edits to pages in reference to Judaism that were editted out and received comments such as "keep your POV out" or things of that nature. I must admit that at the time, I was unfamiliar with exactly what the protocol was for these things, so I might have been a bit too aggresive with these rebuttals, but for now, I try to keep in mind that the unfortunate fact is that too many people feel that concensus decides reality, rather than truth. An example of this is in regards to Jewish conversion. The mere situation in which a non-Jew wishes to marry a Jew and converts in order to be able to do so does not, according to halacha, allow for such a person to convert. When a conversion is not done under the proper mindframe and is merely a guise to marry a Jew, Judaism does not regard such a person as Jewish and his or her conversion is invalid. The lesser factions of Judaism, Conservative and Reform may consider this to be a conversion, but these factions themselves are considered to be working outside the framework of Jewish law, and thus their perceptions and values are actually quite irrelevant to Judaism as a whole. They cannot change Judaism, they can merely splinter off and make up their own rules for their own new reigion, which happens to have the word "Judaism" in it, but which is actually far from Judaism. As this is a touchy subject within Judaism, the nuances of which are quite difficult to grasp for a non-Jew or even an unaffiliated or irreligious Jew, I have decided to back off and stick to less controversial topics like nasolabial cysts.

Optional questions from Malber (talk • contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:

7. What is your age? (Candid and thoughtful responses are appreciated, however if you feel uncomfortable giving a specific answer, providing an age range is also appreciated.)

A:

General comments

• See the talk page for an edit count summary.

Discussion

Support

1. Hometown moral support. Suggest withdrawal - you're not ready yet. - crz crztalk from Passaic 15:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - inactivity - user has less than 1,000 edits in over one and a half years. No indication of real projectspace work. – Chacor 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Answer to Q1 denotes unpreparedness. Participation in admin-related tasks is virtually inexistent. Sorry, you need more experience.--Húsönd 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Been here a little while, but their time and number of edits are nowhere near balanced.Ganfon 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose 661 edits with a total of 7 Wikipedia edits, 18 User talk and 4 Article talk. Suggests withdrawal! This user do have potential however, as there are some thoughtful discussion presented by the user in here. Transfer yourself to editor review, and come back after few months. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Admins are expected to be very familiar with the general workings of Wikipedia, and this demonstrates that you are not quite there yet. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you'd be better off returning in a few months. Dar-Ape 20:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

   note: oppose made after candidate withdrew Dar-Ape 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'd have voted support if you were a good communicator. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Not enough experience. Only 7 wikipedia namespace edits. I see no need for admin tools either. Obviously a good editor but this RFA is premature. I would suggest you withdraw it and come back in a few months. Thanks, Asterion^talk 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, too early, wait for a few more months before coming on RFA again. Terence Ong 15:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Withdraw, work hard in the main spaces - articles, User Talk, Policy, new pages/recent changes patrol - and come back again in four months' time. That should give you enough experience of admin-related tasks to attempt another RfA. (aeropagitica) 18:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Edit count, participation in admin-related tasks, edit-count use, and a bad edit proportion. You clearly have good intentions, but much, much more work is needed to gain experience. bibliomaniac15 19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.