Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deltabeignet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deltabeignet

final (2/5/2) ending 23:48 21 June 2005 (UTC)

I have recently passed the 1000 edit mark (see here) having been here since February 2005 (in addition to a number of anonymous edits I made before registering), and would like to become an administrator. I have spent much time on New Pages cleaning up and tagging stubs (and alternately, tagging many bits of nonsense for speedy deletion or making them redirects.) I've also spent a bit of time perusing RC for vandalism. Naturally, I've spent vast amounts of time fixing links and formatting. On the other hand, I've dedicated plenty of effort to large-scale constructive work and the like (see my responses for more on that.) Deltabeignet 23:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. I have had good experience with this user. He says he will be more careful when he has permanent deletion powers, and remember that nothing an admin does is "permanently permanent" anyway. His work on the Layla article really impressed me. He came in and picked up a piece to greatly improve it - which he has [1] - and I feel this is the sort of stuff that shows he is ready to be an admin. Harro5 08:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. This should be no big deal. Benefit of the doubt. JuntungWu 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 1000 is a bit low with just 4 months... A couple of improper speedy tags, one of which is a gimme redirect, and the other of which was a bit POV, but clearly not a speedy. Just eyeballing it, about 1/3 of the edits have no edit summary. Very sparse talk page. CryptoDerk 00:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
   1. Just for the hell of it...
   2. I rarely fail to use edit summaries nowadays (excepting talk pages, where there isn't much point, and minor edits).
   3. I've made a few mistakes, no doubt (New Pages turns into a "who can get the speedy delete tag down first" race if there are too many people), but those both look to be at least 500 edits ago. I promise that if made an admin, I will only speedy delete pages I'm completely sure of.
   4. I couldn't say why I don't get many messages; most of my work isn't especially confrontational.
   5. You're not still mad that I accidentally tagged that copyvio for Wiktionary, are you? Deltabeignet 03:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not sure why you replied with a numbered list, cause I wasn't really asking any questions. I don't recall any copyvio wiktionary thing, and I don't remember running into you before or being mad at you, so I'm not "still" mad at you. CryptoDerk 04:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

   The numbered list, well, that's just my style, I guess (too much time spent on IMDb message boards). On the other issue, I was just being a little paranoid (not to mention sleep deprived). I've got no problem with opposition because I don't have the experience (but I would really like to delete nonsense on sight instead of making it another admin's problem). Deltabeignet 17:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   • I'm neutral on this nomination, but regarding the improper speedy tags, I'd like to say this in Deltabeignet's defense: there's no good way to tell what his error rate is. Deleted pages don't show up on a user's contribution list. He could have an error rate of 0.1% or 99%; we can't tell. Everyone makes some mistakes, even admins. --Xcali 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. OpposeAs of now, only has 26 edits to the user talk namespace. This does not show a sufficient amount of user interaction for an admin. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 22:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Because Boothy443 has opposed every adminship request on this page without reason, I have left him a polite comment/suggestion on his user talk page that he either provide reasons for his opposition or withdraw his votes. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose, regretfully. In my opinion, self-nominations require an even more compelling case than other people's nominations, and 1000 edits isn't that high. Give it a little more time, and I'll change my vote. --Scimitar 13:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Cyberjunkie ^TALK 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Nothing obviously wrong with this candidate, but I am reluctant to support a candidacy for an editor with such low Talk: (63) and User talk: (14) edit count. Only has 75% use of edit summaries in article space, too. Further, we have lots of people doing speedy deletes (usually when I sit down to do them there are maybe ten to do, and anyway I prefer the "tag and bag" approach to CSDs where the admin finding the page isn't the one deleting it) and being an admin isn't necessary to do RC/vandalism patrol. Kelly Martin 21:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

1. I have had no interaction positive nor negative with this user and those won't vote either way, however I do not agree with edit counting as a qualifier, though I do feel that this request should be scrutinized due to apparent hastiness of some edits and the lack of justificating summaries for edits which though not sloppy by itself causes some concern. Jtkiefer 20:46, Jun 18, 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. Being able to speedy delete patent nonsense instead of passing the buck with a tag would be a huge help, so I foresee much more work on New Pages. I also imagine continuing the fight against vandalism, both reverting and warning/blocking.

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

A. I always take pleasure in cleaning up incoherent stubs and turning them into simple but reasonably comprehensive illustrated pieces (such as Overdub, Single coil, and Tremolo arm). Also, two of my favorite projects have been my solo, Rivalry between Fender and Gibson, and my extensive work in bringing Layla up from a two-paragraph blurb into a comprehensive and colorful piece that could probably get FA status if I was brave enough to nominate it. Also, I helped a good deal in de-POV'ing Tort reform.

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. I've never been in any kind of conflict that I can think of; I do get a little stressed when I see people creating strings of unformatted stubs on topics of questionable notability (and slim chance of expansion). Usually I go work on something else or sleep it off, both of which never fail to calm my nerves and solve the problem.