Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dinopup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dinopup

Withdrawn by candidate at 01:15, Jan 28, 2005; final vote (4/7/3)

I would like to be an administrator for the purpose of undoing vandalism and nonsensical edits. I am a frequent contributor to articles on political science and urban history. I add information more often than I edit though.

Support

1. Has tremendously improved various articles on local history, transforming them from stubs to articles the WIkipedia can be proud of. Has more than enough experience to become an administrator. As to the objections, a request to remove nonsense is appropriate, certainly more appropriate than edit-warring, and is hardly an example of unsuitable temperament. Wikipedia is sufficiently complicated that there is no one who knows how everything works, so thanking someone for helping him fix an image is hardly evidence that he shouldn't be an admin... - Nunh-huh 08:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Not many admins have been here for 1.5 years... no reason to oppose. ugen64 05:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Bart133 01:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) No reason to oppose.
4. Support. No reason to oppose. --JuntungWu 01:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Fewer than 1000 edits (although he has been here for 1.5 years), lacking some community involvement (about 10 edits on Wikipedia: namespace), don't see any vandal fighting, and some edits like this unsigned demanding edit are just strange, not to mention his acknowledgement of a lack of understanding of how some things work: [1], as well as this page wasn't created right, and he put his RFA in User:UserName (which I have since deleted). CryptoDerk 02:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
2. Needs more experience in using Wikipedia and working with other editors. Length of time since account creation does not necessarily equate to experience. Sorry. --Slowking Man 06:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
3. dinopop, please continue working hard here. your work is commendable. as of yet, though, i don't think you have enough experience with the community or with wikipedia. sincerely, Kingturtle 10:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Get some more experience. utcursch 11:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
5. Not enough experience or community involvement. Rje 13:43, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutrality^talk 00:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
7. Not enough experience on the janitorial side of things. 131.211.210.157 10:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Above anon vote belongs to me... Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This user does some really good work. The only reason I'm voting neutral is not enough edits. Support after 1,200 edits. --Lst27 (talk) 21:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Ditto. --Ryan! | Talk 18:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
3. Too few edits, hardly any community discussion. I'll probably support a next time. Jordi·✆ 08:36, 24 Jan 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.)

I concede I would not do many sysop chores, other than reverting vandalism. I am more a content person than an editing person.

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

The articles on Newark, New Jersey, the Ironbound, History of the United States Senate are quite good. I am also proud of the "Political Writings" section of Woodrow Wilson and some sections of Walter Bagehot. When I write articles I always include lots of quotations and documentation..

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 will deal with it in the future?

I admit I am in one conflict right now on the article Presidential system, another user, Vardion, refuses to let any country be called "authoritarian," saying it is POV. I try to keep all my articles NPOV, but if no nation can be called "authoritarian," then the word has no meaning.