Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slashme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Slashme

Final (0/3/1) ended 13:07 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slashme (talk • contribs) – Although I am a relatively new editor (since September 2005) with relatively few edits (around 1130 at last count), I feel I could help with administrative duties, as I am generally responsible and moderate (aren't we all? :- ). I always sign my posts on talk pages, mark minor edits and almost always give explanatory edit summaries. I have almost 200 pages on my watchlist, and keep a look out for vandalism. The overwikification on my user page is satire, by the way! --Slashme 11:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Self-nomination Based on the snowball principle, I hereby withdraw my request. I'll come back in a couple of months. --Slashme 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Failure to list selfnom properly originally; inexperienced? Not enough project-space edits (under 100). NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with your comment about the project-space edits. As for originally listing myself incorrectly, that's the fault of Wikipedia's insistence that your username must start with a capital letter! :-) --Slashme 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Very little time - very little is known about the user - very little info in the self-nomination para (fixed). I'll definetly vote support in spring time. Cheers -- Szvest 10:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

   Three months: a reasonable point. If everyone agrees that one can't be a trustworthy admin in such a short time, I'll come back in the autumn. (or spring, to you). As for the info, I thought I was being rather wordy in my responses to the questions. What would you like to know? --Slashme 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   I appreciate your prompt reply. I must tell you that it is true that only very little is known about you. Yes, true, you answered the questions but I really don't fancy self-noms, especially being short and cut (I've never seen a shorter presentation than the above). Why don't I fancy self-noms? Because, IMHO, it shows that the user is less known to the community. This also shows the lack of experience I talked about above; wikipedia is more a community than any other thing. Being an admin requires a lot of interaction w/ other admins and users to be able to make correct decisions. After all, nothing is personal and that's why I'd support in the near future -which is spring. Cheers -- Szvest 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

3. Oppose. Very good potential in terms of good talk-article ratio, nice edit summaries, almost all edits are single or double-edits, but as was stated above, adminship is not something that should just be given away. It takes a long time and a very good show of dedication to Wikipedia to become an admin. You need to know the ins and outs, and having such a small amount of contributions to project space and their talks means you are probably inexperienced. Come back in a few months with some more experience, and notability, under your belt, and I'll reconsider. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Bordering on oppose. I'm not a very big fan of self-nomination (to me it shows that one does not yet have enough faith in the community to support you), and although the user has already been around longer than I have, I do not think becoming an admin after such a short time on Wikipedia is desirable. If the user had a little more time, I think he could definitely have what it takes. Kusonaga 11:08, 3 January 2006 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I already do RC-patrolling, and a rollback button would be useful. Whenever I find a bad edit, I check the user's edit history, and try to decide on the best template to use on their talk page. I never simply plonk down a template, but try to give context each time. Also, while RC-patrolling, I frequently go back a bit in the history to see whether any sneaky vandalism is taking place. Also, I feel that dispute resolution is important, and I would like to help more actively in that regard.

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

A.

• I resolved a nasty little debate over at Irony by putting up a more unambiguously ironic and less emotionally charged image than the previous one.
• I negotiated the release under GPL of excellent content from a third party for the Benjamin Feingold article.
• I have submitted corrected or new chemical structures for a number of pages (e.g. Calcium_citrate.PNG)
• I submitted the 6E Kurds and Stampedian Law pages for deletion
• I have created a number of stubs, including Plug flow reactor, Residence Time Distribution, Encapsulation (pharmacology) and blood-testes barrier.
• I was actively involved in resolving the bias in the South African Farmer Murders page, ending in the removal of the POV tag.

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 belive strongly in assuming good faith, finding common ground and chosing appropriate battles.

• I was involved in the debate about the inclusion of Annabel Chong in the list of notable alumnae of Raffles Girls' School (Secondary), and managed to turn what started out as an edit conflict into a debate which ended amicably.
• I was involved in a debate about whether the album "No!" by They Might Be Giants should be listed as a children's album. I was convinced by the other editor that it was a minor issue, and unlikely to cause much confusion, so I left it alone in the end.
• In the debate surrounding the South African Farmer Murders page, although I lacked much common ground with another editor, we were able to agree that the article could be balanced by including both points of view.

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.