Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Squash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Squash

withdrawn at (18,10,3) originally to end 06:43 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination as I am leaving Wikipedia. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:58, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Squash has made about 550 postings since writing this. Mr. Jones 04:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am still active. I left for a week then came back. Please ignore the leaving Wikipedia bit. Squash 07:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello
My name is Stephen and I pronounce Wikipedia as Wik-kee-pee-dee-ah.

Edits: 4700+
Time: 6 Months
Contributions: Contributions of User:Squash

I am User:Squash on Wikipedia since the 2nd of June 2004 (6 months) and I have around 4700+ edits. You may have met me or have not met me before on the Wikipedia channel on Freenode. My self-nomination for adminship may become of a surprise to some, as at one stage some of you may have even considered to nominate me. Anyway, the reasons that I wish to become an admistrator is because it will without doubt help with such administrative tasks.

Admin previleges will allow me to have:

  • The vandalism rollback feature.
  • Help move articles, especially those that require only admin previleges to move.
  • Delete some articles that are purely vandalism and add no value what so ever. E.g. An article with just profanity on it.
  • Protection of pages with conflicts

This is in addition to many other useful admin tools, that I think will be of use.

Now, many of you may not have seen me in edit histories that much. Why? you may ask. It is because each Wikipedia has an area of expertise and so do I. My major areas are Cambodia, Computing and cricket related articles in addition to those listed on my User page. Areas such as the Cambodia related articles were in desperate need of more articles and expansion and I have contributed my share to those articles, even though they not be the most famous articles.

Adminship will also help me become more well-known. It help me be even more trusted member of Wikipedia. It will give a Wikipedia another helping hand. So there is no harm into supporting me, as I have gained the qualifications need to become an admin.

I think I have taken the bold step into self-nominating myself after many nights thinking about the day I become admin. I have even once dreamt in my sleep of wondering what the sysop navigation bar on Wikipedia will look like... That is no joke. I think that I will contribute to Wikipedia and will be a valuable asset for it. If this strong Wikipedia community decides to support me as an admin then I will be only glad to be a truely proudly Wikipedian who can help Wikipedia in many other ways.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.
[[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. Sure. If you're dreaming about it, you must want it badly enough to do something useful with it. Everyking 07:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Certainly. Andre (talk) 07:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. You know, you can download the mediawiki software if you're so interested in what the admin interface looks like that you dream about it ... ;) Shane King 07:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Without a doubt! -- Grunt   ҈  15:48, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  5. Doh, an enthusiast! --M7it 20:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cribcage 21:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Very impressive user. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 00:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. The admin interface is not very special, btw -_-. Sorry if I ruined your dreams... ^_^ ugen64 01:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Great user. --Lst27 (talk) 01:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Sure, why not? He must be a good user; he uses edit summaries. Isomorphic 21:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. I thought you were a French woman... ;-) func(talk) 03:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. May be some would believe that Squash is a bit immature, but still, Stephen deserves adminship. utcursch 07:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. People claim that he acts immature. I disagree. Wikipedia needs some lighthearted admins, and Squash would be an excellent admin. Masterhomer 09:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Suppport, Squash is qualified for Adminship--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 13:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. I was initially unsure about this one due to the comments below. However, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in Squash's contributions (that I could see) indicating that he would be a bad admin. No revert warring, no POV pushing, no insults or flaming. He seems nothing but dedicated to Wikipedia, and it would be a disservice to taint that with guesses at his character. If he acts immature on IRC, so be it. I don't act the same in casual chat as I do on Wikipedia, and it would be hypocritical of me to expect otherwise from this nominee. CXI 13:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. I would previously have automatically supported you, Squash, until I read the controversey about your candidacy. I do not want to play a part in promoting a user who will turn out to be another dud sysop. So I'll remain neutral on this, unless you persuade me otherwise (on IRC or my user talk page). For what it's worth, what I have seen of you in the IRC channel suggests to me you are a good person (plus you're an Aussie), but I recognise that IRC is separate to Wikipedia and I should not base my choice on what transpires outside of the realm of this site. Support - Mark 13:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) (vote changed 01:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC))
  18. Squash has been a nice person and very helpful for a newbie like me. I have never seen anything immature of him here at Wikipedia. --Dara 20:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not a strong opposition, but suggest that user lacks the maturity we traditionally expect of admin candidates. A. D. Hair 06:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strongly agree with Mr. Hair after having witnessed a few of squash's tantrums in real-time in the past. Reene✎ 06:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. From what I've seen, would not be a very good admin. Seems to be a bit too immature in my experience - seemingly "random" actions make me not trust him. Definitely should wait a couple months, until someone nominates him. Big edit count is tempered by the fact that many edits are minor and/or repetitive, like image tagging or changing "External link" to "External links". -- Netoholic @ 09:01, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  4. I've had to think hard about this, and would likely have had to think harder were this not a self-nomination, but as it is, I will have to oppose. While it may be true that IRC and Wikipedia are separate places, and a different manner is used in each, I don't think one can explicitly state that they are not at all related. The banner of NPOV does a great deal in changing the way in which a user acts, but we've all seen that fall away under the right (wrong) conditions, and I'm concerned that this could occur here. - Vague | Rant 09:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Seeing squash execute what I consider an act of vandalism to Jimbo's page is enough for me to vote no. Aaronbrick 09:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Negativo. AlexanderWinston 09:25, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  7. Apparently, not much contributions except for cleanups in photo copyright tags... I'd like to judge on content if the candidate, for instance, is likely to push some particular POV. Plus, weird behavior on IRC gives me additional doubts. Premature, probably. David.Monniaux 11:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. While I like Squash as a person and have talked with him much on IRC in the past I have to oppose. The maturity issues raised are valid ones. His approach to consensus building is a bit shaky, as I've seen through various VfDs and other discussions. That being said, Squash has very good intentions but sometimes they just aren't realized in a manner consistent with policy and precedence. I would definitely support at a later date if Squash shows good judgment in the near future. CryptoDerk 17:52, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I agree with Reene and Vague Rant. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. Squash needs to grow up - a lot - before I'd support. Ambi 05:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I was going to support, but having read the stuff in the object section, I'm not too sure any more. You seem slightly immature, but you've also done good work. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. I am unsure whether squash would make a good admin. I'm concerned that he seems to be fixated upon gaining adminship, which I think is a bit of a negative thing. I've seen mostly good behavior from him, though, so I can't really decide. --Slowking Man 23:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Neutral here, would like to see more significant contributions first. Pedant 21:04, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Comments

  • As Mr. Hair above has said, I believe this candidate lacks the level of maturity that should not only be expected but demanded of admins. A few users (not myself, but others that I shall not name out of respect) have explicitely expressed feelings that this person is also a troll of some kind that may be deliberately deceptive about who he is. Reene✎ 06:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion of the candidate, but please DO NOT bring up hearsay from outside of Wikipedia as justification for your comments. You may not approve of the candidate's RfA, but to imply that he is a troll without any evidence is flat out wrong. If you're going to make subtle suggestions about one's character that may have come from others, start naming names then and don't play the "me and others think (this or that) so that's my justification for my comments" game. Bumm13 07:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please note that I didn't call him a troll nor did I even say that I agreed with that assessment. I even explicitely stated it was not a view I shared but one that was validly expressed by others. This eagerness for jumping on (and dare I say attacking) opposition (rather than gracefully acknowledging/accepting the criticism and, if applicable, politely correcting misconceptions or explaining any specific concerns brought to light) and twisting the statements of others are exactly what I do not like seeing in potential admins. By the way, I've been here since August, though I must add that the length of time one is on Wikipedia and indeed the number of edits one has are completely irrelevant to the question of one's maturity (indeed, falling back on such things as "proof" is a sign that one lacks this quality). The "IRC squash" and the "Wikipedia squash" are not mutually exclusive entities, unless you wish to say the actual human being behind the two are different. Is that what you mean to say? If not, then they are not exclusive, no matter what you wish to say. I use many things when I am deciding whether or not I think a person suitable for something, and yes, that includes IRC if they use it. You do not have to like it but you cannot tell me it isn't relevant and that I do not have the right to do so. Thanks for responding though. Reene✎ 08:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Message to the opposers: For those whose are in doubt of me. View message [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 12:40, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this makes it look mildly misleading. It should be mentioned that Reene's edit came after one of Squash's, rather than immediately after bumm's. - Vague | Rant 13:02, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've withdrawn my support. To be quite honest, I'm not very familiar with the candidate save for IRC and the fact that I've seen his name a good deal. He seemed to meet my personal standards for adminship. However, the opposition concerns me, especially as it is coming from users I greatly respect. That said, I don't know enough about all this to oppose, or even be neutral, so I'll just refrain from casting a vote. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (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.)
As those listed in my message above. Admin gives a person more previleges in the administrative way and for that purpose I will use my powers, if I am an admin.
I think that with adminship I would be able to help with:
  • General requests by non-admin users to help with Wikipedia
  • RC (Recent Changes) patrol to check for vandalism
  • Deletion of any articles that are marked for deletion
In addition to the many many things that can be done.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
There are many contributions that I am particularly please at. It is very hard for me to say which is the absolutely best contribution (of the listed below). But you should visit the articles and see what they have become:
  • Cricket: List of cricketers
See Before and after minus any edits between - the green parts are the additions.
I added many more crickters to this article that once lacked many cricketers
I initally started all of the above articles with my idea and since then it gained popularity. Many editors have since edited the articles and contributed enormously to it. Of course this series has gained some controvesy but it was only for the one article. Comparison of instant messengers which was VFDed once but was saved, during the time of that VFD I worked hard on the article.
These articles were articles that I are extremely proud of. Sin Sisamouth was started by me and around 90% of the content was put in by me. Cambodia was lacking information, charts etc. but that too has went under major expansion by me. See Before and after of the Cambodia article for more details.
In addition to Unclean animals and more recently Paper plane. This of course is in additional to the other edits that I made in Wikipedia.
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 have rarely gained any conflicts on articles that I have contributed to. As with any other Wikipedian they have had to go into disputes with other members of this awesome encyclopedia. I can be considered to be one of some who have peacefully edited and left a mark on Wikipedia without these conflicts. I understand when you mean by 'conflicts' it is not edit conflicts but conflicts... And yet even by that definitions I have rarely gained any conflicts. All conflicts were resvoled peacefully. See an talk page. (The current one is not revelant). Almost all - if not all were peacefully resolved, so all is good.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Squash_3821.html"