User:Jaberwocky6669/Laboratory/Completed Tally Sheets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Successful and Unsuccessful Adminships for November 2004
This is my personal tally sheet. Please take a blank one. Don't add to this sheet. Store your completed tally here until all of the information has been collected.
I feel that I have compiled sufficient information for both successful and unsuccessful adminships! Moving on to my next month...
Month and year joined (if available)
(At time of nomination)
Specific:
- Feb. 2004, July 2004, Nov. 2003, April 2004, June 2004, May 2004,
Number of edits overall (in total):
- 2343, 8488, 1482, 2549, 2529, 1335, 10000+, -+1500, 2100+, 6000+, 7500, 6000, 7883, 4000+,
Those who support gave these reasons
Quality of work:
- Quality edits (), Great contributor (4), Inoffensive edits (), Respects consensus (), Understands policy (), Valuable (), Experienced (), Hard working -- Diligent (2), Well-Balanced contributor (1), Strong contributor (1), Productive (1), Maintains NPOV (2), Good editor (1),
Personality:
- Intelligent (), Uncontroversial (), Sensible (), Sense of humor (), Level headed (2), Willing to learn (), Well behaved (), Decent (), Polite (), Helpful (1), Civil (1), Motivated (1), Knowledgeable (1), Responsible (1), Reliable (1), Dedicated (1), Talented (1), Intelligent (1), Reasonable (1), Good guy (1), Mature (1),
General:
- Looks good (2), Cool (), Trusts the nominator (1), Noticed user (), Assumed adminship status (4), Wonderful (1), Great person (1), Trustworthy (), Great (),
Time
Specific:
General:
- Less than a year (), More than a year ()
Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination:
- Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (), Short time -- low edits (),
Those who oppose gave these reasons
Quality of work:
- Inexperienced (2), Unfamiliar with policy -- All aspects () -- Some aspects (), Prone to revert (), Deosn't discuss actions (), Disrespectful of policy (), Lacks article writing experience (), Deletionist (), Less than 2000 edits (1), Biased edits (1), Didn't answer questions to satisfaction (1),
Personality:
- Poor judgement (), Incivility (1), Utters profanities (1),
General:
- Controversy (), Distrusts nominator (), Insulted an editor (1), Unfamiliar with nominee (1),
Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination:
- Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (1), Short time -- low edits
Time
Specific:
General:
- Less than a year (), More than a year (),
Number of edits overall:
Article:
Namespace:
Talk page edits:
User Page edits:
- Others:
- Their own:
Questions asked of successful admins
Didn't answer or wasn't asked
- If Yes (1) then skip this section, otherwise...
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
- Protection (2), Deletion (1), Vandalism Reverting (6), Page moving (), VfD -- AfD (4), Categorization (), Speedy delete (2), Resolve edit wars (), Whatever (), Business as usual but with extra powers (6), New pages (1), Copyright problems (), Janitorial duties in general (1), Community pages (1), Blocking (1),
- What they wouldn't do as admins.:
- New pages (1), Deletion (1), Blocking (1),
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Yes (13), Not particularly (1)
- Originial articles:Places you've lived
- Specify -- Articles (7), Namespace (), Categories (), Images (1)
- No originial articles:
- Orphan pages (), Categorization (), Major edits (5), Medium edits (1), Minor edits (), Resolved edit conflict(s) (), RC patrolling (), Article expansion (1), Translation (1), Illustrations (1),
- Why?
- Created from scratch (1),
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?
- Conflict -- Yes (9) No (5) Major () Medium (3) Minor (1), Stress -- Yes (1) No (2) Major () Minor (1), My fault (), Their fault (), Our fault (), No one editors fault (),
- Refrain from editing (1), Talk to arbitration (), Talk to antagonist (), Make compromises (1), Discussion (), Slap vandals (), Leave message boxes on talk page (), Keep level-headed (3), Walked away from article (1), Use RfC (1), Maintain NPOV (1), Wait it out (1),
Unsuccessful Adminships for November 2004
Many more adminships were withdrawn or conclusions were not reached which I had to pass up. Conclusion: Never, I repeat never, remove a discussion from a talk page. Even if you think it is relevant or not!
Month and year joined (if available)
Specific:
- May 2003, March 2004, Nov 2003,
Number of edits overall (in total):
- 5000, 8100, 734, 5000,
[edit] Those who support gave these reasons
Quality of work:
- Quality edits (), Great contributor (), Inoffensive edits (), Respects consensus (), Understands policy (), Valuable (), Experienced (), Hard working -- Diligent (), Constructive (1)
Personality:
- Great -- good -- (), Intelligent (), Uncontroversial (), Sensible (), Sense of humor (), Level headed (), Willing to learn (), Well behaved (), Decent (), Polite (), Talented (1),
General:
- Looks good (), Cool (), Trusts the nominator (), Noticed user (), Assumed adminship status (1),
Time
Specific:
General:
- Less than a year (), More than a year ()
Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination:
- Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (), Short time -- low edits (),
Those who oppose gave these reasons
Quality of work:
- Inexperienced (), Unfamiliar with policy -- All aspects () -- Some aspects (1), Prone to revert (), Deosn't discuss actions (), Disrespectful of policy (), Lacks article writing experience (1), Deletionist (1), Lack of edit summaries (1), Too few edits (1),
Personality:
- Poor judgement (),
General:
- Controversy (3), Distrusts nominator (),
Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination:
- Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (), Short time -- low edits
Questions asked of successful admins
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
- Protection (1), Deletion (1), Vandalism Reverting (2), Page moving (), VfD -- AfD (), Categorization (), Speedy delete (1), Resolve edit wars (), Whatever (), Business as usual but with extra powers (), New pages (), RC patrol (), Copyright problems (), Unsure (1), Blocking (1),
- What they wouldn't do as admins.:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Yes (4), No () If no then go to question 3.
- Originial articles:
- Specify -- Articles (2), Namespace (), Categories (),
- No originial articles:
- Orphan pages (), Categorization (), Major edits (3), Medium edits (), Minor edits (), Resolved edit conflict(s) (), RC patrolling ()
- Why?
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?
- Conflict -- Yes (3) No () Major (1) Medium (1) Minor (), Stress -- Yes () No (1) Major () Minor (), My fault (), Their fault (), Our fault (), No one editors fault (),
- Refrain from editing (), Talk to arbitration (1), Talk to antagonist (), Make compromises (), Discussion (), Slap vandals (), Leave message boxes on talk page (), Backed down (1), Concensus (1), Remain unbiased (1),
[edit] August 2004
After all of the necessary informaiton has been gathered it will all be compiled into this section.
[edit] Successful adminships for November 2004
Those who support said:
Quality of work:
- Great contributor (4)
- Hard working -- Diligent (2)
- Maintains NPOV (2)
- Well-Balanced contributor (1)
- Strong contributor (1)
- Productive (1)
- Good editor (1)
Personality
- Level headed (2)
- Helpful (1)
- Civil (1)
- Motivated (1)
- Knowledgeable (1)
- Responsible (1)
- Reliable (1)
- Dedicated (1)
- Talented (1)
- Intelligent (1)
- Reasonable (1)
- Good guy (1)
- Mature (1)
General
- Assumed adminship status (4)
- Looks good (2)
- Trusts the nominator (1)
- Wonderful (1)
- Great person (1)
[edit] Those who opposed said=
Quality of edits
- Unfamiliar with policy -- All aspects () -- Some aspects (1)
- Lacks article writing experience (1)
- Deletionist (1)
- Lack of edit summaries (1)
- Too few edits (1)
Personality:
General:
- Controversy (3)
[edit] Questions asked of successful admins
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
- Vandalism Reverting (2)
- Speedy delete (1)
- Protection (1)
- Deletion (1)
- Unsure (1)
- Blocking (1)
- Page moving ()
- VfD -- AfD ()
- Categorization ()
- Resolve edit wars ()
- Whatever ()
- Business as usual but with extra powers ()
- New pages ()
- RC patrol ()
- Copyright problems ()
- What they wouldn't do as admins.:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Yes (4)
- No ()
- Originial articles:
- Articles (2)
- Namespace ()
- Categories ()
- No originial articles:
- Major edits (3)
- Orphan pages ()
- Categorization ()
- Medium edits ()
- Minor edits ()
- Resolved edit conflict(s) ()
- RC patrolling ()
- Why?
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?
Conflict
- Yes (3)
- No ()
- Major (1)
- Medium (1)
- Minor ()
Stress
- Yes ()
- No (1)
- Major ()
- Minor ()
- My fault ()
- Their fault ()
- Our fault ()
- No one editors fault ()
What will you do about it?
- Backed down (1)
- Concensus (1)
- Remain unbiased (1)
- Talk to arbitration (1)
- Refrain from editing ()
- Talk to antagonist ()
- Make compromises ()
- Discussion ()
- Slap vandals ()
- Leave message boxes on talk page ()
