User:Jaberwocky6669/Laboratory

[edit] tally sheet

[edit] Successful Adminships for (insert date)

Unbiased candidate information:

Month and year joined (if available)

Number of edits overall:

[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 (),

Personality:

• Great -- good -- (), Intelligent (), Uncontroversial (), Sensible (), Sense of humor (), Level headed (), Willing to learn (), Well behaved (), Decent (), Polite (),

General:

• Looks good (), Cool (), Trusts the nominator (), Noticed user (), Assumed adminship status (),

Time

Specific:

General:

Less than a year (), More than a year ()

Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination (If mentioned):

Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (), Short time -- low edits (),

[edit] Those who oppose gave these reasons

Quality of work:

Inexperienced (), Unfamiliar with policy -- All aspects () -- Some aspects (), Prone to revert (), Deosn't discuss actions (), Disrespectful of policy (), Lacks article writing experience (), Deletionist (),

Personality:

Poor judgement (),

General:

Controversy (), Distrusts nominator (),

Time spent at Wikipedia compared to edit count at the time of nomination (If mentioned):

Short time -- high edits (), Long time -- high edits (), Long time -- Low edits (), Short time -- low edits

[edit] Questions asked of successful admins

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

Protection (), Deletion (), Vandalism Reverting (), Page moving (), VfD -- AfD (), Categorization (), Speedy delete (), 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 (), Not particularly ()

• Originial articles:

Specify -- Articles (), Namespace (), Categories (),

• No originial articles:

Orphan pages (), Categorization (), Major edits (), 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 () No () Major () Medium (1) Minor (), Stress -- Yes () No () Major () Minor (), My fault (), Their fault (), Our fault (), No one editors fault (),

Refrain from editing (), Talk to arbitration (), Talk to antagonist (), Make compromises (), Discussion (), Slap vandals (), Leave message boxes on talk page (),

---

[edit] Unsuccessful Adminships for Insert Date

Unbiased Candidate information:

Month and year joined (if available)

Number of edits overall (in total):

[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 (),

Personality:

• Great -- good -- (), Intelligent (), Uncontroversial (), Sensible (), Sense of humor (), Level headed (), Willing to learn (), Well behaved (), Decent (), Polite (),

General:

• Looks good (), Cool (), Trusts the nominator (), Noticed user (), Assumed adminship status (),

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 (),

[edit] Those who oppose gave these reasons

Quality of work:

Inexperienced (), Unfamiliar with policy -- All aspects () -- Some aspects (), Prone to revert (), Deosn't discuss actions (), Disrespectful of policy (), Lacks article writing experience (), Deletionist (),

Personality:

Poor judgement (),

General:

Controversy (), 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

Time

General: :Less than a year (), More than a year (),

[edit] Questions asked of unsuccessful admins

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

Protection (), Deletion (), Vandalism Reverting (), Page moving (), VfD -- AfD (), Categorization (), Speedy delete (), 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 (), Not particularly

• Originial articles:

Specify -- Articles (), Namespace (), Categories (),

• No originial articles:

Orphan pages (), Categorization (), Major edits (), 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 () No () Major () Medium (1) Minor (),

Stress -- Yes () No () Major () Minor (), My fault (), Their fault (), Our fault (), No one editors fault (),

Refrain from editing (), Talk to arbitration (), Talk to antagonist (), Make compromises (), Discussion (), Slap vandals (), Leave message boxes on talk page (),

---

[edit] Misc.

If you're here for the RfA Analysis then disregard this stuff unless you want to look at it. Be warned it's boring and unstructured.

Put category name here	Edit
article | article | article

---

Just as Wikipedia develops according to each of our edits then so shall this game; therefore, you may feel free to change the rules of this game. With that, any edits that are just plain silly will be reverted.

---

N degrees of separation is a wikigame derived from two things. One, another page located on Dept. of Fun. Two, the Small world phenomenon experiment. The idea of this page, thus, is to expand on these quite a bit in order to create something that is both fun and functional!

The rules, which are quite flexible, are as follows:

For puzzle providers:

1. Generate a random page which we shall call the Start.
2. Generate a second random page which shall be called the Goal.
3. Then state these pages on this main page by using the template provided below for ease of use.
4. If solvers are not allowed use lists and dates then neither can providers!

For solvers:

1. Attempt to follow the links, starting from Start until you arrive at Goal.
2. Post a new start and goal for the next round.
3. Try to get there without using lists and dates.

Here's the template:

== --> ==

*Start: [[]]
*Goal: [[]]

Contributed by: ~~~~

[[]] --> [[]] --> [[]] --> [[]] -->

Finished by:

----

Now all you have to do is simply copy and paste this example and expand it as needed!

If a goal page is an orphan then link to it with relevant pages. It may be boring but here at Wikipedia it is one of the ways for editors to improve it.

Note: After some correspondence/discussion between Jaberwocky6669 and Penwhale, as of October 2, solutions have to be provided without the usage of lists, dates. Disambiguation pages are OK, but texts in other pages serving the purpose of disambiguation are disallowed. Here's an example: Chain is an disambiguation page. It's allowed (as it is somewhat critical). National Hockey League has a link to National Historic Landmark, but that's on the page for disambiguation (no direct relation), and has to be discarded.

See also: Kate's tools - http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/six_degrees which does use lists.

---

[edit] -->

• Start: [[]]
• Goal: [[]]

Contributed by: Jaberwocky6669 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[[]] --> [[]] --> [[]] --> [[]] -->

Finished by:

---

Now all you have to do is simply copy and paste this example and expand it as needed!

If a goal page is an orphan then link to it with relevant pages. It may be boring but here at Wikipedia it is one of the ways for editors to improve it.

Note: After some correspondence/discussion between Jaberwocky6669 and Penwhale, as of October 2, solutions have to be provided without the usage of lists, dates. Disambiguation pages are OK, but texts in other pages serving the purpose of disambiguation are disallowed. Here's an example: Chain is an disambiguation page. It's allowed (as it is somewhat critical). National Hockey League has a link to National Historic Landmark, but that's on the page for disambiguation (no direct relation), and has to be discarded.

See also: Kate's tools - http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/six_degrees which does use lists.