Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel Olsen

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] Daniel Olsen

Ended 06:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) This is a self-nom. The date at time of listing is 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Daniel Olsen (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself because I believe in the Wikipedia project, I've contributed for some time, and I want to continue to do as much as I can to help. I believe I have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process and I'll be able to use that knowledge to make the most out of my adminship (if I get it). I keep a level head and don't crack under pressure, I always mind WP:CIVIL, even when personally attacked, and I believe that I would wield the mop fairly and effectively. --Daniel Olsen 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As a self-nom, I think it's pretty much a given that I accept. --Daniel Olsen 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC) WITHDRAWN. --Daniel Olsen 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 would close AfDs (I know, a cliche answer, but it's a big job) and the rest of the *fDs, delete old {{prod}}ed articles, block blatant vandals listed on WP:AIV and ones that I encounter while on RC patrol, help with Requested moves, Wikipedia protected edit requests, and whatever else I come across that needs admin help. I'll also continue editing articles as I did before.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well I'll go with articles first: I found Chabot Space and Science Center as a substub and tranformed it from substub status to a full article with GFDL images (diff), I've worked on MAJOR cleanup of the Chinatown, Oakland, California article (too many diffs to list, see history), and cleanup of Oakland, California. I've cleaned out Category:Stubs once or twice, worked on fixing disambiguation pages with links (see the beginning of WP:DPL#Done), voted on a few hundred AfDs, major antivandalism work (My vandalism count's at something like something like 600), and taking pictures for Wikipedia (see User:Daniel Olsen/Images).
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: The closest thing that comes to mine would be Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos. I created a page of questionable importance, and was pretty pissed when it was put up for deletion and then deleted. I tried to improve the article and resubmit it, but it was speedily deleted as old material. Not knowing what was going on, I readded the article a few times. That is an ugly blemish on my record, but I've come a long way since then. I still don't think the article should have been deleted, but I've made my peace with the subject. As for the stress of the whole thing, I just dealt with it. There's not really any other way to put it. I remained civil with the other users involved and argued my case as best I could while citing wikipedia policy (see the AfD). I'll do the same whenever another stressful situation arises.
Comments
  • See Daniel Olsen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • I know some of you may think I'm too inexperienced or too new to be an admin, but give me a chance and throw an optional question my way. I'll do my best to prove my knowledge and abilities. --Daniel Olsen 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Final tally: (4/7/1)
Support
  1. Let's kick this off the right way. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --Alex (talk here) 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak support - he's an excellent vandal fighter, but I feel that he needs more time here. --Ixfd64 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support—Weak support, but support — I’d like more experience, quite a bit more experience. But I'm beginning to believe Wikipedia could use folks who are administrator-under-supervision. Folks like this who are well motivated and don’t set off alarms other than inexperience should be given a supervisory committee and turned loose for 3 months, but monitored. If they abuse their administrator-under-supervision powers, any one of the supervisory admins can recommend they’re gone. If they perform well, they are administrators. Williamborg (Bill) 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Although failure to remain completely diplomatic while going through the RfA process might argue for simply insisting on a 6-month minimum for all candidates. Williamborg (Bill) 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Candidate has been actively contributing for a little more than two months. To me, this isn't enough time to become well-versed in many of the aspects of Wikipedia. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopydink (talk • contribs)
    I find your oppose justification rather ironic. You neither signed your vote nor incremented the tally at the top of the page. --Daniel Olsen 02:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    Ironic how, exactly? You've not demonstrated that you can be responsible with the extra buttons and you obviously can't handle constructive criticism, which is a bit concerning. If you receive further comments of this nature, you might not want to nitpick. Rather, it might be better to offer up a question or comment that attempts to address and potentially alleviate the user's concerns. Furthermore, as you can plainly see, I tried to sign my comment. What do you think those four marks are at the end, there? I'm currently messing around with my keyboard and the tilde was replaced with another character during the language switch-over. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry for jumping on you like that, but I still don't see how that criticism was constructive. You just told me what I already knew. Is there anything that you think I could improve on, besides the amount of time I've been contributing? --Daniel Olsen 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    My only advice to you is to gain more experience, for with experience comes a better handle on policies, what an administrator does, and how to interact with other users. You are a relatively new user (~2000 of your ~2700 edits have come in the past month) and would do well to take some time to absorb things hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Concerned about what I would consider borderline uncivil comments above. In addition I think under 6 months of editing is too soon to be considered for adminship. Lastly comments like "I really don't think that leaving the articles here hurts wikipedia" from this Afd as well as the comment "this article does absolutely nothing to hurt the encyclopedia" from this AfD are troubling. Comments like "seems notable to me" in this AfD (where if you clicked on the sources you would see very clearly they were not reliable sources), again make me think that the candidate does not yet have a frim grasp on all the guidelines that an admin must deal with on a daily basis. I hope you find some usefull criticism in my comments. DrunkenSmurf 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)$
  3. Oppose. User needs to earn the trust of the commnity first. Fighting vandalism is a good thing, but not enough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oops! Oppose per hoopydink and per the response to hoopydink. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Crazyrussian, who is per Hoopydink, so really... Per Hoopydink -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Candidate's statement:

    I keep a level head and don't crack under pressure, I always mind WP:CIVIL

    Evidently forgotten in reply to Hoopydink. – Chacor 04:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Hoopydink. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. neutral. user is a good vandal fighter, but the borderline incivil comments to Hoopydink raies some objection to me. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.