Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gadfium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gadfium

final (24/0/0) ending 07:33 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gadfium first contributed in March 2004 and has accumulated over 8000 edits since that, mainly by doing huge amounts of janitorial work. In particular, I've noticed him reverting tests/vandalism manually; I think he should be allowed the convenience of the rollback function instead :-) Fredrik | talk 07:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept the nomination.-gadfium 18:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fredrik | talk 08:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Everyking 13:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. M7it 18:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. I've been here about as long as you have, but I don't have nearly as much edits as that. I'm wondering how much time you spent online to reach that count... [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 23:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  5. That's almost as impressive an edit-to-time ratio as I have - hard work abounds. ;) -- Grunt   ҈  23:41, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  6. Old proverb: "Wikiholics makest worthy administrators". Gadfium then definitely deserves it! JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 00:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Of course! --Lst27 (talk) 02:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Slowking Man 02:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Rje 05:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 06:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Certaintly. By the way, your edit-to-time ratio is terrific, haven't seen one that nice since Mike H's. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 16:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  13. --jni 17:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. 172 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. The candidate's janitorial work deserves high respect -- this is the kind of stuff that constantly improves Wikipedia in a lot of small ways, eventually combining into the overall effect of giving readers a serious impression of the 'pedia (which, in its turn, it certainly deserves). Support. --Wernher 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Definitely. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. Gadfium's minor edits have improved Wikipedia in major ways. utcursch 12:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Pedant 01:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  19. Yea, verily. +sj.+ 03:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Definately. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 20:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Michael Snow 00:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  22. No question. Robin Patterson 05:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. ffirehorse 01:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. older≠wiser 03:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
Mostly recent changes patrol and other vandalism reverts. I might become active in implementing speedy deletes, banning persistent vandals, and protecting frequently-vandalised pages (such as Waverly, Pennsylvania, where I was involved in reverting a user persistently adding nonsense to the page), but I agree with the idea of using banning/protection as a last resort.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I'm not much of an article writer, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are from working through User:Topbanana's reports and categorising articles. Some of the articles I've created are Data General Business Basic, B32 Business Basic, Disk cloning, Joan Dingley and G H Cunningham. I wouldn't claim that I'm particularly pleased with any of them. My writing style is probably best suited to articles and other items where my dry humour can be used; encyclopedia articles are more difficult to write. I've also been known to create a stub article because I've become tired of disambiguating links to it.
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've managed to stay away from conflict so far. Occasionally I've made an edit (a categorisation or disambiguation) that regular maintainers of an area disagree with, and I'm happy to accept their expertise. For example, I categorised a number of historians by nationality, but the categories were ambiguous; I categorised some as American historians because they were US citizens but wrote on European topics, and the Wikipedians who hang out at that category were bemused at my work. I suggested splitting the category into two: Historians writing about American history, and historians from America, and that proposal more or less happened, although I think the whole area is still a bit muddy.
A more recent example of a disagreement with a user is when User:Cap'n_Refsmmat added links to his forums to several articles, and I carried on a discussion with him at User_talk:Cap'n_Refsmmat#ComputerGeek_links about what links would be appropriate, and urging him to seek policy clarification in a wider forum.-gadfium 18:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)