Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mdd4696

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mdd4696

Final (44/0/0) ended 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mdd4696 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. As I continue to broaden my involvement on Wikipedia, it seems that I am finding more and more areas where I cannot participate because I lack the tools to do so (specifically, the ever-backlogged Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons). I consider experience with several different areas of the project, good communication skills and a positive attitude to be vital qualities in administrators, so I've tried to exemplify them in my work. I hope that this nomination leads to new duties to fulfill, but I welcome the constructive criticism all the same. ~MDD4696 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Without furthur ado, I accept. ~MDD4696 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for voting on my RfA! ~MDD4696 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Everything looks good to me; well-rounded and sufficient experience. joturner 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hell yes. NSLE (T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-03-31)
  3. Strong Support per a review of this user's edits. Good all around contributer. One slight criticism is your high user space edit count; however, I don't have much room to criticize in that regard as I made a lot of edits early on. I see no reason to oppose, excellent! ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support You're looking fine to me. And I learned something new when I checked out your talk page. (I really need to look into 3D photography now...) --Mmounties (Talk) 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yep. Balanced contributor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. 'Support good candidate --rogerd 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. 'Support. good work. pschemp | talk 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Suppprt, esp. commitment to Commons backlog. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Leidiot 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, but answering the questions by JoshuaZ below will be much better.--Jusjih 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - looks alright. Nephron  T|C 04:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, yep, looks all OK. JIP | Talk 04:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support JoshuaZ 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support: Well balanced, experienced and knowledgable editor; has the makings of a fine administrator. _-M o P-_ 07:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, seems sensible enough. Proto||type 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support --Terence Ong 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Richardcavell 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong support Excellent user, deserves the mop and bucket. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, no rason to oppose, good answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Moe ε 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support. An excellent editor - will make an even better admin. --Weatherman90 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Edwy 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support from neutral, Shyam (T/C) 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Great involvement. Covington 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Great involment and number of edits. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Cliche --Jaranda wat's sup 15:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Will use the mop well. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support --Ugur Basak 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support™. --24.46.201.42 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Note: This is me, this piece of shit sub-par computer doesn't hold cookies very well. --Rory096 13:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Suppose a trusted and good user. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:36, 3 April 2006]
  36. Support Per Above. --Masssiveego 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, another solid future admin. Deizio 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support I see no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Looks good. Hiding talk 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support per above. Silensor 08:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral, response to user and user talk pages are almost same. Approximately 10% of the edits with your own userspace does not suit to me. I won't support at this stage. Shyam (T/C) 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) very nice work on monobook. See support subpart for my vote.
  • The majority of my userspace edits consist of edits to my monobook.js and personal sandbox. I use these pages to test the scripts and templates I work on. ~MDD4696 08:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Mdd4696's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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: Initially I believe I would work on some of the images in CAT:NC and CAT:NCT (as mentioned above), since I have been active in the untagged images project and those categories are quite backlogged. I'm always looking for new things to do though, so I'll will be keeping an eye on other areas that need work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm happiest with my work when I see a positive impact, so I'm generally pleased with my entire edit history. I enjoy monitoring the technical section of the Village Pump, working on scripts, and discussion or debate with others, for some more specific examples. I'd like to add a few new features to my Image Autotagger tool before I say I'm happy with it, but I believe it's been helpful to some users. I'm also proud of a few articles that I've worked on, despite their smallish size, because I see them as strong bases for future contributions.
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: Yes, I have had the edit conflict screen come up on multiple occasions... oh wait. (Rats...) Conflicts over editing? I have had a differing opinion on several issues, but there hasn't been anything serious that wasn't resolved through discussion. I admit that I may be a bit of a tiger, but I try very hard to keep my point of view in check. William Pietri's advice works well for me: "Give it a few days to see how people react ... a couple of days later, see how you like your work." Should something come up that I strongly disagree with I would take the customary step back and assess the situation; if need be I would then request an outside opinion or otherwise pursue the appropriate channels.

Questions by JoshuaZ

1. Could you please expand on your answer to question 3 above, if possible with specific difs.
A: When I disagree with something I usually end up writing in an argumentative tone, which I think can be interpreted negatively at times. However, I also try to stick to the facts, and to make concessions where I think it's reasonable. Revisiting issues at a later point in time also gives me a different perspective on them and allows me to better distinguish between my own point of view and a neutral point of view. In this manner, I have been able to discuss and resolve issues to my satisfaction, even if the resolution was not entirely in my favor.
Although out of context, I think some of the following edits demonstrate the above:
  • Wikipedia:Root page - I disagreed with this project's aims; the project's main supporter has now modified its goals.
  • Wikipedia:Wikihalo - I still don't really understand the point of this project, but I voiced my opinion and voted on its MfD (closed as no consensus), so I've conceded that it's not really doing any harm.
  • Naruto popularity - I was put off by this anonymous user's comments at first, but by revisiting them a while after they were posted, I could see that he has some valid points that need to be addressed.
2. Under what circumstances would you issue an indefinite block to a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
A: It is difficult to answer this question without simply reiterating Wikipedia's blocking policy. I imagine that most of my indefinite blocks would apply to accounts with inappropriate usernames. Other than that, a user would have to commit a very serious infraction (I'm thinking personal attack that places users in danger) for me to consider blocking them indefinately, on the spot. It seems to me that lengthy but finite blocks are more suitable for other non-trivial infractions, because I want to give people a chance at eventual reform.

Questions by Masssiveego

1. Why do you have 5 orphan pictures?
A: I haven't used Duesentrieb's image tool much yet, but I would guess that it's not detecting the categories being included through the license templates. All of the images I've uploaded are in at least one category, and all but Image:Piratey.svg are used in at least one article. Now that you mention it, I should probably mark that image for deletion, since other users beat me to an SVG version of the Pirate FPC.
2. Under what circumstances does a "Users who exhaust the community's patience" be used?
A: When I read about this catch-all in the blocking policy I brushed it off as something that I would know when I see it. This is a very subjective area, and would most certainly require feedback from others prior to any blocks. I haven't yet encountered a user who has crossed the line in this regard, but I think it's conceiveable that someone who regularly disregards the manual of style (in such a way that it makes articles more difficult to read) could be blocked for a short period of time under this "patience provision".
3. How do you investigate an A7 claim?
A: This seems like a rather simplistic question... I hope I'm not forgetting something! Either an article has a claim to notability (that satisfies our guidelines for inclusion), or it does not. If it does, then that claim is contested and the claimant should be referred to AfD. Otherwise, the article could reasonably be deleted. However, I favor the use of the {{importance}} tag at first, with the hope that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject can improve the article.
The above 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.