Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nixdorf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Nixdorf

final (29/7/6) ending 10:30 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixdorf (talk · contribs) – Nixdorf has been here since forever (seriously, since late 2002) and is just generally brilliant. Which is a good enough reason to nominate for me. Dan100 (Talk) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, though I believe I will not make excessive administration, just general hands-on stuff. Nixdorf 15:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Dan100 (Talk) 10:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. King of All the Franks 14:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, since he has been here since late 2002, he has more than enough experience required. --Terence Ong Talk 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Greatly Support, from what I have researched he seems like a great canidate for an admin. Wikizach 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support; mainspace edits are infinitely more important than any other type. Matt Yeager 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. El_C 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support User seems well-versed on WP and will be a good admin. --rogerd 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support admin is no big deal so oppose reasoning doesn't do it for me.Gator (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, because I suffer from accountagitis.  Grue  20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and I see no reason why this person cannot be trusted with the added responsibilities that come with it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support - Hahnchen 04:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - seems to be an experienced and high-quality contributor, and it's not as if adminship is a big deal. --Stormie 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support As a similar "newbie" who has only been here since, oh, January of 2003, I definitely appreciate the kind of level-headed, concise editors who can keep their non-article edit counts fairly low as they contribute, as it often speaks volumes about their unwillingness to get involved in petty bickering, revert wars, sniping, or superflous non-article chatter and debate (as compared to needed non-article chatter and debate, of course). Ronabop 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good and responsible contributor, unlikely to abuse admin tools. The main article namespace is the backbone of Wikipedia. If an excellent contributor wants admin tools for the occasional edit which requires them (such as a move to a page which has two redirects in its history), I think we can entrust him with them. Some months ago I opposed User:Khaosworks' nomination for lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace and I now regret now having done so. 129.177.19.120 14:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oops, got logged out there, that was me: Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Mild Support - I agree with the reasoning of Gator. However, I would add that it would be beneficial for his user interaction to increase; although, Jimbo Wales has said that adminship isn't meant to be a big deal. It would appear that if we were to use Jimbo's reasoning then the majority of wikipedians should be admins. I see no reason to depart from this conjecture and the only real reason I can see for denying SysOp priviliges is if the camdidate is extremely new (so new that we don't know if he/she will be a threat) or if the candidate poses a real risk of abusing his/her SysOp privileges. --Chazz88 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Another long-term good contributor who decides maybe the toolbox might be useful after all, and I see no reason not to support. This should be no big deal. (Also, I hear you on question #3, having felt similarly, and that frank answer leads me to suspect abuse of admin rights will be unlikely.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:32
  20. Support I find it inconceivable that a user who has shown such fortitude in his dedication to this project would abuse or misuse the orb and sceptre of adminship. BD2412 T 03:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. support because he is a good long time contributor Yuckfoo 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support even if you can just do a half dozen vandalism rollbacks a week, it's a help...I see no reason to oppose your promotion.--MONGO 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Good long term editor should have the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 09:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Strong support. Excellent contributor; level-headed and well-spoken. Will make an stellar admin. Adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. El_C 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. - Phaedriel 19:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose. Blatant lack of user interaction - in three years' time, he has made less than 50 edits to user talk pages, and only 16 edits to article talk pages in the past three months. Also I am unimpressed by his almost total lack of contributions to Wikipedia space (17 in the past year) and WikiTalk (5 total). Accountagitis is no grounds for promoting a user who shows no familiarity with process and no community interaction. Radiant_>|< 11:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Interesting effect of data mining. Though I admit to being not very interactive, I think that most discussions I've had has been on article talk pages. Nixdorf 11:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be five edits in the last month, less than a hundred in the last year; I'm not particularly impressed. Sorry, but user interaction is an important part of adminship, and you show very little experience in that area. Radiant_>|< 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, that was what I said... Nixdorf 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ok, this fellow is certainly a wonderful article writer. With so few edits to Project space, though, I can't understand why he needs adminship, and his first answer is too short to clear up the matter for me. I want Nixdorf to be an admin, but if this is something he desires, he should show some familiarity with Project space. I will support in one month, even, if he makes a serious effort there. Xoloz 16:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose Very few wikiname space edits. Sorry. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    He has more edits than you. Clearly he is adminship material. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:32
    Excuse me? Please be civil, rudeness like that is uncalled for..--Sean|Black 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Despite his long tenure, this great editor has actually done very little admin-type work. Very few vandalism reverts, zero participation in VfD/AfD, and minimal user interaction, as others have noted. I'm sure he could learn to become a good admin, but at this point I don't think he's ready. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't need admin powers to revert vandalism (and anyone can get a rollback button), participate in *FD, or interact with users. Ridiculous rationale. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:34
  4. Oppose. As above, thanks for all the good contributions, but adminship is strongly related to user interaction, and I am opposed to a candidate with so little experience in that area. Dragons flight 23:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose based on lack of interaction with other users. In all that time you've been here, you should know the community a bit better. How can people size you up well without having talked with you? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Per Radiant.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Not enough community interaction. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Edits and article participation seems good, with an excelent use of edit summaries, but a noted lack of User_talk and Project_talk type edits indicate low user interaction, a trait I feel admins should have. Other than that, I have no reason to oppose, and wish you well on your nomination. xaosflux Talk/CVU 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: Dormant LTU Sceptre (Talk) 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for now; I think (s)he'd make a great admin, but a little more activity, 'specially in userspace, would be good. Will likely support next time. Nightstallion ✉ 07:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Zoloz. No offense, but 50 is way too low, I probably have been averaging 50 per day as an admin lately. Not sure if he could handle that right now. karmafist 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    Fifty per day from user welcoming. What does that prove? Dan100 (Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    Actually about 40 per day from welcoming and another 10 to 15 solving disputes and answering questions from other users on average, but no need to split hairs. To admin, you need to have at least a little bit of a social streak, even if you stay somewhat aloof(we all have niches). If a regular user needs some help, it's an admin's job to help them if they can, and that's facilitated by knowing people who know things that you don't. karmafist 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral as per above. I find the low community interaction a little bit of a problem, but there is nothing to indicate that this user will misuse admin powers. enochlau (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral See my crossed out oppose comment --Jaranda wat's sup 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm curious, why does having a low number of user talk edits mean he cannot be trusted with admin privileges? As Nixdorf has pointed out, that's not the only way to communicate with other editors... Dan100 (Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's true, but if we consider this user's contributions outside of the article space as a whole, proportionally it doesn't seem quite right. As I noted above in my neutral vote, I made the observation that it doesn't mean he can't be trusted, but at the same time, it's hard to tell how the user will behave once an admin. enochlau (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For reference, the edit count stats can be found here. enochlau (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
proportionally it doesn't seem quite right - goodness me, we're only voting on whether or not Nixdprf should be given acces to (un)block, (un)delete, (un)protect or rollback. I really don't see how the "proportion of edits" is relevant. And he's been here since 2002, far longer than anyone participating in this discussion. I think we'd know by now if he was going to flip out and delete the Main Page or something :-) Dan100 (Talk) 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Restore criticism, what idiot deleted this?" -- could have been someone new, no? WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, presumably some dumb guy like me. When I see people deliberately proselyting and non-NPOVing stuff that was previously perfectly NPOV:ed I get real... angry... Perhaps I need psychoanalysis to come to terms with my anger, or I'll end up like Anakin Skywalker. Nixdorf 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Try not to get your arm chopped off, and anger is bad for admins. Anger, the darkside. Ronabop 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Anger leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to suffering... Yoda Wales told me. Now where is my lightsaber? Nixdorf 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How is adminship 'strongly related to user interaction'? What part of user interaction requires, or is informed by, adminship? +sj + 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The ever-appearing question of my antisocial personality disorder will hopefully solve itself. If I feel pain when being forced to communicate with people I will simply resign, i.e. ask that my adminship be, simply, removed. I will not go to the Jedi Temple and kill everyone, I ... swear. Nixdorf 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the belligerent tone of those arguing with the opposers helps one bit. Discuss, by all means, but do it nicely. Always. -Splashtalk 15:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was not my intention to be a pugnaciously prompt instigative person. I was doing my haphazardish attempt att being funny at, as is confirmed by the misunderstanding, my own expense. Sorry. Nixdorf 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I was not referring to you. -Splashtalk 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I've been particularly interested in countering vandalism and raising quality overall. Nixdorf 16:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Gnosticism, parts of Nordic Bronze Age, René Malaise, a large chunk of Universal Serial Bus, and the Golden horns of Gallehus and many small articles such as the one on the Vadstena bracteate comes to mind though I tend to forget about them until they turn up in the watchlist, altered. Nixdorf 16:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
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. I feel bad when people are angry about something I've done (a real painful, physical, stomach phenomena), so I always try to find a friendly solution to all conflicts. Wikipedia offers all the ability to do that. There are some times, such as when proselytes want to give only one side of the story, that I am really, really troubled, because I really want to make them my friends. I confess to doing diplomatic mistakes. The stuff I wrote at this part of the Eric Voegelin discussion page was not good. I will not do it again. Nixdorf 16:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.