Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nmajdan

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] Nmajdan

Final (55/0/0); Ended Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:27:34 (UTC)

Nmajdan (talk · contribs) - – It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Nmajdan for Adminship. I have worked with him on several articles and I find his edits and attitude to both be of the highest quality. He has been editing on Wikipedia for about one year, and he has over 12,000 edits, including more than 3,000 to the main article space. He modestly states that this count is "inflated" because he uses AWB, but that does not mean those changes are any less valuable.

He contributes to a wide range of articles and collaborations, including Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. He is very good with Wiki-syntax, templates and formatting, as a look at his user page will reveal. He has started and improved numerous articles, including being the prime factor in getting University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Memorial Stadium and Oklahoma Sooners football to GA quality. He was blocked for a total of 20 minutes once due to some confusion over whether or not he was running an unauthorized script.[1] The situation was resolved amicably, showing me that Nmajdan is a great member of the community even when encountering a rough patch in the road.

He is an active member in community discussions such as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions[2] and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images[3]. He makes important contributions to image uploading as well such as finding this image and taking this one. He has been recognized with several barnstars by fellow editors. He practices good use of edit summaries (Mathbot says Edit summary usage for Nmajdan: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)[4], and he has set his e-mail. Giving him the admin tools will help him build and protect more great articles for Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman- Well, I expressed interest in nomming him, so this co-nom is not one of those "super strong supports tagged as a co-nom" deal. I haven't had many encounters with him basically my first main one was with some wikiproject template work I had trouble with. Nmajdan had no affiliation with my big ten project, but offered to help, and now the assessments there are running smoothly. Upon seeing this, I was surprised he was not an admin yet. He wants to work on images, which is great as the backlog there is always terrible. His article writing's been great, his wikiproject running's been great, and it my pleasure to co-nom him. Also, he communicates through e-mail, which is quite rare from what I've seen.--Wizardman 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept this nomination.↔NMajdan•talk 16:14, 2 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Image maintenance has been my primary administrative focal point on Wikipedia. If approved, I'll probably begin by focusing on IFDs, Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons (and All images on Wikimedia Commons), Orphaned fairuse images, Replaceable fair use images, Images with no fair use rationale and other image backlogs. Of course, I would help out in others areas such as the occassional XfD, RFPP, etc but images would be my main focus.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of just about every one of my contributions to Wikipedia. Some of my proudest include the two Featured Lists: 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings and the 2006 version (and a list current under development that I will eventually nominate for FL). Also my many contributions relating to the University of Oklahoma including that main article which has been greatly improved and is a WP:GA (failed WP:FA), Oklahoma Sooners football, which I started (also a GA that failed FA - I'll get one sooner or later), and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. I have started many articles/stubs on University of Oklahoma football coaches and presidents. I am also very proud of Oklahoma state elections, 2006, which I am just about the sole contributor. In addition to my article space contributions, I've also developed many templates. These include {{College coach infobox}}, {{NCAAFootballSchool}}, three templates for listing a college football schedule ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End) and three templates for listing college recruits ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End). I also assist with the maintenance of several portals including Sports and games, College football, and Oklahoma.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: No, I have been fortunate enough to not have had any serious, long-lasting conflicts. I have had many editors get upset with me during the course of my image patrolling so I have always tried my hardest to explain to them Wikipedia's image use policy and point them in the direction where they can get more information on my actions. In addition, I recently had an issue with a new editor who got upset that I tagged an article he created for speedy deletion. The issue was brought to the attention of WP:ANI here. The editor ended up being indefinitely blocked. (Actually, I'm still communicating with this user through email to help determine the best course of action - if an indefinite block was the best solution or if it should be shortened.) But, no, I have never been in a situation that caused me stress. If, as an admin, a situation does arise that could become stressful, I would try my best to remain calm and keep an open and efficient communication channel with the other party and work toward a solution that is in the best interest of the project.
4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A: Well, I am a fan of the new user warning templates, so I would use {{uw-vandalism1}} or the most appropriate tag. I would use the test warning tag when the user is obviously experimenting with a page, such as if they blank a page and insert "Hey! This is really cool!" That, to me, is not vandalism and I would place the first test warning template on the user's talk page and work my up through test4 if they continue to make similar actions. Personally, I rarely use vandalism1 because it is a good faith assumption template. Most vandalism I come across is obvious vandalism, so I personally start off with a no faith assumption, which is the vandalism2 template. {{bv}} or {{uw-vandalism4im}} would be used very rarely. I would probably use it on a registered user that has a history of vandalism but none recently depending on the severity of the vandalism. I would use it on a new user or anon if the vandalism were especially graphic or vulgar or disparaging. I could also see myself using it if a user vandalizes a heavily used template that effects multiple pages.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A: Whether or not I would report this to WP:3RR and/or take action myself would depend on the history of the editor(s) involved. If it is a new user or a reputable editor who may have just never encountered this rule before then I would simply leave them a message on their talk page explaining the 3RR rules and point them to the page where they can get more information. If a user ever gets to the point where they have reverted changes this many times in such a short period, it may not be violating the rules as they are stated, but it is going against many of the ideals of Wikipedia.
6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: I would like to see Wikipedia move away from polls (ahem) and move towards discussion. I don't mind seeing a "Support" or "Oppose" out in front of the discussion (as this would easily convey the user's opinion) but I would also like to see reasoning for the editor's opinion. Many already feel this way and follow through, but many do not. I, myself, have been guilty of this in the past but I have been trying to remedy that on my end and would like to see others as well.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - as nominator. Johntex\talk 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good candidate. Anyway adminship is no big deal, as per my comments in all previous RfAs. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support I'd do a co-nom but it's already up, oh well. Great editor on all fronts, needed as an admin. as co-nom--Wizardman 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Boomer Sooners! Abeg92contribs 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. You not an admin? Support. Good answers. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - have seen this editor around frequently and his commentary on talk pages is usually insightful. Good answers to questions and good commitment to the community. Am confident will become a fine admin. Khukri 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Ready, willing, and able. -- Jreferee 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Good answers, good edits. Uses edit summaries, etc. Excellent contributor - Alison☺ 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per very, very fine answers until someone gives me a compelling reason as to why not. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Not an admin yet?! Xiner (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support no problems here. - Anas talk? 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support A good candidate for the mop and bucket, good luck! Tellyaddict 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. I see nothing but good here. All systems go. Pigman 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Fantastic answers to the questions, in my opinion.--Xnuala (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I've seen a lot of good things from Nmajdan, and nothing to make me nervous about misusing the tools.--ragesoss 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Images... We need more work on images! I applaud another Fair Use Patroller!--Lmcelhiney 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Nothing but good experience with this user. VegaDark 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Michael 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. I haven't had much direct interaction with Nmajdan, but what I've seen has impressed me. I think Nmajdan will be an excellent admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good answers, good experience. - Denny 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per strong answers to all questions. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. No reason to believe the user would abuse the tools. Plus, the image backlogs need the attention. Vassyana 09:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Good answer to Q1 (backlogged areas), has relevant experience. No problems here, good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, excellent answers to questions, image help is urgently needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, we need more admins for image maintenance, and he seems well-qualified. Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support good and experienced editor.-- danntm T C 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support ↔ you continue your good work on Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support NMajdan and I have collaborated on a number of articles relating to both WP:CFB and WP:OU. I have always found him to be a great editor who is as concerned about doing it right (i.e. according to the rules) as doing it well. He'll make a great admin. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support, know him from College Football project. Keep up the good work, and use your powers to help the Project! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A great user. No reason to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support looks good. -- Nick t 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Keep on truckin' --Infrangible 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support — zero » 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support -- we can always use more people to work in the coal mine. Mangojuicetalk 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - I'm glad to see you changed your mind and took down the "This user is not an administrator and does not wish to be one" UBX - you will make a great admin. --BigDT 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Anyone who is willing to help out with the image backlogs at CAT:CSD and has the relevant experience is a strong RfA contender in my book... WjBscribe 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per WJBscribe et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - A tireless and polite editor and most excellent Wikipedian! Вasil | talk 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Good answers to the questions. Looks great to me. Goodnightmush 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Terence 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per previous experience with Nmajdan. MECU≈talk 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. +sj + 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strong support - BOOMER! (listens carefully...) - KrakatoaKatie 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Burnt orange oppose Hook 'em! Oh wait, support. Contribs don't raise any red flags, and we need more admins in the image areas--even if they are Sooners. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support -LakersTalk 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Perhaps a little bit of a narrow field in his mainspace edits - but not enough to oppose. Rest of the near admin edits are good - so I support--VS talk 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - will make a good admin. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support Artaxiad 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.