Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SamuelWantman

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] SamuelWantman

final (32/0/0) ending 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

SamuelWantman (talk · contribs) – Samuel's been around since 2004-05-17. I met him when we collaborated on template:CategoryTOC. He's one of the originators of the classification mechanism. He successfully shepherded San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to featured status (another collaboration, this time with User:Leonard G.). He's great to work with, spends a fair amount of time reverting vandalism, leaps tall bridges with a single bound - if there's anyone that should be a shoo-in, he's it. Rick Block (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Samuel Wantman 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Rick said it: shoo-in. David | Talk 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Will make a good admin. --Angr (t·c) 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Shoo!, I mean shoo-in! Shows many positive characteristics of an admin, such as a desire to perform behind-the-scenes janitorial work. --Deathphoenix 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. per nom. --Pamri • Talk 14:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support in appreciation of his contributions. Jonathunder 14:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Yes! --King of All the Franks 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Duh -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Contributions look very impressive. --TantalumTelluride 15:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Reasonable, rational, and did not ask for it, which should be a prerequisite for obvious reasons. Haiduc 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Valuable editor. - Darwinek 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Grand fellow, with good janitorial background. Xoloz 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, good editor. Nightstallion ✉ 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Will be a great admin --Jbamb 00:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Edits look fine.--MONGO 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Every thing looks to be in order to me. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support - Svest 04:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
  22. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support - a discerning and cooperative editor. Leonard G. 05:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support - A great choice for an admin! Love the coop, love the grunt work, love the edits. Mceder 07:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - Like his work, like his style. ++Lar 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support - Sango123 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. BlankVerse 07:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support --Romeo Bravo 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. I trust Rick implicitly. -- Essjay · Talk 03:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Where Essjay leads me, I shall follow (with limitations of course). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:56, 29 December 2005 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Mostly I'd just continue doing what I have been doing. With the additional powers that come with an admin, I'd probably use the rollback tool the most. Making reverts easier would probably mean that I'd do more patrolling. I agree with the admin reading list when it says that everyone should behave as admins. It is partly for this reason that I have never asked to be one. But it seems that the admins are overworked, and I'd try to help out where I can and where it would be useful.
Recently, I've been trying to get people on an academic e-mail list to contribute more to Wikipedia. Several people have mentioned that they are afraid of their postings being vandalized. I'd like to offer my services to that community to police and revert vandalism. I think knowing that there is an admin looking out for and reverting vandalism might assuage some fears. I've been wondering about proposing a system like this for admins. Each admin could post the categories they watch on their user pages, and then post their username on the talk pages of the categories and articles they are watching. This way, users would know who a good admin would be to talk to if there is a question or problem. Admins would be able to find out if any other admins are closely watching categories and articles. I'd also like to see more outreach to other academic communities. Anyway, this is another discussion. --Samuel Wantman 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that I think this is a GREAT idea. Keeping WP:OWN in mind of course!!!! It seems to that if there was a way to assure a community of non wikipedians with significant things to contribute that their contributions would be monitored, it would be something to assuage some of their concerns and get better contributions. I hope this idea gets taken farther than just mentioning it here in an RfA... ++Lar 00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Template:CategoryTOC because I took the germ of an idea, experimented with making a template (I think it was about the first one I ever tried to make) and then stood back as other people perfected it (and fought over it!) It was wildly successful and I think solved some major categorization problems. I point to it as an example of how collaborations can work successfully.
List of largest suspension bridges because it is more accurate, up to date, and comprehensive than anything else that exists on the Web. When people tell me that Wikipedia is full of errors, I mention it as an example of the opposite.
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge because I helped bring a good article written by a large number of contributors to FA status.--Samuel Wantman 08:12, 22 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. The biggest one, which I fell into head first without any idea what I was getting into was the episode involving a new user. I was trying to help him understand how Wikipedia works but it ended up with him ranting and raving against me. I've archived most of it at here. This definitely added to my stress level at the time, but I learned quite a bit in the process. Other than this dreary incident, I have mostly enjoyed collaborating with others, and have at times successfully moderated a few heated debates.
I'm often frustrated at the slow pace of change when it comes to correcting problems. Trying to get others to agree to policy changes feels like trying to herd cats. But I've learned that most problems seem to slowly correct themselves if the correction makes sense. --Samuel Wantman 08:12, 22 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.