Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samuelsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Samuelsen

Final (3/11/4) ended 09:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuelsen (talk · contribs) – Has made invaluable contributions to the fight of vandalism in articles related to Norway, upholds objectivity and does not engage in heated arguments. Trustworthy, however mysterious. Eddi (Talk) 22:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Samuelsen 12:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I withdraw. --Samuelsen 09:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - He's been at wikipedia for years, and is still productive. - Hahnchen 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support 3 years, good time, haven't seen complaints.. Ronabop 17:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support as nominator. --Eddi (Talk) 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose 35 wikipedia namespace edits over a three year span is not good, needs more exprience. The answer for the questions is very small also. If you work on AFD's and other wikispace projects, you get my support in a few months. --Jaranda wat's sup 17:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jaranda. Xoloz 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose He needs better answers to the questions below and I also agree with Jaranda. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Jaranda, low project edits, 35 User_talk edits over 3 years, Terse answers to questions gives little more to go on. e.g. Question 1, many non-admins are extremely effective in fighting vandalism. --pgk(talk) 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'd also like to see much more project involvement along with a much higher use of edit summaries. However, please don't let these negative votes discourage you. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Not enough experience outside of article editing, most of this type of work can be done by anyone. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. That's an impressive length-of-service, and I suppose if he's going to go bad it'd have happened already. But that's not the same as being reasonably-versed in how non-article stuff works, which is what admin work is mostly. Clearly trusted at no.wiki, but en.wiki is not the same (I wouldn't expect to made an admin on no.wiki, after all). Answers to questions are very poor indeed, showing either a lack of real interest, or a lack of understanding about what is expected in an RfA and what it is possible to offer in the answers; the latter may well extend from not having experience of such possibilities. -Splashtalk 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose as per Xaosflux and Anonymous editor. Eluchil 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. same as abovePschemp | Talk 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as above. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. To little time. I know you have been here for 3 years but not enough time being around the community. — Moe ε 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. More edit summaries please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fact that he is an admin at Norwegian wiki with mostly project edits drives me here instead of oppose. Still, seems not very active on both no.wikipedia.org and here; will not flat out oppose due to obvious trust from Norwegian wiki (from which this is a whole different animal), and it's not a question of ready or not; just don't understand why he needs adminship here. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral as per Jjjsixsix. --King of All the Franks 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. NSLE (T+C) 07:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 60% for major edits and 93% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Samuelsen's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • Comment - Note that Samuelsen has been an administrator at the Nowegian Wikipedia since Decemeber 2003. - Hahnchen 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Looking at your contrib's and the summary for reversions it seems as if you already have rollback?! Am I looking wrong? Marskell 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a surrogate from [1] I have installed at my monobook.js. It's a bit slow and I would like to have the real deal. --Samuelsen 19:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I realise this may be out of line, and I take the responsibility; kindly do not let my campaigning tip the scale in disfavour. However, please note that the nomination of Samuelsen is based entirely on his work at en:, not no:. (Further comments on Samuelsen's work here. Any comments on my intrusion at my talk page, please.) --Eddi (Talk) 06:31, 22 January 2006 (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 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.
Fighting vandalism. --Samuelsen 12:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Expanded answer: When I am in the mood, I go to recent changes, hide logged in users and open the diffs in tabs to catch simple vandalism. The surrogate rollback isn't too good and the ability to block persistant vandals would be helpful. --Samuelsen 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Helping out with maintaining articles about Norway's 431 municipalities. --Samuelsen 12:12, 21 January 2006 (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?
Tend to back out of conflicts if they are not resolved quickly. --Samuelsen 12:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
The first for blanking and people writing asdf. The second for people adding profanity and insults. --Samuelsen 21:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
POV pushers. Reverting simple vandalism is kinda relaxing. Sorting out caped crusaders is not. --Samuelsen 21:54, 21 January 2006 (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.