Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steinsky

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] Steinsky

Final (45/1/0) ending 17:47 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Steinsky (talk · contribs) – This user bin arond for a long time and seamd to be a good editer.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks! Thanks also to Grutness and Fawcett5 who offered to nominate a few months ago while I was still settling into a new country and job and didn't have much time for Wikipedia. I don't remember coming accross My Cat inn before (sorry if we have and I'd forgotten and just been offensive!) so I was wasn't expecing this nomination! Joe D (t) 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC) corrected 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (ta, Francs).

Support

  1. Support. Let me be the first this time. --Ghirla | talk 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Very strong support - surprised he's not one already. -- Francs2000 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Steinsky's been around a while (though most active in May 2005), and the Wikipedia-space contributions show a fairly even spread among different areas. Decent answers to questions, though I think you'd be a little too slow with the speedy deletes (though it's probably better that you're cautious than deletion-happy). --Deathphoenix 18:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Good contributor working on areas of Wikipedia where admin tools would be useful. -SCEhardT 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong support - and about time! Guettarda 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. aye good edits, good experience, good answers. Derex 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent Wikipedian. Moncrief 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Good editor. Zocky | picture popups 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --MONGO 01:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support --Ugur Basak 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per nom, good contributor all around. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Latinus 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Terence Ong 10:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good editor, reasonable guy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support; especially like the question answers. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Contributions are uneven, but of consistently high quality. Willing to give him a shot. -Colin Kimbrell 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support 'tis an honour to be opposed by Masssiveego (aka Boothy II) --Wikiacc (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. King of All the Franks 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support My experience with him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia was agreeable. ~MDD4696 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. I guess I might as well jump on this bandwagon. User seems to be a perfect candidate for adminship. I'm surprised I don't remember ever coming across his user name or signature before. --TantalumTelluride 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. support, plenty of experience └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Go for it! Admin in the making. Deskana (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, thoughtful, well-rounded and experienced user. Happy to support. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support will be a good admin --rogerd 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Of course! If my computer hadn't crashed, I'd have voted much sooner. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support--Bling-chav 13:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support--Ahonc 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Mushroom 10:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support: --Bhadani 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Joyous | Talk 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Occasionally snappy, but all in all very impressive: I think he'd be a very responsible editor. Staffelde 14:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support excellent candidate. Pete.Hurd 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support - conscientious, considerate and a good communicator. - Samsara contrib talk 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support! Hey - I started editing on Evowiki and then went big time :-) a couple months later. Great editor and deserves the mop! Vsmith 02:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Seems like he will use the tools well. -- DS1953 talk 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - looks good. --Whouk (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Adminstratorfy.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Somewhat too easily irrated, lack of temperament. --Masssiveego 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Evidence please? If your evidence once again is the fact that this user used a template, I don't know what I'll do. You're supposed to use templates. Deskana (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Reading how he answered how he his questions below is more then enough for me to say he is not qualified. Needs to grow a slightly thicker skin, learn to "just suck it in". --Masssiveego 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, a vague comment. Which question, and more specifically, which part of the said question lead you to this conclusion? I'd really appreciate some clarification. Deskana (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Editor's answer to question 8 begins, "A few weeks ago I did a 100 page sample." In fact, the page says the sample was taken more than a year ago. Editor is obviously about as out-of-touch with the calendar as I am! ;) Xoloz 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good catch. I did have jetlag, please don't hold my inability to remember the year against me! Joe D (t) 21:25, 25 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.
A. The same as before, but saving myself a few seconds. I've already been doing plenty of admin and cleanup tasks in the past--closing TfDs, vandalism watch etc--which adminship would make easier for myself and those admins who wouldn't have to do the bits I can't. These days though I don't have all that much time, and tend to keep myself in the article and article talk namespaces, expanding articles, checking facts and reverting vandalism to those articles on my watchlist. Much of the time I'd just be using the tools on articles I'm already working on or watching--protecting against edit wars, page moves that fail etc, but occasionally I get a couple of weeks off, often with jet lag when I'm up 'till five in the morning and get a sudden urge to cleanup Wikipedia and I'm sure I could tidy up stubs, templates and categories for deletion every now and then. As co-founder of EvoWiki (yes, I know it needs a MediaWiki upgrade, it's on my todo list!) I'm already used to misc admin tasks.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Some of the ones that are part of WP:UK geo (which seems to be a one man collaboration at the moment): Dorset (FA + subpages History of Dorset and Geology of Dorset), Hampshire, Wiltshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, etc. I'm (very slowly) working on adding statistics and basic details of history and geography to all the counties. Glastonbury Festival and Julian Huxley are getting there too, and John Peel, though I need to read his autobiography and cite sources better. Also, my photos.
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. Several times. I find the three best ways are citing sources, referring it to the community and taking the evening off. A couple of recent ones:
  • Sustrans: anon user(s) were adding POV and questionable "facts" to the article and arguing about it on the talk page. I rewrote the article citing sources for every fact in it, and invited them to make additions if they coule cite sources.
  • Cornwall: I feel I'm in the centre ground on this article, and have tried to steer clear of editing too many of the controversial sections, but have spent hours on the talk page trying to create a factually accurate and ballanced introduction, referring to Requests for Comments and the UK Wikipedians' notice board where neccesary. I admit to recently breaking the 3rr on I think it was Longships (though I didn't realise at the time).
  • I also used to get frustrated with people on Creationism and Intelligent Design, but since they're usually transients and the articles get overhauled every few months, I just don't bother with them anymore.
I think I've blabbered on for long enough...

That's okay, please feel free to keep blabbing here... 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 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I've never used bv, and tend to avoid test4. I use test1, 2 and 3, and if I think it will affect the user's behaviour I will then use a custom note about why what they're doing is a waste of their and our time.
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. I'd leave a note on the article talk page (as it takes more than one to start a revert war) asking them to stop editing the article until an agreement can be reached on the talk page.
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. If the author is still an active editor I would contact them asking why they think the person is notable, and add the PossibleVanity template to the page for a day or two. If there are no google hits, or google returns something like a myspace, blogspot or personal site that demonstrates non-notability I would probably speedy delete, possibly first referring it to the IRC channel first. I tend to be cautious anyway with marking things for deletion.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. The same as I currently do and have. Citing sources, discussing on talk page and referring to RfC, IRC and relevant notice board/wikiprojects etc when problems arise. When I was 16 I got into a long argument with a creationist, and have since taken a degree in biology. Unfortunately I don't quite have the time to get a degree every time arguments crop up, but I do my best to read around all the topics I edit, and avoid taking sides in disputes I don't know enough about.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. A few weeks ago I did a 100 page sample. I was frustrated that only 2% of articles cited three or more sources, and a lot had some bad prose — like opening an article with "X is the name of..." rather than "X is...", making a new paragraph for every sentence like BBC news infuriatingly do, or using a "Biography" heading in an article about a person, as though the rest of the article isn't biographical!.
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.