Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedernst 2

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] Tedernst

Final: (15/8/3) ended 07:06 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tedernst (talk · contribs) – This is my second self-nomination. I was asked to withdraw the first one (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedernst) due to lack of experience at Wikipedia. I agreed. Since then, I've dabbled in different areas of Wikipedia, with most of my edits coming while disambiguating. I've built up quite a watchlist and I revert vandalism whenever I see it. I hope I've shown through my work that I am an asset to Wikipedia already. I believe my work here will be even more effective as an administrator (primarily with reverting vandalism and perhaps blocking users, though that would be rare for me). Tedernst 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tedernst 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Thryduulf 09:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC). I see no reason to hinder your desire to help with the janitorial work, here. Thryduulf 09:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, support. It was mainly length of time here that foiled the last bid. Tedernst is still keen and has shown dedication to the 'pedia, so go for it. Grutness...wha? 09:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, should be fine with admin tools. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support No problem.Gator (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks good! ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support FireFox 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support no big deal...I'm not inclined to think you'll vapor lock and turn into a lousy contributor in another month, and see no reason to discourage you from continuing to be a good contributor by making you run for a third nomination.--MONGO 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Izehar 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian 12:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support: unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons presented for opposition to date are not compelling. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support these oppose votes are stupid and do not have a legitimate rationale. freestylefrappe 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nor, one could argue, does yours. :) Turnstep 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support per Mongo. Why get in the way of someone who wants to fight vandals more efficiently?--Alhutch 01:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Has been staying cool under provocation. Susvolans ⇔ 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Go forth and block some vandals. Matt Yeager 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I don't think any RfA should be re-considered in less that 2-3 months. --Rogerd 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Its been barely over a month, too soon especially for a self nom and you seem over eager for admin status. Plus you have yet to reach the 3 month mark. Also while you have a high edit count, over 4000, i dont really see any one edit with real content adding. While im saying that dab and link repairing arent bad, they are not enough in my opinion to become an admin. Your on the right track, maybe have someone else nom and I will support then. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I must admit that Tedernst is a very good dismbig link fixer and gives always an edit summary. Still after going through the edits made between the nominations I noted that: 1) last 3 Afd votes were made on 10 November, 5 November, 4 November 2) ~94 % of edits between nominations are on Stub-sorting tags, dabs, fixing link order -tags -- all minor edits and lastly 3) during the month November 39 reverts, ~1/day (rough count of rvv and revert Edit summaries) were made. Although a huge jump in edits has been made between the self-nominations (650 - 4000), most of the edits have been minor and little participation to AfD, NA or RC can be noted from his editing pattern. So I wouldn't say that he "dabbled in different areas of Wikipedia" between the nominations. Also I support the opinions of Rogerd and Jobe. feydey 00:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    When I say I dabbled, I mean I tried out different places to see where my work-style really fits. I found disambiguation to be the place it fits most. I don't go looking for vandals, but because I now have 3000+ pages on my watchlist, they come to me. I respect your right to vote however you wish. That said, I don't understand why people vote against editors that don't work in all areas. My opinion is that people should work where they feel the most comfortable and if the admin tools will help at all, they should be given, unless someone doesn't have a track record or has shown to be irresponsible. I'm not asking you to change your vote, just letting you know how I see things. Tedernst | Talk 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well the area that you are working in doesn't necessarily need admin powers. A vandal fighter for example could be greatly helped by admin powers. Someone who regularly participates in AFD would also have good use of these powers. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, not needing the admin powers is a totally different argument. I'm not sure why someone not needing the powers is a reason not to give them the powers, but now I understand a bit more where you're coming from. In 3 or 3 years from now, I doubt I'll be a vandal fighter, so if that's the standard, then perhaps we ought to forget the whole thing. That said, I revert one or two or so, vandals per day and it would be nice to be able to roll back. I also would like to help with page moves, and I need to be an admin for that. Tedernst | talk 16:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per feydey. Quentin Pierce 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose only because last nomination was just over a month ago, per RogerD. March '06 will bring my support, if that is even necessary. Xoloz 07:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Too soon. Proto t c 14:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sadly oppose. If this RfA had come at a slightly later date, perhaps after the start of the new year, I would gladly give an accept vote. However, after doing my research and looking at things, I have to cast my vote as it is. Give yourself some time, do some more work, and come back in March or April -- I'll probably change my vote then! --Martin Osterman 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose as being too soon (both in total time and since last RfA), and the concerns of Jobe6 above. Turnstep 19:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. We don't need more admins. Most abusive users are blocked quickly, and if they aren't, admins are easily contacted. Most vandalism that slips through wouldn't have been caught if every user had the rollback button. 202.58.85.8 07:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral per Jobe6 --Jaranda(watz sup) 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral ditto -- Francs2000 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, has clearly more experience now, but I'd still want to wait a bit longer before supporting. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just a couple more thoughts. Everyone has a right to vote however they like. That said, I don't understand what will change in a month or 3 or 5 or 15. I asked this after my first RFA and never really found a satisfactory answer. Have their been examples of "admins gone bad" thought could be correlated to their lack of experience in terms of time when promoted to admin? If adminship is "not a big deal," then what will change with more time? Either way, folks, I'm going to continue doing what I can. Just seems to me that the more tools each of us has, the better the encyclopedia will be overall. Tedernst | talk 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone with time concerns is worried about admins "going bad." It's simply a matter of ensuring the user knows their way around well enough. The idea is that an admin should have a certain familiarity with WP policies and procedures, and lots of experience editing articles, using talk pages, resolving conflicts (or at least watching some from the sides), etc. Using a minimum time is a rough rule of thumb some of us use as one of the factors in deciding on whether to support adminship. Hope that helps. Oh, and I also don't subscribe to the "no big deal" thing, at least not as far as some of the frequent support voters do. :) Turnstep 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, so then do we have any examples of admins misusing their powers because they didn't know the relevant policies well enough? And can we correlate that misuse to a certain (small) amount of time here prior to becoming admins? Forget about my RFA for a moment. Should this really be a criteria? Of course we want admins that have been involved and have worked stuff out with people. Yes, yes and yes. My question is, does the time criteria get us what we want? Tedernst | talk 23:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, the 'time criteria' is the best we have right now. If you know of another way, short of giving an exhaustive quiz to every applicant, we're all ears. :) I think it is safe to say that everyone has a 'time criteria', the only difference is in how long it is and how relatively important it is to each voter. Turnstep 20:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep up the good use of edit summaries! :-) Alhutch 01:55, 5 December 2005 (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. Reverting vandalism would be much easier with admin tools, so that's my short, easy answer. Also, blocking the occassional user (anons, I mostly find) that repeatedly abuse their editing priviliges, would be another tool I'd use, though sparingly, as I don't come across people all that often with test4 on their talk page. Perusing the backlog page, I could see myself helping with the requested moves. I've moved a few pages already, though they didn't need an admin as the destination didn't exist yet. In fact, I'll go check that backlog page now to see if there are some I can help with as a non-admin. Tedernst 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems admins are definitely necessary for these moves in the backlog. I thought perhaps there would be pages there that an editor simply didn't know how to move using the move function. That doesn't appear to be the case. Tedernst 07:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but now that I've spent a bit more time there, there are ways I can be useful, even as a non-admin, in spite of the instructions. So I'll spend more time on requested moves no matter what happens with this RFA. What a learning experience! Tedernst 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm not so much pleased with particular articles, but with classes of edits. I've spent a lot of time bringing disambiguation pages in line with MoS:DP which I feel is important because it improves the usability of Wikipedia. Doing disambiguation link repair (WP:DPL) is where the majority of my edits have come, and I feel that's quite helpful to the end user as well. If they already know the content of the link they're clicking, then it's easy for them to navigate through a dab page, but if they don't, then having the link go directly to the right place is essential. When I'm doing a whole bunch at once, I can get familiar enough with a subject to know which is which. Tedernst 07:17, 1 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. This week I had difficulty with the Maxwell page. I felt another editor was treating me quite poorly. I'm happy with my response, however, as I know this person is also a human being and so I reached out on that basis. The other person came up with a very creative solution that leaves us both happy. The Congo page is another where there's been some disagreement. Currently my work on that page doesn't display as it's been reverted. I'm working on the talk page to resolve that one. Tedernst 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, I'm having some difficulty right now with Witten, Witten (disambiguation) and Witten, Germany. I'm feeling stressed which indicates to me that I need to step back. Anyone want to help? Tedernst 16:28, 1 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.