Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TexasAndroid

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] TexasAndroid

final (59/0/0) ending 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

TexasAndroid (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating TexasAndroid for adminship. Since May, when he opened his account, he has given Wikipedia over 9,000 excellent contributions (the overwhelming majority, if not all, with edit summaries). He has done a lot of RC patrol and a lot of that tedious repetitive task of replacing and reordering categories after CfDs. I think that his promotion could only benefit Wikipedia. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept. I will answer the questions below as I have time, though it may be tomorrow before I can fully answer them and whatever others are tacked on to the question list. - TexasAndroid 21:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Finished answering the first set of questions. If more are added, it'll likely be tomorrow before I can get them answered. - TexasAndroid 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems to be a good editor abakharev 09:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Elf-friend 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support The old cliché. Banez 10:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - appears to have great potential for administrative responsibilities. Essexmutant 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support All in 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Edit history impressive; marvelous wiki-janitor. Xoloz 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support good edit history. Will do good job.Gator (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:36, 10 February 2006
  12. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support. Experiences with this user have been very positive; will make a great administrator. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Thunderbrand 18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Everything looks good here, not likely to abuse tools, see additional questions below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the well thaught out answers to the additional questions below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Ugur Basak 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. I came across this editor a while ago, on CfD I think. He seemed thoughtful, deliberative and careful. He is knowledgeable of Wikipedia and its ways. I'm also relieved to see from Interiot's tool that, unlike some of out recognisable editors, this one actually does sleep. -Splashtalk 01:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Wow...he does sleep. Sleep is good for dispute resolution and NPOV. pschemp | talk 02:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support--MONGO 03:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support; experienced, works well with others, will be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Extensive history of good edits. Encountered this user on the Google Maps article, doing a great job of keeping control of the article's external links and spam. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Excellent editor --FloNight 05:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Solid article editor/clean-ups. Calm and professional. And, hey, a Texan. Kuru 05:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --CFIF 13:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --tomf688{talk} 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Mjal 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. The eyes of Wikipedia are upon you and saying support! Grutness...wha? 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - this is the 'droid we're looking for. BD2412 T 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - will make a great admin. Johntex\talk 04:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Sango123 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. jni 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Contributions look good.--Dakota 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Silensor 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Excellent editor. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support without hesitation. Raven4x4x 03:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong support beaten me to the RC punch too many times to oppose. Savidan 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - give the Android his own mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 08:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Pile on Support. Good user.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. CFD needs heping hand. Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Proto||type 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. CFD-based Support :) --Syrthiss 12:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Good user in my experience. Hiding talk 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support --AySz88^-^ 03:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support --mdmanser 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Down with humans! Up with robots! Seriously, though, I was peripherally involved in the situation TexasAndroid describes in the third part of his answer to the third question, and I think he handled the situation admirably. android79 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support good editor --rogerd 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support--Jusjih 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. I think City of Heroes zones and City of Heroes enemy groups could be improved a lot, but I like the wikignome work. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 09:07Z
  59. Support Mihai -talk 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 44% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 62 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See TexasAndroid's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. I do a good bit of vandalism fighting already, and the admin tools would be a definite asset to that effort. I would also gladly assist User:Kbdank71 in administrating CFD. Though I have noticed he's finally got a 2nd person helping him over the last few days, I can only imagine the amount of effort that it takes to keep that thing on track, and he has gotten understandably backlogged several times recently. Since I hang out there a lot anyway, it just makes sense for me to give assistance in the closing out, etc of votes in the place. - TexasAndroid 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
1.1. When do feel categories should be speedied? (added by xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
Technically, by the rules, if they are empty for more than a certain length of time (24 hours or so, don't remember the exact number) they are eligible. There are other possibilities, like attacks, etc, where the article is either dangerous, or totally useless. In reality, I try to use some judgement, and have tossed plenty of empty cats up for CFD instead of speedy when I though there was any possibility of them getting rehabilitated, or if I think that there might be any controversy. The Category:LGBT criminals currently up for CFD is a good example of this. It had become empty because of deletion of it's sub-cats by CFD. So I could have technically waited a couple of days and been correct by the rules to speedy it. But I knew it was not an uncontroversial deletion, so I at once tossed it up for CFD instead, to give it a full hearing.
In general there is no hurry to get rid of most categories. Waiting seven days doesn't hurt if there's the slightest reason to think that the catgory might be kept. OTOH, I don't want th throw every empty category up for CFD, as that would unnecessarily clutter up the process. So I end up tossing most empty categories up for Speedy, and maybe 10-25% up for CFD instead. A few I just leave alone, but those are a very slim minority. - TexasAndroid 07:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am mostly a WikiGnome of the subspecies Category Gnome. I make my home these days among the categories. It suits my temperment. I enjoy seeing articles well categorized. Over the months I have put a lot of effort into cleaning up red categories, removing duplicate categories, putting useless categories up for CFD or Speedy as appropriate, etc. I expect that to continue to be my main home with or without admin powers.
On the article front, I have contributed quite a bit of detail information to several articles on the MMORPG City of Heroes. Specific articles to which I have contributed include City of Heroes zones, City of Heroes enemy groups, and to a smaller degree City of Heroes history.
But still, I really am a WikiGnome, not a page author. I work in the background, on the little things that make the project run more smoothly, rather than on the content. - TexasAndroid 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2.2. When should lists be converted to articles categories, and when should they not? (added by xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
(Let me think on this one overnight. I don't deal much with lists. I'll replace this with an actual answer of some point before the end of the weekend.) - TexasAndroid 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'll have to address this one in the theoretical sense, as I have never made such a conversion. I mostly see things go the other direction: categories put up for CFD where one or more people start voting Listify. In the end though, I would imagine it would depend on similar considerations. Lists and categories in one way serve similar purposes. They both collect groups of things that share one or more characteristics. But they collect these things for very different reasons. Excepting certain admin cats, categories are a navigational tool. A way for a user who is at one article on a subject to quickly find other articles on a similar subject. Lists are ways to present large groups of data in a consice format and add other expanding data. Lists can also easily include elements that do not yet have WP articles. Categories do not.
Put that all together, and I would think that the circustances where a category should replace a list are fairly small. Avoiding loss of data would be a key concern. Are there elements on the list that do not have WP pages? Is there extra data about the elements that could not be presented easily in category format? If so, do not convert. I can see cases where it would be useful to have both. Where it would be nice to be able to present the data, with expanded information, in a list, but there is also a likelyhood that a user would want to navigate the data easily. Ex. here and here.
Hmm. I'm coming up with reasons not to convert, but I'm really not thinking of any reasons to convert. Not to say that there are no reasons to do so, but none are really coming to me. I guess the closest I can come up with is if a list just fits all the reasons for a category, and none of the reasons for having a list. Not a really exciting reason to convert, but that's about all I'm coming up with. - TexasAndroid 15:09, 12 February 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?
A. I can think of several, and I'll give each a summary.
1. Likely the biggest one had to do with the Google Maps page. The page is a complicated situation, but I'll see how best I can summarize. The page had a huge list of external links. So large that it correctly was deleted at one point for WP not being a link repositiory. In order to have at least a small collection of links, a sample of some of the best/most important links was chosen and restored. Around 10-12 links in sevral sub-groupings. Now, I did not participate in this selection, because I have a personal interest in one of the links, being a moderator over there. After that we (the regulars at that page) settled down to work to keep the list from growing again, asking anyone who wanted to add to the links to discuss the link on the talk page first. To enforce this we have been regularly clearing out new links. I observe a personal 1RR rule on this clearing. If I clear a link(s), I will not clear again that day. One link sitting for a day does no real harm, it is the build up we are fighting. We've been doing this for months now, and overall it has worked to hold the line. As for the link to the page where I moderate, I have try my best to be personally hands off of it, knowing that I have a bias where it is concerned.
There was one exception, which is the conflict that is at the core of this. An anonymous user submitted a link, and I cleared it out as I have done to many others. The next day the anon removed the GoogleGlobetrotting (GGT) link, which is the site at which I moderate. The next morning I noticed the GGT link had been removed, by an anon, with no edit summary. I did not notice that it was the same anon that had his own link recently cleared. Given what I did notice, I made a judgement call and restored the GGT link. In hindsight, I should have gotten one of the other G-Maps page regulars to restore it, as I did the one other time the GGT link was removed. The following sections from the G-maps talk archive show what followed: Talk 1, Talk 2. - TexasAndroid 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2. An incident where I improperly handled a category merge. I was called to task by another user. The resulting exchange can be seen bouncing between here and here.
3. A POV pusher on the G.W Bush page. He was fighting strong for a number of points. I tried to play mediator to the whole thing, hopeing that he could be reformed into a good editor. Talk pages involved include: here, here, here, and here are parts of the discusion where I had comments. I think I may also commented on the GWB talk page on the whole situation, but finding those comments in the depths of the GWB talk archive may not be easy.
4. Just today I had a breif skirmish with User:-Inanna-. Inanna was blanking the user pages and category being used to track suspected sockpuppetry by her. While I have no opinion on her supposed sockpuppetry, not having researched the issue, I had a definite problem with the blankings. I began reverting the blankings and left a blanking warning on her talk page. She responded on my talk page with a complaint about slander, but otherwise appears to have backed off from the blankings. If discussions with her had continued, my next planned step was to ask some moderators how best to suggest she should contest the sockpuppetry accusations. As I said, I'm not concerned so much with the sockpuppetry itself, as withthe more blatantly candalous blankings. So the next step would have been to try to give her an outlet other than blanking pages and categories.
So in general I would say I'm not a very confrontational person. While I cannot say 100% I have never been in an edit war, I cannot think of one that I was directly involved in beyond aspects of the items above that may have come close. My general way of handling things is to make my changes. If I get reverted I look at the summary of the revert. If I was incorrect or made a mistake, I shrug and move on. If I think my change was correct. I will sometimes make a single revert to my change, with a much more detailed edit summary of why I think the change should stand. If it is reverted again, and sometimes even after the first revert, I take it to either the articles talk page or the reverting user's talk page. Since my changes are generally on the technical side of things, there is rarely a change I make that cannot wait for a few days to hash out in discussion if someone else has a problem with it. - TexasAndroid 00:36, 10 February 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.