Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TigerShark

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] TigerShark

Final (62/13/6) ended 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

TigerShark (talk · contribs) – TigerShark is a well-rounded, fine contributor who has been with the project for over a year. Since January of '05, the Shark has made over five-thousand contributions across a variety of namespaces, with nearly 40 articles to his name. Not afraid to do the dirty work, the Shark is a fairly active editor in the counter-vandalism effort who pitches in regularly to keep the 'pedia in a good shape. A look at project space edits also shows us that the Shark is an active member of the community, with the necessary initiative and experience to be entrusted with additional privilleges. It is with great honour that I nominate TigerShark for adminship. Jay(Reply) 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you for your kind words Jay. TigerShark 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Meets most of my criteria; overall solid user. Would like to see some diversification, but it's no big deal whatsoever. — Deckiller 00:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Jay(Reply) 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, Vandals beware. Deizio 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Give the man a mop. Seems to spend an inordinate amount of time fighting vandalism. Based on his contribution record, he probably needs to get a life, but we need more people like him. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Yamaguchi先生 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Meets most of the criteria for adminship. No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Seems to be a good user with a high amount of contributions, doesn't look likely to abuse admin powers --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - but we'll have to make sure he has some time to do "non wiki" things :) -- Tawker 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm voting on RfAs based on people I already thought were admins by sheer conduct and visibility. A mop in good faith. TKE 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Has tremendous experience and would help Wikipedia with the tools. GizzaChat © 04:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, great user. -- King of Hearts talk 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support wiki needs vandalfighters with the tools abakharev 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support This user is great for admin Hohohob 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong support. I've often seen TigerShark reverting vandals, and it seems to me this is something that, for very practical reasons, especially justifies adminship. Without adminship, he can escalate the warnings up to the point of blocking--but then must wait for an admin to come and finish the task. Much more efficient for everyone if he has the tools--an adminship--to do the job that he does so effectively. Bucketsofg 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Will be very efficient if he has the mop Leidiot 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Almost obsessive vandalism reverter. Seems to be more interested in that than substantive contributions, but that's why he'd make a good admin. - Richardcavell 09:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --Terence Ong 10:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. So he hasn't done much in Wikipedia talk: big deal. He's a great vandal fighter and would make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Hard working editor. --Knucmo2 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Ugur Basak 13:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per Bucketsofg. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Weak support, edit tree is a bit weird but editcountitis is worse. Stifle 17:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support savidan(talk) (e@) 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support looks good (Oddly this is alot like my RFA below) Prodego talk 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. support i feel this user would make a valuable admin Benon 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support will find good uses for the tools - edit tree seems a bit unhealthy. Also quite green, but the answers to the questions are well measured.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support I can't believe this user isn't already an admin! ~Linuxerist L / T 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Considering the user's familiarity with the vandal-fighting process, I can live with 6 Wikitalk edits as long as he makes an effort to comb through and contribute to the area in the future. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, strong vandal fighter who'd do well with the mop -- Samir (the scope) 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support With the amount of crazed obsessed vandals that have been running around recently, we need vandal destroyers like TigerShark more than ever. TruthCrusader 08:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Weak support, Nice work but most ot the work has been covered in recent two months. Shyam (T/C) 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, changed from weak oppose per excellent response to my rather pathetic oppose. Proto||type 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, see my RfA criteria. Petros471 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Excellent vandal fighter. Chairman S. Talk 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support He can very much use the tools and I see no reason to suspect he would abuse them. JoshuaZ 03:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong support per Richard, Bucket, The Wub, and, yes, Mailer. Joe 06:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support--Jusjih 09:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. He's been around almost a year and has been highly active the past two months. Would make a great admin. GfloresTalk 16:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, whilst some have raised concerns on edit spread, I like the high user:talk edits, which suggest to me a reasoned attitude to the user's main activity in recent times, and suggests to me the user will readily pick up the stuff people feel he lacks now. Hiding talk 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Weak Support - He is obviously a good vandal fighter, and also seems to be writing good articles. But I am concerned about the big peak in the last 2 months. It beats me as to why the user took so long to discover tools which he could have found at the CVU page. Still, I vote support as I don't see him abusing his admin tools. All the best for the future - Aksi_great 13:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support I don't get the concern over a recent spike in edits; he already had almost two-thousand before that anyway. Seems fine to me, over a year of solid contributions. Derex 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support --Edwy 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Neutral - Good user but a bit too soon. But that shouldn't stop him, thoughSceptre (Talk) 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. support (provided you don't put a note on my talk page to thank me afterwards...) William M. Connolley 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - great vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Reviewed edits - although unusual - it seems explained by the large amount of vandal fighting. Few interactions, but those that I have seen are positive. Trödel 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. — FireFox • T [14:47, 2 April 2006]
  52. Support Fantastic answer to question 4 added by Joshuaz, is active with AFD, all around a good editor. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    SupportSome people (below) are just too picky... Would make a fine admin. GfloresTalk 18:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) I believe even you can't vote twice. ;-) --Mmounties (Talk) 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support As per Deckiller --ManiF 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support (changed from Oppose) I saw your note to Proto and checked out some of your User talk page edits. Very impressive. You do deserve the mop. --Mmounties (Talk) 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Change to Support, didn't notice that he's been around for 1.5 years.  Grue  21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support as per norm. Good nominate. --Kash 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. After some consideration, I now think that my earlier concerns were misguided. Give this man (tiger? shark?) a mop! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support: His last comment in the comments section remind me of myself; I think he understands policy well enough. TimBentley (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - Looks like an excellent candidate. Low edits in one namespace or another often reflect non-standard interests or style, but IMO should in no way influence RFA. If the areas where the person does contribute are solid, and in this case they are, then they deserve our support. --CBDunkerson 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. --Rory096 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support per CBDunkerson. We need admins of all stripes. NoSeptember talk 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. I feel kind of bad about this, but TigerShark has only been with the project in a serious fashion since February. I think a little more serious experience--measured in months, not edits--would be very reassuring. (Also, how the heck does a user pile up a couple hundred namespace edits and not a single Wikipedia_Talk edit over several months of editing? Definitely the weirdest-looking edit tree I've ever seen.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - changed to support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?)
  1. Oppose Sorry but I have to agree with Mr Yeager. In a few months you will have my vote but now is too soon.--Looper5920 08:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Above --Masssiveego 08:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose Tough, for such an obvious vandal fighter, but Talk contrib's are remarkably low. Less than a hundred Talk generally and just 6 to Wiki talk. The last leaves me uncertain the user is familiar with P & G's. Marskell 09:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Marskell. Editor needs more time to ensure a firm grasp of policy and process. Xoloz 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose the relative lack of talk-edits makes me wonder if he pays attention to what other people think. Eivindt@c 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: shows promise, but I generally agree with above. Keep buiding the encyclopedia substantively in areas you know, and give this time. Jonathunder 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Too soon. Moe ε 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose I have to agree with Matt. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support
  8. Oppose weakly ... happy to support with a bit longer record. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Weak oppose, sorry - if you're gonna be fighting vandals, I would expect to see a decent amount of talk space edits, explaining to newbies and the like why their vandalism was reverted, or warning them. The fact that there is scant evidence of this is a little perturbing. Sort that out and in a month or two you'll sail through. Proto||type 11:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Proto. I did want to point out however that I always aim to provide warnings/feedback on all reverted vandalism/test edits, although I do this on the user's talk page (you'll see that I have over 2000 edits to the user talk namespace). I feel that providing such input is by far the most important way of minimising repeat vandalism, and find it much more rewarding to see a contributor move to the sandbox than seeing them blocked. My comments here were only with regard to the wikipedia talk and article talk pages. Cheers TigerShark 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, that makes a bunch of sense. Changed to support, good stuff. Proto||type 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Very low Talk namespace edits. AucamanTalk 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose re Matt above, but would support with more experience in a few months. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Definitely on the right track. Keep this up for a little longer, and you'll be an admin in no time. Covington 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Only 84 article Talk page comments? You need to interact on articles more. Jayjg (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment Jayjg. Are there any other areas in which you feel I need to improve? I only ask because I notice that you have voted support for another candidate who has 47 article talk page contributions. Thanks TigerShark 07:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out, it's been fixed. Jayjg (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. TigerShark has made 3356 to articles but only 84 to article talk, which shows almost no community interaction. I'm also concerned that he didn't seem to edit at all much before February. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your vote Slim. I would like to point out that I had almost 2000 edits in the 13 months prior to February (I am not sure if the February and March bars in the contribution graph makes my earlier contributions look smaller than they were). With regard to the ratio of article to article talk edits, this is partly due to a focus on vandal fighting but I would also suggest that user talk pages are also a venue for community interaction so the article talk count may not be the whole picture. Thanks TigerShark 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'd also like to draw a comparison with a current vandal-fighter nominee, who seems to have almost unequivocal support from the community - CSCWEM. His ratio of article to article talk edits is 25:1, whereas mine is 40:1 - although I do have a lower proportion of talk edits, is it really so low as to show "almost no community interaction"? Thanks TigerShark 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Not only is 25:1 vs. 40:1 a significant difference in itself, but CSCWEM has made almost 350 article Talk: page comments, 4 times as many as you. He's also many many more User: talk comments, and been much more involved in the Wikipedia space. In addition, he's been active in a significant way since last December, not February, which is almost twice as long as you. The total number of interactions, and the quality of those interactions, do make a difference. Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    This coming from a user who only changed his vote to oppose in another RfA when it was brought to his attention that his voting was inconsistent. Why the sudden change of reasoning? Not to mention, this user had a little over 2000 edits during his own RfA, with a majority of the talk edits being an avenue for POV pushing. Do the first 21 months in this graph look familiar? By this user's standards, he wouldn't have supported his own RfA. Good thing we shouldn't vote for ourselves. --Jay(Reply) 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where all this hostility is coming from. I changed my vote in the other case not because my reasoning had changed, but because I had accidentally looked up the wrong person's edits before voting. Mea culpa, I do make errors, and thanks to TigerShark for pointing this out. In the past I've consistently voted against adminning people with too little Talk: interaction as well. As for my own edit history, I actually started editing in June of 2004 (the January 2003 edits are a couple of records in the database with bad dates), and during my first four months almost 50% of my edits were, in fact, Talk: page discussions with other editors; in that time I amassed over 1000 Talk: page comments. Whether or not they were "POV pushing" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but in any event, by the time I was up for adminship, I had certainly interacted a great deal with other editors, specifically about article content (and this is, after all, an encyclopedia). So, while it's clear you wouldn't have voted for me, it's quite untrue that my editing patterns don't match my own standards. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    I never stated I wouldn't have voted for you. I suggested, rather, that by the standards you have applied to TigerShark (who has a similar history compared to your own), you wouldn't have supported yourself for adminship. Nonetheless, my examples were only to draw comparisons, and not intended to suggest that you were self-contradicting. Sorry about that. --Jay(Reply) 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Weak oppose, due to lack of contributions in Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and Talk: namespaces I am unable to conclude that TigerShark is sufficiently knowledgeable of policies and able to interact with other users to the standards expected of an admin. Stifle 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    I voted twice, I strike this one. Stifle 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Vandal fighting is good, but I see a serious lack of even distribution in his edit tree. He has almost no edits on project talk, for example. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral per Cyde, but leaning towards support. I need to think about this. JoshuaZ 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per User:Matt Yeager's oppose vote. Stick around a bit more and you'll make a good admin then. JIP | Talk 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Although there is clearly a close involvement only recently, the contribs extending back are not trivial. TigerShark has started a good number of articles (including, to my lasting delight, The Flumps) so he has spent time on the encyclopedia. There seems to have been a marked shift toward vandal-fighting as a principal occupation. I am becoming wary of promoting such editors to admins if that is their sole or principal selling-point (as Q1 here makes clear it is). Adminship is just more rounded that, whether you originally intend it to be or not. You get tugged in various directions by that damned orange bar on your talk page and it is important to have demonstrated clearly a good handling of that kind of thing. Since he has spent encyclopedia-writing time and has been editing non-trivially for more than a year, I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. Good luck. -Splashtalk 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral -- I would like to support this user; might make a good if narrow admin. But I think he needs more balance and involvement in dicey issues. Please consider renom in a few months; meanwhile get involved in some areas requiring more back-and-forth. You can avoid all controversy, but only at the cost of remaining uninvolved. John Reid 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral will make a good admin at some point in the future, but he has only been contributing at a high level for 2 months. --rogerd 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - Sorry, but your talk space edits are very low as spoken above, and below my standards. Weatherman90 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, not enough Image Talk edits. --Rory096 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Hi TigerShark, I notice from your editcount that you had a rough average of 150 edits per month in your first 13 months, then suddenly rammed in 2500 in Feb and 1300 and counting this month. Any reason for the massive surge? Deizio 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Deizio. Really it is just a combination of putting in a bit more time and also adopting some new vandal fighting tools. I did have a few months last year when I was pretty much inactive, no real reason for this I was just busy with other things. Apart from those breaks I have now started spending quite a lot more time on Wikipedia when I am active. Still, there is no doubt that the new tools have contributed to my increased edit rate. Until very recently I was relying purely on watching Recent Changes and reverting manually. I was very used to having only a small proportion of my reverts take effect, because somebody else had already reverted. Even so it took me a while to look into why this was happening (I assumed people had faster connections and/or were admins), and that is when I discovered Godmode Lite (I had also recently started using CryptoDerk's tool). Hope that clarifies things, but please let me know if you would like any further explanation. Cheers TigerShark 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, thats good enough for me. Anything other than "Because I was making a run for adminship" would probably have done it... ;) Deizio 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unusually for an RfA, TigerShark mentions protection. I'm interested in what his philosophical feelings about protection as a tool and the differing protections are and what his understanding of policy and practise regarding protection/unprotection is. -Splashtalk 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It goes without saying that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and therefore anything that prevents collaboration (even temporarily) is a very bad thing and something that should be avoided if at all possible. There is not only the problem that articles cannot be improved during the protection but, more importantly in my opinion, there is the risk of alienating the good-faith editors who are locked out. The semi-protection option reduces this pain a little, but only a little as many, many good contributions come from anonymous and new users.
I therefore feel that protection should be used very sparingly, although it can perhaps have benefits in very limited circumstances. For example, there can be some value in using semi-protection when an article is being heavily vandalised from constantly changing IP addresses - but as in all cases the protection should be for as short a period of time as possible.
I am less sure about using protection to allow edit wars to cool down, when balanced against the downsides of protection. Ideally this sort of problem would be dealt with through discussion, with short blocks on the basis of 3RR if absolutely necessary.
With regard to my understanding of policy, I don't want to dodge the question but I'm not sure what to focus on here and don't want to just regurgitate the protection policy pages. Perhaps Splash or somebody else could raise any specific items that they would like me to discuss.
The understanding of policy aside, I hope that the above clarifies my thoughts on protection, but please let me know if you would like me to elaborate further. Cheers TigerShark 10:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. I have no intention of making a big deal out of this or trying to put anybody under any pressure to change their decision, but I did want to provide a little feedback on the discussions so far.
It seems that the main concerns are about my general exposure to Wikipedia and the possibility that I may not have a full appreciation for policy.
If you exclude my edits from the past couple of months, I still had almost 2000 edits in my first 13 months of contributing. These edits included standard article contributions along with maintenance activities such as vandalism fighting and AfD. Although this is not a massive amount of experience from a pure edit count perspective I do feel that it is a fair amount of experience (both in terms of time and edits) and has provided me with a good broad exposure to both policy and practice, and that I have amassed especially good experience in the areas that I intend to continue contributing (primarily vandalism fighting). The learning curve is pretty steep when it comes to picking up policy and then it flattens out substantially. I personally feel that I am over the initial peak and that, although you will alway pick up futher knowledge, I don't feel that I have any serious gaps.
With regard to my contributions to both article and project talk pages, I certainly have not contributed heavily in these areas - but again I don't feel that this means I have not had sufficient exposure. The lack of article talk contributions is mainly down to balance of my general contributions (e.g. I am not a heavy contributor to article content), and the lack of project talk contributions simply means I haven't commented/debated much on these pages - I don't feel that this means I have not read and understood the policies.
Even though my contributions to these talk pages could be higher, I am not sure that the balance of my edits is particularly extreme. Some of the comments made about my contributions in this area have prompted me to look around and compare myself to some other editors. I have looked through some of the recently created admins and also some of the current candidates who are getting good support and have found several instances were there have fairly comparable numbers of edits in these areas. There are half a dozen or so who only have 10-15 project talk edits more than me (and one who has less), and a couple who only have 30 or so more article talk edits that me (and again one who has less).
I don't raise the above to say "they are supported so why aren't I", every candidate has to be evaluated on all of their merits. However, purely as a sample of good contributors I think it perhaps indicates that my contributions are not totally unique.
Of course, what really matters is everybody else's opinion - not mine. I respect the opinions of anybody who still has concerns about my suitability, but I just wanted to share these thoughts. Adminship is no big deal, and I will not be too concerned if this nomination is not passed by the community - but I do think that I can add real value to Wikipedia with the extra tools. Cheers TigerShark 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See TigerShark'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. My primary focus would remain on fighting vandalism and using the extra tools available in that area (blocking users and page protection). I would also look to help out with other admin tasks as required, including closing AfD discussions and executing Proposed Deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although I have contributed to various articles and also created a few, I cannot claim to be a heavy contributor of new content when compared to many other editors. Instead I spend most of my time trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia by tackling vandalism and making small improvements on an ad-hoc basis (spelling, stubs, layout fixes etc). Within these contributions, it is the effort that I have put into tackling vandalism and the impact I feel it has on maintaining both the overall quality and the credibility of the encyclopedia that gives me the most pleasure.
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 have had my fair share of lively debates, but thankfully nothing that I would consider a conflict. I find that the best ways to avoid conflict (and to reach the best decision) are to put across well reasoned arguments as calmly and courteously as possible, and to always attempt to bring others in to help with forming a consensus. The latter is especially important if I feel there is a risk of a personal conflict arising. In this case I will, having presented my arguments, step away and leave the matter to others.
With regard to stress, I generally manage to not take such things personally and have faith that any problem will be sorted out given a bit of patience.

Question for the candidate from User:JoshuaZ

1 You have very few edits in the project talk space. How would you explain this and how would you adress concerns that this may make you unsuitable as an admin candidate?
I have to admit that I am also a little surprised that I have quite so few, but I feel that the focus of my contributions to Wikipedia has simply not required me to edit those pages frequently. I have not had any major involvement in any Wikiprojects that would have added to the count, and I have also not debated policy on the main talk pages.
I imagine that the main concerns would be whether I have exposure to Wikipedia's policies and also whether I generally have sufficient involvement with the wider community. I feel that I have had good exposure to policies and their implmentation during my time editing here, including debating policy with others (just not on the policy talk pages) and thereby gaining further insight. I also feel that I have had good exposure to the community through discussions on main pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user talk and article talk pages.
I hope that answers your question sufficiently, but please let me know if I can clarify further (including answering any other specific concerns related to this). Cheers TigerShark 10:12, 28 March 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.