Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Addshore: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 50: Line 50:
:*'''9.''' User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
:*'''9.''' User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
::*'''A:'''
::*'''A:'''

;Additional question from <font face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|talk]])'''</font>
:'''10.''' What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?
::'''A.'''


====General comments====
====General comments====

Revision as of 00:15, 13 May 2008

Addshore

Voice your opinion (talk page) (20/2/5); Scheduled to end 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Addshore (talk · contribs) - Today I have the distinct pleasure to nominate User:Addshore for adminship. Addshore has been with the project since 2005, but has shown his best work in the last several months. Along the way to contributing over 21,000 edits, he has shown himself to be well respected by his fellow editors for his dedication and determination to further the goals of the project. One area I was surprised to see him pop up in was bots, as that is usually an area for more advanced users. To my surprise, he is an expert coder, running some very useful tasks on User:Addbot. Addy has shown a well balanced project-space contribution with 599 edits to AIV and edits to Open Proxies, Bot req, and Req Articles. Among his content contributions are Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle, TBGS, and LogMeIn. Further, he is very skilled at using Huggle, and contributing bug reports for that tool's improvement. I've worked with Addy over the last couple of months and am amazed at how far he has come. I recommend strongly that the community support this request for adminship. MBisanz talk 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to help out with clearing backlogs at Category:Administrative backlog as i know there is normally always a backlog somewhere. I also like working on WP:AIV and would like to work more at WP:UFAA. I have also being doing a lot of work on Open Proxys and finding the many that have not been blocked from Wikipedia yet so i would like to help in finding and blocking these and also on WP:OP and with requests on WP:RFPP. Also I have started work on WP:ACC and the relevant toolserver pages and hope to help out on the "Admin Needed!" section.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am pleased with my contributions to TBGS as i vastly expanded this article and corrected facts on there making the page better and more informative. I also added images to the page to make it appeal more. I also started the stub Alvis Striker SP ATGW Vehicle. I have also uploaded the imagesTBGS crest, New Xfire style, Palm105.5 Logo, Volcano Pink Field, Chicken In Snow,Fuerteventura sunset, Logmein Logo, Surfing in Fuerteventura, Logmein Website and the Image:TBGS_crest_GoodQl.gif for the TBGS page. Some of these images are no on commons. I have also been trying to work with WP:NTWWnot the wikipedia weekly and have also made contributions with bots and bot requests. I still hope to find some more pages to contribute to more.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't been in an editing conflict before, i try to avoid them if possible. There have defiantly been users that have caused me stress though, as i think is possible to say to virtually every wikipedian. I normally deal with these people as best i can within reason, telling other people about them, rolling back their edits and warning them if they are vandalism, requesting blocks if it is required or there is an obvious reason to. There have been occasions when users have directly targeted abuse at me when i was reverting vandalism, requesting blocks or reporting ips but i generally ignore it as i know it is one step closer to them getting blocked and stopped. If they keep on going and nothing is happening after i have tried everything i can i will tell other people again and if everything fails for me and I get a little to stressed I will normally walk away from my computer for a while and go and do other stuff. In the future i look to deal with it in the same way.
OPTIONAL question from Dan Beale-Cocks
4. You say you're going to work in UFAA. You see a user with a name "kkewicn03jemx". What do you do if i)they've made no edits? ii)they've made 20 bad faith edits? iii)they've made 20 good faith edits?
A: WP:U changed recently and confusing usernames are / should no longer be blocked so: i) Do nothing/Welcome them, ii) Report to WP:AIV or block., iii) Do nothing/Welcome them. If the username was more confusing then i would request them to change it on their talk page.

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

5.You are looking over a report at WP:AN3 and find a user who has not violated 3RR but instead has been edit warring on Bill Clinton (over his weight lets say), you also notice that the user who made the 3RR report has been engaging in the edit war too. You head take a look at the article history to find close to 10 users engaging in the edit war for the last 4 days with a few constructive edits here and there, including some IPs (pretending it is not semi’d of course). Only 2 of the 10 users have violated 3RR. You notice that a few of the users involved as well as a few not partaking in the edit war have been making an attempt to resolve the content dispute on the articles talk page. How would you respond to the 3RR report? What if a request was made at RFPP, how would you respond? Would you block anyone, who and why? Who would you warn (if anyone) and what you say? Is there anything you would recommend they do?
A:I would first of all work out exactly who has done what / what has been done. As the edit war had been going for 4 days I think a page protection would be necessary. In this case I would fully protect the page indefinitely and remove the protection once the war and 3RR cases were resolved. I would respond to the original 3RR report with saying that the user in question had not broken the rule but other users (the reporter and one other) had. I would then block the 2 users that had broken the 3RR , if it was their first 3RR then I would probably block them for 12 or 24 hours, and I would warn everyone else who had taken part in the edit war with {{Uw-3rr}} telling them what has happened and what could happen.

Optional question from Keepcases

6. What is the purpose of that squiggle thing in your signature?
A:
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A:
  • A:
  • A:
  • 8. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A:
  • 9. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:
Additional question from Malinaccier (talk)
10. What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?
A.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Addshore before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Duh! I did nom him, must think he's doing something right :) MBisanz talk 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, know and trust him. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support from me and the otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Why not. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - No problems with this guy - a fantastic user who will use the tools well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Trust the nom, who is very careful in all edits, to nominate. In a brief look at contribs, don't see any problems whatsoever. Happy to support, no hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've seen you around plenty, and have no concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I admit I didn't even read the nomination (maybe I'll get around to it in a few weeks...). · AndonicO Engage. 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seen Addshore around many times: I'm always impressed with their work. Acalamari 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Why the hell not? He is... EVERYWHERE. Perfecto for the job-o. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Little article-writing experience; I see thousands upon thousands of reverts and tagging, but given that they were appropriate I have no problem with that. I assume he will remain in his comfort zone at AIV as a newbie admin and I trust that he will avoid more controversial areas such as WP:AN3 until he has more experience in editorial disputes. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks good to me; I trust he'll use the tools wisely. --CapitalR (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Competent, communication skills, and trustworthy–that's essentially all I ask for in a candidate. Anthøny 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - trustworthy vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - as EOTW says, he's everywhere. Sceptre (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Excellent user; I can put the lack of mainspace work aside here (I myself don't contribute to the mainspace as much as I would like to). There is no reason to believe that the user will not abuse the tools, and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be beneficial as as administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support I was going to nom him *snaps fingers*, Add shore is a great editor, with over 20000 edits and 1000 at WP:AIV I have no doubt that this user will make an excellent administrator. Mww113 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support purely to piss off Wisdom89. Nick (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, that's a reason to support! Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - an extremely worthy candidate. krimpet✽ 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Dlohcierekim 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support - Your lack of article building is not the best thing in the world, but I see no reason to oppose you. --SharkfaceT/C 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support trustworthy candidate --Charitwo talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Article work/talk is insufficient. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Mainspace edits are too spead out, and not enough Main/Project talk.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Article-writing experience is too weak for me to support. Epbr123 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. neutral at the moment, but I can see I'll probably change to support. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, I haven't found any discernible article work in the last 1000 edits. Not sure if admin tools would be of any further use as user is already adept at vandal fighting. Perhaps the answers to the questions will sway me one way or the other. MrPrada (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I see no reason that Addshore would abuse the tools, but I would definitely prefer more article and talk experience. SpencerT♦C 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral for now, leaning to support. I want to take a closer look at this one, and it will take me a little more time than most due to his having 21,000 edits. However, I am disappointed in his article work, I had to go back to April 22nd to find an edit to the mainspace that wasn't revert or tagging. That edit can be found here and I don't think it was a great one, using "you" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. If anyone can find a more recent mainspace contribution, please let me know. Also, your Wikipedia Talk edit count is only at 39, so I fear you don't communicate with other editors enough. Useight (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Addshore&oldid=211996309"