Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Melburnian: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:28, 10 July 2007 editMoondyne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,064 edits →Discussion: retracted own q← Previous edit Revision as of 03:58, 10 July 2007 edit undoGiggy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers30,896 edits →Discussion: Answers to commentsNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:


'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''
# ] '''Oppose'''. From what I can see, this user has very little vandal-fighting experience, as well as Misplaced Pages: namespace edits. I would recommend participating more in AFD's and other wikipedia namespace stuff. You have a heap of mainspace/talk/etc edits, and I would normally support, but you need more experience with the maintenance side of things. I will change my vote if you can tell me specifically what you will improve on once you become an admin. Apart from my concerns above, I believe you are a great candidate who would definately help out. ] <small>] ] ]</small> 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) # '''Oppose'''. From what I can see, this user has very little vandal-fighting experience, as well as Misplaced Pages: namespace edits. I would recommend participating more in AFD's and other wikipedia namespace stuff. You have a heap of mainspace/talk/etc edits, and I would normally support, but you need more experience with the maintenance side of things. I will change my vote if you can tell me specifically what you will improve on once you become an admin. Apart from my concerns above, I believe you are a great candidate who would definately help out. ] <small>] ] ]</small> 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
#This user has made 113 edits to the project space. I had about the same in ], but I had a total of 600 edits, so you can see the difference there. I just don't feel comfortable trusting Melburnian with the mop and bucket when he has such limited participation in administrative tasks. I also have very little idea of how the user would use the tools, but Q4's answer may change this. Obviously the mainspace work is commendable, but you don't need the tools to do that. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup>] 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) #This user has made 113 edits to the project space. I had about the same in ], but I had a total of 600 edits, so you can see the difference there. I just don't feel comfortable trusting Melburnian with the mop and bucket when he has such limited participation in administrative tasks. I also have very little idea of how the user would use the tools, but Q4's answer may change this. Obviously the mainspace work is commendable, but you don't need the tools to do that. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup>] 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
#*I can't presume to speak for Melburnian here, but in my opinion being granted the admin tools does not oblige one to engage in vandal fighting, cleanup tasks or even policy formulation, so I don't see how further participation in these tasks would make it easier for you to judge of his trustworthiness. And I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia. ] 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) #*I can't presume to speak for Melburnian here, but in my opinion being granted the admin tools does not oblige one to engage in vandal fighting, cleanup tasks or even policy formulation, so I don't see how further participation in these tasks would make it easier for you to judge of his trustworthiness. And I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia. ] 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
#::Unfortunately, my opinion is the opposite. I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them. Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup>] 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
#*I respect other opinions and wouldnt normally comment, neither would I expect you to change your iopiniuon. As you comment is being considered a reason to vote neutral I feel obliged to highlight that your RFA was opposed due to lack of experience because you had only 600 total edits, it wasnt for the number of talk page edits. ]] 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) #*I respect other opinions and wouldnt normally comment, neither would I expect you to change your iopiniuon. As you comment is being considered a reason to vote neutral I feel obliged to highlight that your RFA was opposed due to lack of experience because you had only 600 total edits, it wasnt for the number of talk page edits. ]] 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
#::I didn't mention talk page edits ;) The only reason I mentioned my RfA was to indicate that this candidate has done a lot more work overall then I had when I ran, and yet he has done as much in the project space that I had (talking about ratios, pretty much). Thus, I am hesitant to support when I can't judge his work in the project space (see my response to Hesperian above). ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup>] 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)




Revision as of 03:58, 10 July 2007

Melburnian

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/2/1); Scheduled to end 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Melburnian (talk · contribs) - Melburnian joined us in November '05, and has been a regular contributor since then. I have been bumping into him on-wiki for quite a few months now, and am very impressed with his constant demeanour. Day in, day out, he is friendly and polite to one and all. He holds sensible opinions, expresses himself articulately, and appears to possess the rare ability to abstain from speaking when he has nothing much to say. I've learned a little myself from the way he goes about his business. He can be trusted with the extra tabs. Hesperian 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, and thank Hesperian for his nomination --Melburnian 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Building an encylopaedia is only successful if we have a stable environment that will not only sustain our endeavours, but assures they will be further built upon in the future. To this end I would happy to assist in whatever anministrative capacities are required, within the limits of my knowledge and abilities. I will continue to revert vandalism and will be happier to apply warnings, knowing that I can personally follow through with any necessary back-up action.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: My greatest interest at Misplaced Pages is article creation, particularly with regard to my primary interest, plants (I am a member of WP:PLANTS), although I have tried my hand at a broad range of topics. I have created around 260 new articles and have expanded and actively maintain many more. This is a selection of articles that I have created:
Ross, Tasmania
Telopea speciosissima
Cercis siliquastrum
Footscray Park
Boroondara General Cemetery
City Square, Melbourne
Another interest for me is photography, and I currently have around 130 photographs within articles.
Melbourne gallery
Australian plants gallery
plants gallery
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: Conflict covers a wide gamut, but I haven't been involved in a situation that's personally caused me undue stress. Passionate debate is simultaneously a form of conflict and conflict resolution and is a healthy aspect of Misplaced Pages which I enjoy observing and participating in. However, conflict which involves personal attacks of any nature should not be tolerated. I always aim to be respectful and empathetic when addressing differing points of view from my own, and am always careful to discuss any potential areas for conflict logically and calmly. I strongly believe that we need to maintain Misplaced Pages as a supportative and friendly environment for genuine contributors.
4. From G1ggy: Can you please expand on your question 1 answer? Which areas specifically do you envisage spending most of your time in?
A: AfD is something I'm constantly monitoring and participate in, but as an administrator I would feel obliged to step-up my presence there, and anyway I enjoy the debates :). I do a lot of vandal reverting (although they have been unusually quiet on my watchlist lately) but I feel the tools will assist me to do a better job in vandal fighting. In terms of admin-specific duties, I see myself most involved with helping with speedy deletion backlog and checking other items at CAT:AB, follow-up action at WP:AIV, monitoring of Special:Unwatchedpages and moving pages over redirects with histories, the latter particularly related to bringing plant articles in line with WP:NC(flora).--Melburnian 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Optional Question from Arknascar44: In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban?
A: A block is the technical action of an administrator to prevent users damaging or disrupting Misplaced Pages, whereas a ban is a decision, arising from community consensus following a dispute resolution process , to revoke editing privileges. --Melburnian 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Melburnian before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Per my nomination. Hesperian 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support long-time contributor of real content with a mature and sensible demeanour. Will make a good sysop. —Moondyne 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Good editor, with a healthy edit count. I see no major problems! Politics rule 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Plenty of article building. Little wikipoliticing. Plenty of communication. —Hermione dies! (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support There has been lots of article building from this candidate. No specific edits jump out at me (unless I'm missing something). Suggest that you do a little vandal fighting so you know when and when not to block users. Good luck, (→vishwin60 - review) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support What vish said =) —trey 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support We all have different skills, and very few of us have all of them. This user will make good use of his particular skills as an admin. --Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support: you have proven that you can be trusted with the tools, and I think that you will make a good admin. It does seem that you haven't had a lot of experience dealing with heated topics, you may want to roll up your sleeves and participate in some afd debates or similar just to get your feet wet. -- MisterHand 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Seems to be an excellent and trusted editor. I agree with Hesperian's comments below. We need more administrators who understand the encyclopedia, not just the policies and processes. --Bduke 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I trust Melburnian not to abuse the tools, if he needs more talks pages edits, there 18,000+ WP:AUS still needing assessment and rating I'm sure there WP:PLANTS other projects have similar assessment needs. Gnangarra 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. From what I can see, this user has very little vandal-fighting experience, as well as Misplaced Pages: namespace edits. I would recommend participating more in AFD's and other wikipedia namespace stuff. You have a heap of mainspace/talk/etc edits, and I would normally support, but you need more experience with the maintenance side of things. I will change my vote if you can tell me specifically what you will improve on once you become an admin. Apart from my concerns above, I believe you are a great candidate who would definately help out. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. This user has made 113 edits to the project space. I had about the same in my first RfA, but I had a total of 600 edits, so you can see the difference there. I just don't feel comfortable trusting Melburnian with the mop and bucket when he has such limited participation in administrative tasks. I also have very little idea of how the user would use the tools, but Q4's answer may change this. Obviously the mainspace work is commendable, but you don't need the tools to do that. Giggy UP 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't presume to speak for Melburnian here, but in my opinion being granted the admin tools does not oblige one to engage in vandal fighting, cleanup tasks or even policy formulation, so I don't see how further participation in these tasks would make it easier for you to judge of his trustworthiness. And I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia. Hesperian 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, my opinion is the opposite. I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them. Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia. Giggy UP 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I respect other opinions and wouldnt normally comment, neither would I expect you to change your iopiniuon. As you comment is being considered a reason to vote neutral I feel obliged to highlight that your RFA was opposed due to lack of experience because you had only 600 total edits, it wasnt for the number of talk page edits. Gnangarra 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't mention talk page edits ;) The only reason I mentioned my RfA was to indicate that this candidate has done a lot more work overall then I had when I ran, and yet he has done as much in the project space that I had (talking about ratios, pretty much). Thus, I am hesitant to support when I can't judge his work in the project space (see my response to Hesperian above). Giggy UP 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral I like the article building and such, but am somewhat discouraged by the only 67 user talk edits so far. I believe and admin should communicate and communicate often with others. I want to support, but this is just nagging me a bit too much. Jmlk17 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I have been forced into this position after considering the comments of both the opposes and supports. -- Anonymous Dissident 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)