Testwiki:Requests for adminship/VegaDark

From testwiki
Revision as of 13:24, 30 April 2022 by imported>MalnadachBot (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

VegaDark

Final (52/0/0); Ended 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:User - I am pleased to present VegaDark, a Wikipedian I've gotten to know at WP:UCFD. I've not always agreed with him, and in fact I first noticed him when I disagreed strongly with one of his statements. I still do, from time to time, but I also know that he is a good, rational person that values other people's opinions. As an admin, he will continue to hold positions I disagree with, but I trust him with the tools nonetheless. I hope that says something. VegaDark has over 2400 edits in mainspace, nearly 2000 in user talk, and over a thousand in Wikipedia space. He has been active on Wikipedia for over a year, and has worked diligently on college football and Oregon articles. He's also been working hard on streamlining user categories, but really needs the mop to work effectively there. He's also been fighting vandalism, and adminship will help him -- and us -- there as well. Xiner (talk, email) 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom- I would like to co-nom VegaDark for adminship. He has a great balance in his edit count, and all his edits are of the utmost quality. Based on what he does now, his AfD contributions, his Wikiproject experience, etc. Plus he's always willing to help me out on WP:FLC, which isnt exactly a commonly-traveled area. In a nutshell, he would be a great candidate for adminship. I see no problems with him as an admin, and I could see him contributing greatly fro man admin's point of view.--Wizardman 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. VegaDark 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First and foremost, I anticipate being able to help out at CAT:CSD. I've been surprised at how backlogged it has been lately, including all the image subcategories that need attention. I spend a large chunk of time adding to the backlog there, and with the tools I could be spending that time reducing that backlog instead of adding to it. In addition to this, I could help close XfD's that require a deletion or history merge, which would particularly be helpful at WP:UCFD. I anticipate being active at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP significantly as well, and will probably expand this list as I become more familiar with the tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've authored over 70 articles, but many are still stubs (a full list can be found at the bottom of my userpage). Several of the longer ones that I am pleased with include 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game, Civil War (college rivalry), Oregon State Beavers, Robin Reed, 2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings, Jason Von Flue, and Swede Halbrook. While I have yet to author a featured article, List of Oregon State University alumni is at GA status and List of Oregon State University faculty and staff is close to featured level, both of which I authored and intend to get to featured list status in the future. I also nominated and helped 2006 NFL Draft become a featured list.
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 have been in several conflicts on Wikipedia, most of which have been minor and have not caused me any stress. The closest thing that has was the whole Brian Peppers debate about a year ago, but I feel I acted in a reasonable, consensus-driven manner during the course of the conflict, and I think I handled myself well, especially considering the fact that I was a fairly new editor at the time. In the future if any such conflicts occur I will continue to approach them in a consensus-driven manner and take a short wikibreak if necessary.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 01:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: I have before, which is the way I would probably handle the situation again in the future. In this case the edits made were uncontroversial, in a more controversial instance I would leave a message on their userpage, and if they ignored it I would bring it up on the administrator's noticeboard to get a few more opinions on the situation before taking action.
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: One of the primary occasions when semi-protecting (or fully protecting for that matter) a page would be inappropriate is when you are in a content dispute on the page in question with other editors. It is especially important not to revert to "your version" before doing so, as that would be an abuse of power. If you are in a content dispute and think the page should be protected you should go to a neutral party.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I would first look at the page history to determine when the article was created, "what links here", and if the reason the article reads as an advertisement was the result of a recent edit. After that I would read the article and determine if it is salvageable by simply removing material. If so, I would remove the material and re-evaluate the article to see if it still has enough material to establish notability. If in doubt I would prod it or bring it to AfD. If it cannot be salvaged then I would delete it. If I had any doubts I would ask another admin on IRC to get a second opinion.

Bonus optional question:

7. Jimbo's moratorium on the Brian Peppers article is nearly over. Do you think a well sourced article on that subject would be worthy of inclusion?
A: I think that if consensus determines that an article about him can pass WP:N and WP:RS, then yes I think the article should be allowed to be recreated. There are lots of other issues regarding the article, but I think these were the main concerns that if satisfied would trump any other reasons there may be to delete it.


Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: In short, yes. While you shouldn't have a "There are plenty of other admins out there, let one of them deal with it" mentality on a regular basis, on occasion everybody needs a break to just work on a pet project (may that be content writing or something else) for a solid day rather than intermittent edits between dealing with vandals. I mean if a vandal is repeatedly vandalizing an article I am working on then I'm obviously not going to purposely avoid blocking them because I've "Set out a day for content writing", but I can see myself devoting a day to content writing and not actively seeking out admin duties to perform. VegaDark 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Xiner (talk, email) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Also support as nom.--Wizardman 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Great contributor. Kafziel Talk 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support should be ok. --Majorly (o rly?) 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support good user, looks to be all systems go :). ~ Arjun 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support A great contributor on Wikipedia. I have frequently seen this user make accurate and helpful reports to AIV, so I have no doubts that this user is capable of handling the admin tools. Nishkid64 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support This user is a great vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support.--Húsönd 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per above, won't abuse the tools and can be trusted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. I'm particularly impressed with your handling of the Engelbart case. YechielMan 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - I hate to use the cliche, but I really did think he was one. --BigDT 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom, Blnguyen, Nish, Nat11, etc. Pigmantalk 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. For sure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, seems trustworthy. Trebor 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Terence Ong 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Nothing but good to say of this candidate. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support per all above! The Rambling Man 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, same as Guy. Seems to have good judgement. ×Meegs 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support- per nom Astrotrain 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support seems great! ViridaeTalk 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Good job with your edits and contribs. I support you! Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per above. -- Black Falcon 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, looks good. --Coredesat 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support good record of contributions, nice activity, seems trustworthy. - Anas Talk? 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Rettetast
  33. Support Qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Good to go.--Dakota 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. 100% Jaranda wat's sup 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support per all. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. PeaceNT 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support His work on User categories is invaluable. Dan D. Ric 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support qualified user.-- danntm T C 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, per nom, and per the answers to the questions. Titoxd(?!?) 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support -- shows good judgement and tact, the most critical traits for an admin. --A. B. (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support*10n; n>=1000 -- I know this one. Admirable and enthusiastic contributor. Sorry for not knowing your RfA earlier. Causesobad → (Talk)
  44. Support. WjBscribe 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, can't find a reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - why not? BJTalk 09:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - One of Wikipedia's finest. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support for sure. Garion96 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support JoshuaZ 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support No reason to oppose. Dionyseus 07:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. WP:UCFD needs you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Neutral

The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.beta.math.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Testwiki:Requests_for_adminship/VegaDark&oldid=19459"