Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/rd232

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rd232

edit

Final (16/0/1) ended 16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Rd232 (talk · contribs) – When I recently built a wiki project using MediaWiki software, I had access to the admin tools, and now miss having them on Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia long enough and active enough [1], and generally played well with others. Rd232 15:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
-selfnom, not schizophrenic. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Neither am I. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Support

  1. Merge this solid contributor into Wikipedia:List of administrators.  BD2412 talk 15:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A bit light on the edit count given that y'all both worked here. ;-) --hydnjo talk 15:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Phroziac(talk) 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Private Butcher 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support 1) this stuff about time is ridiculous. Being an admin isn't a job where you have to put in X number of hours a week. I am sure rd232 will put in enough hours, but even if he doesn't put in a lot of admin time, whatever he does would add value to wikipedia. 2) There is nothing wrong with self-noms. --Rogerd 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Andre (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good solid work and history of user interactions looks good which I think is specially important in view of self-nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support self-noms are fine from candidates such as this. Alf melmac 15:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Thanks Rd, we're all set. Please excuse any problems my concerns may have caused.
  14. Support. Dragons flight 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hey, nice sense of humour. We need more admins like you with that quality.  Denelson83  18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I wonder if this user has time to manage his own wiki project and the wikipedia at the same time. Deryck C. 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it'll be a problem. I do this myself. --Phroziac(talk) 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it would be a problem too, but in my case it doesn't really arise - I'm handing over day-to-day running to others, as they gain experience. Rd232 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakest Possible Neutral.(Vote Changed Above Karmafist 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Rd232 is definately qualified, but self-noms worry me a bit since they show a lack of understanding of the social side of Wikipedia. Just ask somebody to nominate you(now co-nominate) after explaining to them why they should do so and I'll change my vote to support. Unilateral actions can often cause problems with someone who has admin powers. Karmafist 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • If self-nominations weren't allowed we wouldn't have the words "You may nominate yourself" on this page. o_o Coffee 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because they're allowed doesn't mean they're accepted. Self-Noms can often be an unwritten no-no similiar to voting for yourself on an RfA. Any Wikipedian worth being nominated to adminship in my opinion should have gotten to know some other user fairly well and been able to ask them to nominate them or if they should be nominated. I think it's too late for me to nominate Rd232, but I would have if he asked me originally since I think he deserves it, and if he takes the 2 or 3 seconds it would take to ask someone he's known over the course of his time here at Wikipedia, I'd change my vote to support. Karmafist 14:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that there's a "nominate yourself" button here, it's fair to say that self-nomination is generally accepted. If you want to suggest a policy change requiring users to get something like an endorsement from another user, do so in the appropriate place. I'd be skeptical of the value of that, since, as you indicate, anyone with even a fairly small amount of Wikipedia experience should be able to get an endorsement, so it won't necessarily reduce the number of bound-to-fail adminship requests; and it would require people to look at both the endorser and the candidate, meaning possibly more work, not less. I do see your point about indicating trust, but given what I just said, in practice I think this page, which collects the community's opinion of a candidate in one place, achieves that just as well. (Plus, people might rely too much on endorsements and examine candidates themselves less thoroughly.) Rd232 15:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some of our best admins were self-nominated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I recall another RFA where a user asked someone else to nominate him, and got an oppose vote for not having the confidence to nominate himself. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll continue any further discussion of this on my talk page and views of what I consider to be my personal policies on my Wikiphilosophy page and connected talk page. Like I said before, my neutrality is very weak and can be swayed, but that's up to Rd. I'd like to hear directly from him rather than scrounge through his contribs, the question answers don't give me that much insight, and the fact that only 5 people have voted so far when someone with his experience should have at least 20-30 votes by now is making me think that I was right in him needing to work a little more in the social aspects of Wikipedia. However, that alone isn't enough for me to oppose. Karmafist 18:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you don't want to "scrounge through contribs", ask me what you'd like to know; I appreciate I gave short answers to the standard questions. As to the number of votes, at time of your comment above it was 11, not 5 (the vote tally was at 5, not updated), and I'm sure I could double that easily if I asked a few editors I know to support me. Unless there's some numeric vote quantity criterion, I don't see the need to do that. Rd232 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is discussion is getting too long and isn't productive, so I'll come to you instead of you coming to me like I asked before. Let me just reiterate that i'm not against Rd, I'm just concerned. I still think the self-nom hurt you in the vote department, but it looks like you'll be ok regardless, which is good. Karmafist 01:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Various, as needed. Vandalism issues are the main reason I want admin tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Stefan Heym was a recent one I was pleased with that I did a lot on. Also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change.
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. Conflicts, yes; only serious ones were (AFAIR) with one user. Dealt with as pleasantly as possible, focussing on substance; requesting others' opinion; and as last resort by, er, giving up. Life too short, and all that.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/rd232&oldid=1142571987"