[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cohesion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cohesion

[edit]

final (39/0/0) ending 22:39 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cohesion (talk · contribs) – After thinking about it for a while I have decided to self-nominate. I've been on wikipedia since May 2004 although there have been some gaps with other projects etc. I have enough edits now that I think I have a fairly good grasp of most processes and can at least help people find the right group if I can't handle it myself. Lately I feel I am filling up queues and it's starting to feel like I'm stacking up work that I expect other people to have to handle. I would like the ability to handle some of this myself.

I am active on a few articles that I know something about Cytogenetics and some other medial genetic things. Most of my wiki-work however is doing cleanup-type things. I actually did WP:CU for a while, but lately I have been doing Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Untagged images.

I think I am pretty good at communication and enjoy helping people, it seems I have a lot more interaction with people that are new to wikipedia or to some specific policies (mostly from untagged images) than I do with more seasoned wikipedians so I thought waiting for a nomination might not be smart. I like explaining to people about wikipedia though and helping people with the sometimes impenetrable choices regarding licensing and copyright and how that interfaces with free licensing agreements. Anyway, I hope everyone pores over my edit history and doesn't find anything they hate too much :) cohesion★talk 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self-nomination

Support

  1. Support. Looks fine to me. --TantalumTelluride 23:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Was-going-to-be-First support. Can't say I've come across you before (as you pointed out in your self-nom why), but I'm impressed with your nomination and answers to questions. Looking at your talk page, contributions to other people's talk etc suggests that you are always friendly/polite and great at explaining image policies. I think you'd do a great job as an image admin, so don't feel like you'd have to go off vandal whacking or AfD closing (if you don't want to). Anyway enough waffle, I'll let someone else have a go! (see I was going to be first, but then I took too long writting that, after spending too long looking through your history ;) Petros471 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, contributions and answers look good to me, I can't see any bad history. Will probably make a good admin (when not disappearing for months). - Bobet 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I hate being forced to use the cliché. NSLE (T+C) at 00:55 UTC (2006-02-19)
  5. Support --Terence Ong 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Cohesion's self-characterization as a communicator is a plus. I have been married to a communicator for decades; it is possible to use communication as a universal strategy for problem solving. Thus diversity of character among admins would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. jacoplane 08:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The return of that's hot. Mike H. That's hot 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Seems reliable, and assumes good faith. Batmanand | Talk 13:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A good editor. --- Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good enough, although I would like to see him more active, he will make a fine admin. Moe ε 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Cliche --Jaranda wat's sup 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 18:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Latinus 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Ugur Basak 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, happily. Can easily be trusted with the mop. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good answers to additional questions. they showed me that you are ready. pschemp | talk 04:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, no problems here. Raven4x4x 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The good stuff. --Ghirla | talk 12:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - everything looks good. Essexmutant 12:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, looks a good editor. Hiding talk 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Looks good to me.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support looks good.--Jusjih 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-21 11:09Z
  27. Support Mjal 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship. gidonb 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --AySz88^-^ 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support yep. Although, fyi, it's "pores" not "pours" over. :) ... aa:talk 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support After consideration of edits I perused, what's written here, and a response from the candidate, I am convinced he has the maturity to tackle the challenges of being an administrator. --Shadow Puppet 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support thoughtful answers to questions, plenty of experience, seems like a fine candidate to me.--Alhutch 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support; high-quality contributor and apt to be an equally excellent admin. Good answers to questions. Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Elf-friend 07:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. A very reasonable editor, understands policies, will do well -- Samir ∙ TC 07:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, good work with image-tagging, good balance of edits in other namespaces, seems like a strong candidate. — Feb. 24, '06 [10:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  38. SupportHis contributions look good, he's civil and he has shown he understands policy and I think he can be trusted with a mop and bucket.--Dakota ~ ° 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Quality editor. Should be good administrator. FloNight talk 20:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

A "Darn I was going to vote support" oppose - sorry. Although I love the fact that he has been since May of 2004, his lack of edits over that long a time span worries me. Based soley on that I can't in good conscience vote support. If he can show me that he has a good working knowledge of Wikipedia policies, I will overturn my decision because I would like to support him. Moe ε 04:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to show I know something about policy. Anecdotally 2 policy decisions I'm interested in right now are Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion but if you have some specific questions I would be happy to try and answer them. I really don't spend all my time in image tagging. :) - cohesion★talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I can give you a fair shot at getting my support vote, I'll add some optional questions that might change my mind. ;-) Moe ε 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to support based on your answers to the optional questions, good luck Cohesion! Moe ε 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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. The main goal of my request is so I can stop just filling some of these queues and complete the job, right now the ones I would be most connected with in relation to what I'm already doing are cleaning out the speedy category, as well as queues that relate to moving images to the commons. I would be more than happy to do other tasks though if they were seen as more pressing. - cohesion★talk 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. From a content perspective I like Cytogenetics and The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center which I started and help maintain. The cytogenetics article was a long time ago before I had an account I think. Other contributions that I think might be more significant though are cleanup things I do and helping people understand wikipedia concepts they might not be familiar with like free licensing, copyright laws etc. - cohesion★talk 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 know this will seem fake to some people but I really haven't. There have been some vandals that edited my user page to say some mean things but I don't really take things like that personally. Most of the articles I edit for content are scientific and the editors in that space are overwhelmingly good faith editors who aren't pushing any particular agenda. The articles I edit for cleanup are usually closely following some agreed upon policy, so any complaints about those edits I see more as an opportunity to explain wikipedia than I do as a personal attack on myself. And, while I'm not on RC patrol a whole lot, when I am and vandals strike back I certainly don't take that personally. I have had a few RFC regarding edits, and I have brought some situations regarding other people's edits to RFC because I saw they they were in a deadlock, but all of those instances successfully reached consensus.
I think the key to dealing with stress is to remember the other person is almost certainly acting in good faith, even if they don't understand something, and that the persona you have on wikipedia is not the totality of your character. If you can understand why you are having a difference with someone it is more likely you will be able to achieve consensus with them. If you can't achieve one-on-one consensus then maybe you need other people to help, and that consensus might not always agree with you, but there is no reason to take it personally. - cohesion★talk 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Moe ε 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I actually almost exclusively use the test series, starting at test1, I will combine my progression with other people's though. For example, if someone 5 minutes previous did test1, I would do test2. I think the test progression is better than the bv tag honestly. Just because someone throws an obscenity in an article how can I know they aren't testing? Someone unfamiliar with computers or wiki's might think that it's completely improbable he is actually editing the article. As long as they are just little vandal edits like that I would use the test progression, 1-4 then block. If it was something more serious (bot-assisted etc.) Where I thought we might actually not have time for the test progression and it was clearly bad faith, I might consider bv, but those situations would be exceedingly rare. I used a tool for a while that put in a message similar to the bv tag, so if you see me using that in edit history that is the reason.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. Usually I would consider any back and forth revert war to need at least one more person's opinion regardless of the count of reverts etc. If I was the person mostly handling the situation I would explain on the article's talk page the 3RR rule and the reasons for it, and put in a RFC so that the actual content debate could be decided. I assume most editors that edit content specific areas are unfamiliar with the 3RR rule, and while I think it's a good one, I wouldn't assume that just because someone missed it by an hour they were actively trying to game the system. It's more likely that they just happened to edit at that interval independent of the rule. I would probably add a note to the warring party's talk pages pointing to the article talk page just in case they don't know about talk pages and/or don't read them. Hopefully I could give some opinion about the content and at least one person would respond to RFC so we could probably reach a rough consensus about which version to keep.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I personally interpret CSD A7 as being a tool to help stop vanity pages. that interpretation is much less problematic than assuming it sets some notability threshold. I think article creation by the subject is inherently a problem because I don't think they can ever be truly neutral. If the subject is at all notable, or the subject matter is so esoteric that I don't think I would be a good judge of notability I would probably send it to AFD. Most articles that fall under CSD A7 in my experience though are pretty clear, like "Sally Sample is a senior at Blah blah high and is in Spanish club." When tagging these I usually use Template:vanity to explain to people the reasons though, because I think most people just don't know the policy on that.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. Hmm, that's a difficult question, I take it to be a general question about how I interpret neutrality. For context the most controversial articles I would be likely to edit where I would be contributing to content rather than just refereeing would be related to evolution, or research issues. I think a lot of what neutrality means relates to how you word things, and what belongs in the article. Being an encyclopedia, we should only contain information of a factual nature, and that is verifiable. WP:V I think just asking yourself even at the sentence level when you are editing something controversial, "is this sentence verifiable?" is helpful. You know who the people are that are going to factionalize over a subject. For example evolution, when you write a sentence I think about what both creationists and people who accept the theory of evolution would think about the phrasing. I think often a verifiable factual account is most neutral and least controversial.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. I'll give you one systemic frustration, and one specific. I think the way some popular issues and policies are resolved is disorganized to the point of being almost useless in terms of reaching project wide consensus. For example Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes has about 65,000 words in the talk pages combined. This is an astounding amount of text to parse related to a decision. This causes what I consider to be fairly large problems in usability and transparency. While technically it is completely transparent, how likely is it actually for someone who only has a passing interest in the policy to know what is going on and effect change? Very difficult I'd say. I don't have a solution for the problem, and I don't think it's about to topple wikipedia or anything like that, but I do think a problem exists.
For the specific, I wish the audio files weren't in ogg format, especially the podcasts from wikinews. I sometimes think our license purity is too extreme when we use a format so that freely licensed software doesn't have to break the law to use mp3 encoders. I know the arguments, and they do have merit, but putting audio in something other than mp3 means the majority of mainstream non-tech users will never get to hear it.
9. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
A. In general I would ask them why on their talk page if it wasn't obvious from the log of whichever action was taken. I would think it would be pretty common that they would have a good reason, so I may agree with it. If I didn't agree with them I would see it as a general conflict and ask for a 3rd person's opinion about it. For undeleting it would depend on whether it was speedy or afd. If it was something I speedied I would take the undeletion to mean the other admin disagreed, so in that case I don't think it should be speedied again, but should go to afd, or the other deletion pages if it's not an article. I would probably list the article on AFD in this case and explain on the other admin's talk page my reasoning. If it was undeleted after a deletion with a consensus from afd that is a different issue that I would almost certainly want a broader consensus about using RFC. I think that would be inappropriate though, to undelete after the afd process, and would prefer people use Wikipedia:Deletion review
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cohesion&oldid=1082476683"