Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Audacity

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.

Audacity

[edit]

Final: (36/0/3); ended 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Audacity (talk · contribs) - Audacity is actively contributing since February 2006. Apart from his amazing editcount in the Portal namespace (694!), I'm pretty sure that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools. «Snowolf How can I help?» 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Answers to questions to follow. Λυδαcιτγ 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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: Mostly things that come up during normal editing that I currently ask an admin to do, such as editing protected pages, blocking vandals, and deleting pages that fall under the CSD. I will also put AIV and ANI on my watchlist, and perhaps take an occasional stab at clearing out the administrative backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The article I've spent the most time on is Backmasking, along with the List of backmasked messages, and I'm happy with their improvement. I also maintain and slowly improve other articles in the field of hidden / subliminal messages. Outside of the mainspace I work on Portal:Music, and I help keep the welcoming committee pages in shape. And finally, perhaps my favorite page, though not yet finished, is the List of fastest cars by acceleration, to which I added sortable tables.
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: More stressful for me than any article-related debates were the Userbox Wars. I had been editing Wikipedia seriously for about 2 months when I began to become involved in the wars, and I was angry, frustrated and disappointed with the events that took place, including the removal of content from my userpage. But I stuck with Wikipedia until the GUS was implemented and things calmed down. I suppose that's my approach: take a break, perhaps, but stick with it.
The same applies to article conflicts. For example, at Talk:Backmasking you can see me debating other users about sourcing concerns. I was told to get better sources, and, though I disagreed that it was necessary, I admitted that it would improve the article, and eventually took out some books from the library. Other conflicts that come to mind are at Talk:Supply and demand and User:Uriah923/OmniNerd. There have probably been others, but I've always been able to resolve them without anything more formal than a third opinion or MedCab request.
Optional question from Durova
4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. DurovaCharge! 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I've worked a little with WP:SPAM, and the ability to block and delete will help in fighting spam. Other than that my main role will continue to be the de-promotionalizing of articles.
Optional question from WJBscribe
5. Your use of edit summaries for minor edits seems quite low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
A: My thinking is that minor edits don't require an edit summary because they are assumed to be small and non-controversial changes (hence the option to hide them in one's watchlist). If others find edit summaries useful for minor edits, I'd be happy to use them.
Totally optional question from AldeBaer
6. Your edit count shows 2358 user space edits, which approaches a quarter of your total edit count. Could you elaborate a bit on how comes?
A: First, I use Related changes rather than the software watchlist, as I prefer the grouping of edits by page. Thus I have 484 edits to my watchlist. Second, I often update the To Do section of my userpage, which probably accounts for another 400 edits. A third factor is edits to my sandboxes and temporary pages, which total to over 500. Other than that, it's just fiddling with my userpage and userboxes.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Support, partially for having the sweetest username ever, and partially for having a strong number of edits across a number of namespaces. --Phoenix 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — I've had nothing but good experiences with Audacity, namely his highly useful contributions during our collaboration at WP:WELCOME. The edit summaries thing is a bit of a worry, but to be honest something that can be solved by checking a box at Special:Preferences isn't a reason for denying somebody that I have confidence in the mop ~ Anthony 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - experience and edit counts is perfect and so is his contributions and would qualify as a perfect candidate..Good luck..----Cometstyles 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I couldn't care less about edit summary usage, quite frankly, and no one's brought up any other problems. Walton Need some help? 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I worked with Dan on the Welcoming Committee template overhaul. I was impressed with how he handled himself, and with his css/wikicode ability. Sysop tools will be a no-brainer for him. He'll make a fine admin. The Transhumanist 19:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support changed from neutrality, as I like the answers to the questions, have heard nothing but good things about user, and am glad to support. Jmlk17 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good experiences with this user Jaranda wat's sup 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Switch to support -- Y not? 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Musical support. He'll make a good admin. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I would be pleased to have him as an admin. Seems to have worked hard in areas of interest to him and made a good contribution in doing so. JodyB talk 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Spike Wilbury 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Audacious support!--Tdxiang (Talk) 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support switched from "neutral". Looks fit for the role. —Anas talk? 12:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support as per my struck neutral comments. Good luck Khukri 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support known and trustable. --Quiddity 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Yes, I support "Iamthejabberwock", or more currently "Audacity". I see only good things from this user. Prodego talk 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: Has plenty of experience however edit summary usage for minor edits are low and while this won't make me oppose I would just like it to be fixed in the future.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading my answer to question 5, would you still like to me use edit summaries for minor edits? Λυδαcιτγ 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I think so. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Why the heck not? —AldeBaer 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I was a bit surprised to see this RfA, I kinda thought he already was one. Support, can be trusted. – Rianaऋ 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Cricket02 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Seems to be a good person to trust with the tools. Captain panda 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PeaceNT 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Longevity is impressive and demonstrates utmost dedication to what Wikipedia is aiming towards, and my albeit-limited interactions with him have been positive. Seen some very insightful stuff in project-space, also. Expresses himself well. Demonstrated knowledge and ability to apply discretion when required, and is articulate enough to express justifications (which is oh-so-important as an administrator) when required. Daniel 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Edit summaries are descriptive, edits seems productive. Would make a good addition to the sysop corps. —Ocatecir Talk 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support--MONGO 09:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Audacity is a great user and has even caught me out forgetting to close ref tags ;) James086Talk | Email 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I'll accept the answer to my question, although to be candid I would have preferred something that addressed it in more depth. Seems to be strong in other areas so I'll back this bid for mopification. DurovaCharge! 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Cleared for Adminship Of course. // Pilotguy hold short 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, no one's found a reason to oppose.--Wizardman 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Joe I 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Taragon $upport Dfrg.msc 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral I might support, except for one thing: your edit summaries are quite lacking in the minor edit area. Also, waiting on answers to questions. Jmlk17 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong neutral Everytime I have had dealings with this editor has always been positive and looking back I can see no problems. Waiting on answers, then you can count on a strong support. Khukri 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Until questions have been answered, I agree you could get your edit summary usage up a little but I'll assume good faith.If I forget to change to support when you answer questions please leave a message on my talk page. .The Sunshine Man 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral pending questions being answered ... normally, a malformed RFA gets an auto-oppose from me, but Snowolf, not Audacity, incorrectly listed this RFA prior to the questions being answered. --BigDT 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers to the questions. You're going to answer them, aren't you? —Anas talk? 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - don't particularly like the answers to 5 and 6, but experience with the editor can cancels this out. Thus, I am neutral. G1ggy Stalk - Talk - Chalk 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Audacity&oldid=1258059499"