Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slowking Man
- (37/1/0) ends 10:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is truly one of those "I can't believe he's not a sysop" moments. Chris is a careful and conscientious contributor, doing heaps of WikiChores and VandalBusting. I took a long browse through his more recent contributions and couldn't find anything negative at all to dissuade me from listing him on RfA. In fact, I saw so many hand-performed reversions that I felt he would have a good use for the sysop rollback feature. Chris has been here on Wikipedia since April, and as I write this, he has 1439 edits. - Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I gratefully accept Mark's nomination. --Slowking Man 15:08, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support
- Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- David Cannon 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC): I've seen Slowkingman around, and I like what I see. Give it to him.
- For sure. --ℛyan! | Talk 13:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Of course, great guy. :-) --Conti|✉ 15:55, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- CryptoDerk 16:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Some names just give that feeling of a trusted editor. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- WHAT? SLOWKING IS NOT AN ADMIN? Seriously, I've seen him forever on the IRC channel, and I never doubted for a moment that he (subst. she if female) was a long-standing administrator, who undoubtedly received a unanimous RFA, only to discover that he was on RFA at this moment... very long-winded and most noble support :) ugen64 22:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Please sign in properly. Anonymous votes cannot be counted. David Cannon 20:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Argh, missed that... sorry :) ugen64 22:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Please sign in properly. Anonymous votes cannot be counted. David Cannon 20:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ffirehorse 22:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Ugen (at least, for the first sentence! :). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:41, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
- Definitely. RickK 22:52, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Michael Snow 22:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I, too, thought he was already an administrator. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Mike H 01:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I would have bet the house that he was already one! Even more surprising is his low edit count. But I will waive my standards here, coz I like the chap. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- — Kate Turner | Talk 01:46, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Mackensen 04:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Of course! –Andre (talk) 14:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Acegikmo1 17:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fire Star 18:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- squash 21:09, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Apart from 'trout slapping' in the IRC room :- ... I think you are O.K and should be an admin :-)
- "I can't believe it's not a sysop!" (TM) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:16, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 04:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sjc 05:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 21:59, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think Slowking is trustworthy. →Raul654 02:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Tuf-Kat 03:05, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Mark. I had actually considered nominating him a few days prior (no, really!) but feared his relatively low edit count would be a criticism (one which I do not hold). He does great work. -- Hadal 06:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Checking edit history... hmm, further back... further... Mop! Bucket! Keyring! Now! :-) SWAdair | Talk 07:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Man, he should be working double shifts with Kingturtle. +sj+ 08:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding cliche...whaddayamean he ain't an admin?!? There. Cliche has passed. I still support! - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- GeneralPatton 20:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- • Benc • 10:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- {Ανάριον} 11:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- -JCarriker 05:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
- Looks like he has the makings of a good admin, but I have to have doubts about whether his judgement of article value has developed enough. Short on edits (~1550), with a large number of those spent on VFD and RFA and on very simple fixes. Viewing his contribs, and excluding minor edits and all non-article namespace edits, gives about 500 entries. Those entries are mostly simple "Recent changes" wikify and {{stub}} insertion. Sorting his contribs another way (by article title) shows no long-term committments to any - rarely more than 2 edits at most. I would support at 2000 edits if he spent some time away from Recent changes (*gasp*) and worked on the main focus of the project - the encyclopedia articles. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly one way or the other about your first point (# of edits), but I strongly disagree with your second point (too much recent changes/lack of article commitment) on a host of levels: 1) A few weeks ago, when I checked here, I was very bothered that people were being nominated that only contributed article content--why distract someone who has never shown an interest in helping keep Wikipedia tidy by making them an admin? At least some RC and/or VfD (or similar interest) work should be required, to be nominated as an admin, IMHO. 2) I think Wikipedians should edit based on their strengths and interests--some people have a lot to say, and some are better suited to fix grammar, formatting, etc. problems, and other tidying activities. 3) Based on the number of articles slipping thru unchecked, we need more people on RC and NP patrol, not fewer. 4) I have about 8000 edits (~6000 in article namespace), in the six months I've been here, but most are housekeeping--RC or NP patrol, creating disamb pages, taking things to cleanup, fixing things off cleanup, creating redir pages, avoiding redir and disamb pages, VfD participation, deleting speedies, cleaning up formatting, grammar, punctuation, fixing image display problems, responding to queries on VP, etc. Other than Seattle, Washington, Shaw Island, and Drunk driving (and the last is mostly because I wasn't using Preview as much as I should), I doubt I have more than 2 edits on any other articles, and have only started about 20, tops. However, I'd like to think that my housekeeping work adds value overall to Wikipedia, enabling people who want to contribute content to do so freely, even if formatting, grammar, etc. aren't their strengths, etc. I also think my interest in housekeeping is my strongest asset as an admin. Niteowlneils 03:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nite - Basically, I look for balance when I evaluate a candidate. I agree that people should edit to their strengths and weaknesses, but when someone wants to become an admin, they need to be familiar with the breadth of activity here. I find that when someone has spent some time expanding and improving articles gives the admin candidate the ability to properly understand that not everything is about the "bad articles" and makes it more likely they will evaulate article worth more fairly; which ultimately means they show greater respect for other editors' efforts. See User:Netoholic/Admins for my other thoughts on adminship. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly one way or the other about your first point (# of edits), but I strongly disagree with your second point (too much recent changes/lack of article commitment) on a host of levels: 1) A few weeks ago, when I checked here, I was very bothered that people were being nominated that only contributed article content--why distract someone who has never shown an interest in helping keep Wikipedia tidy by making them an admin? At least some RC and/or VfD (or similar interest) work should be required, to be nominated as an admin, IMHO. 2) I think Wikipedians should edit based on their strengths and interests--some people have a lot to say, and some are better suited to fix grammar, formatting, etc. problems, and other tidying activities. 3) Based on the number of articles slipping thru unchecked, we need more people on RC and NP patrol, not fewer. 4) I have about 8000 edits (~6000 in article namespace), in the six months I've been here, but most are housekeeping--RC or NP patrol, creating disamb pages, taking things to cleanup, fixing things off cleanup, creating redir pages, avoiding redir and disamb pages, VfD participation, deleting speedies, cleaning up formatting, grammar, punctuation, fixing image display problems, responding to queries on VP, etc. Other than Seattle, Washington, Shaw Island, and Drunk driving (and the last is mostly because I wasn't using Preview as much as I should), I doubt I have more than 2 edits on any other articles, and have only started about 20, tops. However, I'd like to think that my housekeeping work adds value overall to Wikipedia, enabling people who want to contribute content to do so freely, even if formatting, grammar, etc. aren't their strengths, etc. I also think my interest in housekeeping is my strongest asset as an admin. Niteowlneils 03:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- Slowking Man's contributions, for your perusal. - Mark 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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. I spend a fair deal of time policing Recent changes for new users and articles, as well as vandalism. As Mark mentioned, I would find the abilities of sysop rollback, deleting redirects (for page moves) and nonsense articles, and blocking vandals as useful.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I think SubSpace and portions of The 20th century in review represent some of my better work.
- 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 will deal with it in the future?
- A. I had one disagreement with Anthony over National Park and what it should redirect to, but we talked it out. Vfd causes me stress sometimes, but if it does, I usually just take a break.