Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ABCD
final (4/8/4) ending 21:26 22 January 2005 (UTC)

I have been a user here since late October/early November 2004, and have over 2000 edits. Most of my edits have been minor in nature, and mainly dealing with janitorial type stuff. If I become an administrator, I will probably continue helping with the janitorial stuff and maintenance. I currently watch VfD, RfD, and CfD regularly, and will continue to do so. I know and understand most of Wikipedia's policies, and abide by them. – ABCD 21:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. I trust that ABCD will not abuse his admin powers, and a penchant for grunt work (not to be confused with Grunt work) is always useful. ugen 64 01:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll support, based on contributions. I would like to see more edit summaries, though. Jordi·✆ 09:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm assuming good faith. Andre ( talk ) 22:28, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) R yan!  |  Talk  14:56, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) No substantive edits, and too early in any case. Gzornenplatz 22:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) To me, 2.5 months is good enough. But however, I have to agree with Brockert: ABCD rarely leaves edit summaries. If you want to come back, PLEASE start leaving edit summaries. Thank you. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutralitytalk 02:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Get more involved. Dr Zen 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Since you haven't left edit summaries before January 15, 2005, it is hard for us to know about the nature of your work. Also, I would like to see more interaction with other users. Come back after a few months, and I will support you. utcursch 08:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, though likely to support in the future with more experience, good edits, and preferably more content creation. Also, please consistently use useful edit summaries. - Taxman 23:00, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Too new, I suspect this account is not their only one.  First edit was a vote on Nov 1, rest of their edits are just runs of grunt work, likely done to increase edit count quickly and move towards adminship.  I'd consider changing my mind if I'm proven wrong in this interpretation. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * 8) * This is the only account I use. The reason my first edit was a vote was because I created the account to vote because I was told only registered  users can vote. In other words, I am not a sockpuppet. – ABCD 15:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) ** Specifically, I believe you're a new incarnation of Aplank/Alexandros/Greenmountainboy/Sennheiser/AlexPlank/Perl/Lst27. No, I cannot rationalize why Lst27 voted oppose in this vote, but stranger things have happened before. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * 10) *** I am not Aplank/Alexandros/Greenmountainboy/Sennheiser/AlexPlank/Perl/Lst27/etc., and never have been. Unfortunately, there is no real way that I know of to prove this, except have a developer look at the IP addresses used for each user to log in. I would like to know, however, why you think that I am the same person as those you claim that I am. – ABCD 20:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) **** It doesn't seem to matter for this adminship vote, so I'll hold off posting that information publically for now. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * 12) ***** It's hardly fair to call someone a sockpuppet and then refuse to substantiate it at all. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  02:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) ****** I'd rather not show this person the specific evidence, so as not to make it any easier the next time he tries. I'll be happy to explain it outside the Wiki, perhaps on IRC. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
 * 14) ******* You're willing to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet but won't show your supposed evidence unless it has a chance of hurting his RfA? Carrp 13:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Too new. Oppose. Moncrief 02:28, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I would like to see more Talk page entries to get a better feel for how you interact w/other editors, though I suppose if your goal is janitorial tasks it may not be as pertinent. Still, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project... --MPerel( talk 07:02, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe. Registration time is short but I think a few people I've voted for recently had only been active since around that time. --JuntungWu 10:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Will support in a month.   — Nathanlarson32767  (Talk) 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) It is always a bad sign when a candidate fails to answer to *all* of the standard questions or answers with one or two sentences. On the other hand, Ugen64 is probably right. I will support in 2-3 months. jni 11:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * ABCD's first edit was at 22:29 on November 1 2004. He has 2242 edits, but only 644 of them are to the article space. He's only had 6 people leave him talk. He rarely leaves edit summaries. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  21:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * While my first edit was then, I had made a number of other small edits earlier, going back to mid-September (don't ask me to find them, because I don't remember what they were). In addition, I am trying to break the habit and actually leave summaries. – ABCD 22:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're doing a good job of it. Your next RfA (in, say, 3 months) should pass without a problem. Thank you for answering my questions. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  07:11, Jan 17, 2005 (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 anticipate helping with VfD, CfD, RfD, Request for moves (I think that's its name...), and other such pages. I also may help with the RC Patrol.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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. The only conflicts that I have been in were due to my misreading or not seening the pages on procedures for the various * for Deletion pages. When I was made aware of this, I read the pertinant pages, and apologized to the person that notified me.

Specific user questions:
 * 1.. Are categories like Category:1102 births really useful?
 * A. If you are asking if I should have created those categories, then the impression that I had recieved from various things that I had seen was that it was the consensus to create category pages for any categories that contain articles, and that the Category:XXXX births and Category:XXXX deaths were approved by consenus (somewhere, I don't remember where).
 * If you are asking if we should even have them, then I think that it can help if someone is tring to find who was born in any given year, otherwise I'm not sure. Also, unless I'm mistaken, categories are cheap. – ABCD 22:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Are the " {{ localurl:" edits about removing self reference, or what is the purpose?
 * A: There were two main reasons. First, it was to remove self references.  Second, because the  {{localurl:...}}  syntax is being used, the links update themselves automagically when the URL syntax for things like history and edit pages changes, like it did in the recent WikiMedia upgrade. – ABCD 22:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)