Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fred chessplayer


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

Fred chessplayer
final (49/5/1) ending 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

– Hello. I have been on Wikipedia since February 2005. First I expanded Emanuel Swedenborg, then the Archbishop of Uppsala, then worked on Swedish geography, and I'd say I've been involved in 90% of Swedish geography articles (at least 500). Now I'd suggest granting me administrative privileges to make my maintenance chores easier. If adminship is truly no big deal as Jimbo suggests, then my answers below should show that I'm a trusted user and that the community would benefit from having me as an admin. Fred-Chess 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Self-nomination

Support
 * 1) Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - balanced editcount shows at least some knowledge of Wikipedia policy, especially in areas of image rights. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Will make a good admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support - Lots of edits! Compu  te  r  Jo  e 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Would prefer a bit more project space edits (for an admin) but looks good otherwise. --pgk( talk ) 09:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Seems like a fine user.  smurray  inch e  ster (User), (Talk) 10:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Signed by:  Chazz - (responses). @ 12:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) '''support Why not? Mjal 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Everything looks in order to me. No Guru 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Need more admins who know a subject area well. John Reid 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Temperant, good editor, been here long enough, hopefully he'll be an admin soon. Patrick Sunbury Talk 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support 400 project edits are enough. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - No big deal ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support could have more project namespace edits, but I like admins who actually contribute to articles. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Good to have someone who knows a specific subject wellDannycas 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, with a bit of concern regarding my own RFA. It seems the problems that most of the "oppose" people have here is a lack of project namespace edits.  Huh?  He has nearly 500 edits there.  I suppose this community has become much more stringent since October; I only had 150 or so =\.  -- tomf688 {talk} 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) --Jaranda wat's sup 06:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I see no evidence that he will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support a hard-working wikipedian who's clearly requesting admin tools for use, not show, and is highly unlikely to abuse them. (And a self-nom, good!) Bishonen | talk 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
 * 24) Support. Needs the tools, as Bish points out. As for not having enough experience of project space, that is not exactly true, but most of his project space edits are on the Swedish Wikipedia, where he has been involved in many policy discussions. u p p l a n d 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Thryduulf 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support--Ugur Basak 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, user seem sompetent, unlikely to abuse tools, and experience can be gained. If a user only has interest in editing articles, the tools are still useful, and adminship should not be seen as a process based role. Good editors are good editors, regardless of where their edits lie. Adminship is no big deal. Hiding  talk 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -- Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support per others above. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) 0918BRIAN  &bull; 2006-02-6 06:10
 * 32) SupportPschemp | Talk 06:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Of course I support chess players! (But mostly becuase Fred is a good and responsible contributor.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Stöder förstås, den här är en fin advändare. J I P | Talk 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support, seems sensible enough.  P r o t o  <font color="#888800">||   <font color="#002200">t <font color="#224400">y <font color="#446600">p <font color="#668800">e   13:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, browsing through his contributions, I see nothing but good things from him. <font style="color:#22AA00;">Phædriel  <font style="color:navy;">♥ <font style="color:#22AA00;">tell me - 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. I don't normally vote on users I haven't had any experience with, but I'll make an exception here, because I like the answers to the questions. H e rmione1980 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support an easy vote -lethe talk [ +] 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support upon reviewing the candidate's contributions. Hopefully he won't abuse the tools to push a Swedish POV the way Wiglaf did. --Ghirla | talk 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if you will revert my attempts to make constructive edits with edits summaries such as "(rv fierce POV-pushing by a wannabe admin)" then don't expect me to behave different than Wiglaf. I'd suggest you change to Oppose again. / Fred-Chess 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose you as yet, but I think I would. If you fail to see that the words "suffer from ravaging" are inherently POV, inflammatory and aimed at spawning revert wars, especially when there is no background presented and no data is given as to which side actually started the "ravages" and spawned the wars, yes, I think you are not ready for adminship. You need more experience in editing controversial subjects, as I said earlier. --Ghirla | talk 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Unlikley to abuse powers Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support seems to be a hard-working editor with a good expertise on a specific area abakharev 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Jusjih 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Welcome aboard. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. User appears competent and unlikely to abuse tools. Experience in WikiSpace is likely to grow according to the answers to questions below. Essexmutant 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support All in 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, lack of familiarity with process. Please get some more experience before applying for mopmanship.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, hasn't participated enough in project edits like WP:AFD. Most of the project edits he has made are focused on Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, more experience needed in project edits as per King of Hearts. Stifle 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, more experience needed in project edits. bbx 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, as King of Hearts above: more experience needed in project edits. // Habj 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Well-balanced user, except lack of project and project-talk edits, indicating lack of familiarity with the project.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Fred chessplayer's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



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. I have been active in the Category talk:Images with unknown source, includinging tagging images with "unknown" and tracking image sources. However-- I will actually mainly contribute by fixing things in articles related to Sweden, such as moving issues, and deleting images I've moved to Commons; notice all the NowCommons and NCT in my image-contribution history.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I've improved the standard of (almost) all Swedish municipalities and cities. Go to Category:Municipalities of Sweden and select one, check its history and you'll see my name in 95%. This includes inserting the infobox, making the map and inserting a coat of arms (when I was able to find one). I am also proud of the archbishops, although they have a very small reader base.


 * 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. Actually, I can say no. This last week I decided to be more daring and have been boldly diving into the conflict articles talk:Kven and talk:Jamtlandic, but otherwise I've exclusively edited "nice" articles and can't recall any serious conflicts. I'm a mild mannered person who dislikes conflicts, especiall unfair ones, and have sometimes been complemented e.g.: . In fact, I like to mediate and get on with conflicts. I'm not perfect, but I don't think I have any enemies on Wikipedia at all. I do like to speak out and say what I consider necessary, but after that I don't push the issue further. I intend to continue this way.


 * 4. Would you apply "ignore all rules" to your admin powers if you felt really strongly about something, even if other people disagreed? Ashibaka tock 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. ignore all rules doesn't mean ignore consensus. / Fred-Chess 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. 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)? H e rmione1980 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd discuss it with them on their talk page. / Fred-Chess 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''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.