Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/James Anatidae


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

James Anatidae
Final (2/17/2) ended 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

– The nominated is a constant browser of Wikipedia with rarely a day passing without him nosing about. He believes strongly in Wikipedia as both a source of knowledge and as a fun place to look though (He's also scared to death his attempt to become an administrator who fail disastrously). --Jonathan D. Parshall 08:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the nominator I also accept and hope the Wikipedia community will find me worthy of the responsibilities. --Jonathan D. Parshall 08:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC):

Support
 * 1) Support. Great all-round editor, active in vandal-whacking and mainenance. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Meets my criteria. SushiGeek 00:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unfortunately As per Darth below you only have 59 wikipedia namespace edits which may indicate a lack of policy knowledge. I would normally vote Neutral on that basis but I am also very concerned about your answer to question 1, as it effectively tells us nothing to remedy this concern. Also your comment re watching a small group of articles is worriesome - with 800 admins and 1,000,000 articles imagine if all took that road. Finally this error tipped me to oppose. - Gl e n 09:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The answers given below demonstrate a lack of knowledge of policy and procedure for admins. You can learn about these through experience in a non-admin capacity before you resubmit your RfA.  Interacting with other users is also a good thing to do. Twenty-four user Talk edits is quite low.  In summary, more experience required.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   09:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, doesn't appear to have been active in AfDs, RC patrolling (particularly, placing warning templates on users' talk pages) or similar activities. Very high quality editor, but unfortunately I don't see any demonstrated need for the tools. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per WP namespace edits and answers. --WinHunter (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose doesn't pass my criteria. Anonymous_  _Anonymous  13:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose low WP and talk edits. Answers to questions below do not impress me at all. Needs more experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Low WP and user talk edits. WP indicating a lack of experience with WP:XFD processes and user talk indicating a lack of experience with the community and RC patrolling (no/few warning templates set). Although I don't see anything to indicate that you would missuse your tools, I don't see how giving them to you could be much benefit for the community. Viridae Talk 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, 3,312 edits sounds decent, three years' experience sounds good too, but if you put them together, it doesn't look very good. Also James/Jonathan's (which name do you go by, anyway?) activity appears to be limited to article space, with not much apparent interest in administrative tasks, which occur behind the scenes. — Jul. 2, '06  [14:20] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * 9) Oppose Lack of Wikipedia edits is a major concern. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per above --Guinnog 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Does not meet my criteria due to a distinct lack of edits on the Wikipedia project space, which does indicate a possibility of too little an understanding of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Wisd e n17 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose low contributions to project and talk namespaces plus unhelpfull answers to questions. Eluchil404 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose 24 User talk edits for an administrator is fatally low, plus small contribs in WP make me very uneasy. Does not meet my criteria for this position. -- Will Mak  050389  21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, lack of projectspace edits concerns me. Roy A.A. 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Your talk edits are bafflingly low, your answers to the questions are too vague for me and you don't have enough Wikipedia-space edits. Have a look at my criteria.  Grand  master  ka  01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, per above. --Mhking 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Not enough experience to judge how he will handle disputes, amoung other things. Please try again when you have more experience! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Not quite enough WP namespace edits (only 59) at the moment, which perhaps indicates a lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies. Your signature's "username" is also a lot different to your wikipedia username (which is slightly confusing). DarthVad e r 08:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) M e rovingian { T C @ } 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * See James Anatidae's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.


 * This is a self nomination by the candidate. DarthVad e r 09:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics for: James Anatidae (Permissions: N/A) - Total: 3312 - Main: 2721 Talk: 54 User: 166 User talk: 24 Wikipedia: 59 Wikipedia talk: 3 Image: 60 Template: 114 Template talk: 9 Help: 1 Category: 94 Portal: 7 --- Total edits: 3312 Minor edits: 1075 Edits with edit summary: 2521 Edits with manual edit summary: 2226 Percent minor edits: 32.45% * Percent edit summary use: 76.11% * Percent manual edit summary use: 67.21% * --- ---
 * - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.

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: As Wikipedia gets bigger and gets more well known the unpleasant members of the internet are going to continue to arrive in droves. I don't want this place to decent into spammed chaos like USENET has and will work to keep the riffraff out (Oh, don't worry about me banning people left and right, I would use any blocking powers sparingly). I will probably concentrate on watching out for a small group of articles, but I will certainly regularly look though the backlog.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm very happy with the Reginald Maudling article, which I started and which grew into a featured article. But mostly I'm a gnome and very proud of all the little fixes I've made over the years.


 * 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 did get a little hot and bothered during the some of userbox kerfulle but   I really don't want to rock the boat if unnecessary.  If I get really angry, an hour or two away from computer works wonders.

Optional (two-part) Question from RandyWang
 * 4. You mention in your answer to question one, above, that you'd like to block users to prevent Wikipedia's descent into chaos and so on. Which maintenance and anti-vandalism activities, specifically, would you like to involve yourself in? Have you already taken part in similar activities, to date?
 * 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.