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

Cuivienen

Final (72/11/1) ended 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuivienen (talk · contribs) – A good candidate. Helped me immensely when I was new on Wikipedia. Has 4000+ edits. Good record. Alethiophile 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please treat this as a co-nomination by me. I believe this user has what it takes, and definitely meets my standards. Is also civil, definitely a good candidate for adminship. NSLE (T+C) at 15:51 UTC (2006-06-09)
I'd like to co-nominate this candidate. —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. —Cuiviénen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 20:59 UTC

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Alethiophile 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat-the nom support :-) A good record so far. --Tone 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support meets my standards, per nom. --digital_me(t/c) 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, [User:Froggy|Froggy] 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.7 (talk • contribs) [1] [2] [3]
  4. Support Vitriouxc 21:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that your account is too new, and you state that was created only to participate on "polls". Can you elaborate further on why are you supporting? -- Drini 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's done this to other RfAs too. Weird, I thought someone indef blocked him. --Rory096 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. STRONG SUPPORT Support: Healthy mix of mainspace, project and talk. Nice user page, too. ;) An article on WP:FAC is good enough for me. -- Миборовский 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    as if it made difference. This is not a vote (on the other hand using extreme lesbian support!!!11!! does put more weigh. -- Drini 18:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing from simple support to STRONG SUPPORT because I'd hate to see a good editor devalued because of a bunch of obsessive-compulsive anti-signature crusaders. -- Миборовский 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Thoughtful, trustworthy editor. Signature could be shorter, but that doesn't rise to the level of meriting an oppose, in my opinion. Xoloz 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Great user. Will be a good admin. DarthVader 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support When since did we start tagging edits to articles? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support not because I feel opposing on a signature is a bad reason, which I do, but because I have had multiple interactions with this editor and all of them have been postive. Cuivienen is a civil editor who as explained in the questions will use the admin tools correctly and for the better of Wikipedia. SorryGuy 23:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support His signature is a ridiculous point on which to deprive WP of the services of a good dude like Cuivienen. Rama's Arrow 00:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Fine editor. Could have had a better nomination statement though. Shouldn't be denied the mop for signature issues. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Pardon-the-cliché-#1 support. New sig complies, too. RadioKirk talk to me 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Meets my criteria. Would like to see more talk in talk pages though. -Goldom (t) (Review) 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I read it as 50 instead of 500, you have plenty of talk! -Goldom (t) (Review) 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Actions in the Userbox War show maturity - subst'ing all his boxes and moving on. Same with acceptance of request to shorten signature. By the way, I was fine with his signature in the first place, and I certainly think any concerns about candidate's maturity were addressed by his inital shortening to "—Cuiviénen on <date>". Λυδαcιτγ 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great editor. --AySz88^-^ 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support A good, civil and helpful editor. The problems with his sgnature not following Wikipedia guidelines is not a major concern to me here as his contributions to Wikipedia has been great so far. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support a helpful editor, civil, not likely to abuse, and I've encountered him several times, and never even noticed the issue with his signature (sheesh). I'm inclined to be more concerned about admins who abuse of Wiki policies that affect content – like POV-pushing backed by biased sources. Sandy 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support if having a silly sig is all the negative one can say about a editor s/he's clearly admin material. I feel we can trust the user with the sysop tools. --eivindt@c 03:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - as Mr EvindFOyangen has stated. - Richardcavell 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This will probably violate WP:BEANS, but I don't think a sig should knock down a RfA, unless it is obscenely horrible. I think this user would make a good admin. Yanksox 03:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good editor, deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support, If I knew the way of nominating wikipedian for administrator, I would nominate him as admin like Alethophile's nomination. The reason is that He is very nice wikipedian, and provides edit summary when He created, edited article, and also revert vandals in any articles. '''*Daniel*''' 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Terence Ong 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support. Excessive time and energy spent on a signature, and lack of concern for the practical difficulties it creates, is a legitimate reason for worry about a candidate's priorities in terms of working on the encyclopedia vs. frivolity. However, the candidate seems to have matured on these issues considerably of late. Furthermore, solid contributions and commitment to use of the tools within policy (although there may be too much of a good thing on the latter) convinces me that he is quite unlikely to abuse the tools. -- SCZenz 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A big sig is a illogical reason to oppose. It is like declining someone during a job interview because he/she wears baggy purple clothes that "distract" people. We are just giving him extra tools, not anything else. GizzaChat © 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Veteran contributor. Haukur 14:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good contriubtions to Wikipedia and has displayed a sound knowledge of policies and guidelines. Gwernol 14:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I can look past his formally horribly annoying signature because, as others have said, he can be trusted and he (for the most part) understands the way things should work. joturner 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Super-Duper Support - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. MaxSem 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I don't see why one's signature should be a measure of their worth. Cowman109Talk 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Merovingian {T C @} 19:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - sig issues have been resolved promptly which is a good sign to me -- Tawker 19:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per his answers on the additional questions and fixinf the sig issue abakharev 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I'm convinced in his knowledge of policy, and the signature non-issue doesn't have any impact on my opinion of his ability to be an administrator. Titoxd(?!?) 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - polite. well respected, appears well versed on policy. Much as I respect the opinions of some of the opposers there is a line between firmess and obsession about the signiture issue - Peripitus (Talk) 03:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, (1) a forceful editor with a good knowledge of content issues (2) civil (3) in my opinion, his judgement is better gauged by his answers to the questions and his contributions (e.g. Hurricane John (1994)) -- Samir धर्म 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support per sig issues, but that's never been enough to oppose a person, and quite rightly. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, no major issues, and a good contributor. BryanG(talk) 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, Good friendly user who looks ready to help. Eluchil404 11:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Thunderbrand 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Loads of good edits, loads of civil talking, and the signature got changed quickly and civilly when asked. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Bucketsofg✐ 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support SIGNATUREitis?!? That's kwazy. Great editor, happy to help give the mop. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Jaranda wat's sup 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support — The King of Kings 04:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I've asked for, and received, this user's help so many times it would be a crime for me to oppose. An excellent user, in my opinion. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Smack-me-in-the-face-and-call-me-Amanda support per HughCharlesParker. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Have only had good interaction with this user. Great contributor. —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Excellent candidate, will be a great admin. Complaints over signature length are just silly. --Fang Aili talk 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support  Grue  18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Great user. Nevermind2 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, one who I have always had good interactions with. -- Natalya 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per nominations. Also, I need to shut up about signatures NOW. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per answers. Very helpful user. Roy A.A. 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - A helping contributor. Deserving it. -- Szvest 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  60. The 60th support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Joe I 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. A signature is an absurd reason to oppose an otherwise fine user. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I personally think long sigs should be avoided, but just as the userboxes were once, this is an ongoing discussion at the moment, and therefore for me insufficient reason not to support. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Seems helpful, lots of edits, not concerned about the sig, several of the people who i respect the most on wikipedia have colourful sigs.Dolive21 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I think that this user will be an excellent administrator, opposing based on one's signature alone is a silly reason to on its own, but there are several much better reasons why this user should be an admin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support: good contributor. As far as the sig goes, he did change his when asked, and there's no need for incivility on this stylistic issue. Jonathunder 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: Have always seen good things from this user. --CBD 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support seems to be willing and able. Who cares about a signature? Let's not blow minor issues out of proportion and try to explain them as evedence of some larger "trend" or characteristic of Cuivienen. All users have flaws, but this is not one that suggests he is unfit to be an admin. Adambiswanger1 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support--Jusjih 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - nothing to show that his sysopping would be a backward step.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - good editor--Aldux 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - the signature thing seems over-the-top. A scan of edits and memory of interactions seems to present no problems. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Tony Sidaway 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Embarrassingly stupid signature. Has recently reduced it from around 480 characters to about 300 characters, but it's disturbing that Cuivienen either doesn't understand or simply doesn't care how adversely this huge and unnecessary thing impacts the discussion environment, particularly in editing mode. This is a trust issue. How can a person of such poor judgement ever be trusted with the administrator tools? Opposing on this occasion with a view to seeing improvements in the future.[reply]
    You may have a valid concern, but somehow I think you could have been nicer about it. -- Миборовский 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You win the prize for the least civil, most ill-phrased oppose vote all year. Congratulations. You get to take a cold shower. -Splash - tk 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that should go to Anwar for his vote in Blnguyen's RfA. Alethiophile 15:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fails to meet my requirements of having a sensible signature, which includes two HTML comments and a timestamp (copied from above: <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]]<span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Friday]], [[9 June]] [[2006]] at 20:59 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. --Rory096 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To neutral. --Rory096 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose per sig issues, while some customization of sigs is fine having 3 lines on my huge monitor is not. Sigs need to be within rationale, I may change this if the sig is changed -- Tawker 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    To all above: I have shortened the signature to what I can only say is reasonably short enough. —Cuiviénen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 22:02 UTC
    Why is it such a must that you have wikilinks on your signature? -- Drini 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't essential, but they really don't add more than ten or so characters to the sig. If popular opinion asks me to remove them, I'll go back to a normal timestamp. —Cuiviénen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 22:07 UTC
    Why is everyone opposing based on objections to his signature? Why does it matter? Why does he have "poor judgement" because of it? I rather like it, and the HTML comments at the beginning and end make it much easier to tell apart from the surrounding text. Alethiophile 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose nomination is very short and doesn't specifically say what the nominee has been doing on wikipedia. Self-nominations are allowed... Should've read the signature guidelines long ago. Good editor but I just don't feel they are ready for admin just yet.--Andeh 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose changed to Oppose until user can shorten signature further which can easily be done by removing the pointless wikilinks and the "on" and "at" in the timestamp. Needs to read WP:SIG carefully.--Andeh 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes a difference, I have, since my last post here, further reduced my signature length. I read WP:SIG long ago, at a time when the guideline was far more lax than it is today and when no one made a big deal about it. I suppose I can be considered at fault for failing to reread it as it evolved. —Cuiviénen 00:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed back to weak oppose as said.--Andeh 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose - commenting on each and every oppose vote is annoying and immature. This RFA is premature. pschemp | talk 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, Cuivienen has contributed quite substantially to the tropical cyclone wikiproject. I'd contend little article edits due to long posts at a go, but I haven't confirmed that myself. NSLE (T+C) at 16:09 UTC (2006-06-10)
    Actually, it's rather the opposite - I make many small edits rather than a few large edits, so I show up as having very few major edits at all. I think 1900 edits of 4700 (~40% of all edits) is still a significant rate of contribution. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pschemp, look at Hurricane John (1994), which is basically entirely his work and currently in WP:FAC. Titoxd(?!?) 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    that's nice. I still think he's too inexperienced.pschemp | talk 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've seen some pretty poor judgement from this user. Just now he's nominated the image page of an image used on my user page for Redirects for deletion, citing it as a "cross-namespace redirect". This shows poor judgement (he should've talked with me first rather than gone directly to Rfd with something that is used exclusively on my userpage) and a lack of understanding of policy (cross-namespace redirects are only forbidden when the originating page is in article space). I cannot fathom what he hoped to accomplish by trying to get my image's page deleted as a redirect; it doesn't even make sense! --Cyde↔Weys 23:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for not alerting you immediately; I can only say that I was called away from the computer urgently. (Which is true, but I can't prove it.) —Cuiviénen 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, look more into the situation - for example, this clarification by Cuivienen]. And Cuivienen learned from his mistake and withdrew the nomination. Nobody's perfect, so if we're going to judge people on their errors, I think Cuivienen did an outstanding job of rectifying this one. Λυδαcιτγ 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I too am concerned about the example Cyde cites. Especially when dealing with users who are clearly acting in good faith, admins should strive to ask first and shoot second. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Cyde, shows lack of understanding about some of the basic working of Wikipedia and in later comments on the same issue, ignores advice from more experienced editors who point out the errors. Admitting mistakes and learning from others is imperative in an admin. Shell babelfish 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you tell me where I ignored advice from someone? I would like to know this advice that I missed. —Cuiviénen 01:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as per Cyde and Andeh. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per my admin criteria. Come back (and still be here) in four months or so. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per lack of experience, time on the project-wise. If this nomination fails (which, by the looks of it right now, won't), I'll support at one year or more of experience. SushiGeek 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per pschemp. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'm happy he changed his sig, but I'm concerned that it was so long in the first place. Will probably support next time, if there is one. --User talk:Rory096 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second—you think that this is a good editor whose only problem is a signature, and then when he changes it to accomodate you you're not happy because it was there in the first place? Since when does accomodating other people's opinions and once-upon-a-time having a long sig make someone an unfit candidate for adminship? I confess, this RfA has me puzzled. Snoutwood (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins should have at least decent knowledge of guidelines and policies. Since he wasn't really aware of the content of WP:SIG, how do I know he knows the other ones? --Rory096 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have so many minor policies it's ridiculous. That he has a long sig that didn't follow WP:SIG (which, by the way, is a guideline) is not a reason to infer that he doesn't understand inportant policies such as NOR, NPOV, NPA, etc. Since when did admins have to be perfect creatures who could quote every policy verbatim? Who cares? Can they act responibly? Can they rectify mistakes? That's all there is to it. Snoutwood (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral based on the signature. I suppose I should actually check out Cuivienen's contributions, talk participation, and user talk edits to see if he can get along with people and be level-headed. I haven't done that yet, though. (I did, however, add embarrassingly stupid pictures to Deerwood, Minnesota and Pequot Lakes, Minnesota tonight.) --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to support, see above.[reply]

Comments

User's edits.Voice-of-All 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Cuivienen (over the 4702 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 177 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 10, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 15, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.34% Minor edits: 99.42%
Average edits per day: 21.85 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 329 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4702 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.49% (23)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 5.59% (263)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 16.76% (788)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1709 | Average edits per page: 2.75 | Edits on top: 6.72%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 24.84% (1168 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 29.07% (1367 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.61% (311 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 39.47% (1856 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 42.15% (1982) | Article talk: 14.61% (687)
User: 5.57% (262) | User talk: 8.21% (386)
Wikipedia: 22.65% (1065) | Wikipedia talk: 1.79% (84)
Image: 0.43% (20)
Template: 2.21% (104)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 1.47% (69)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.89% (42)
Total edits 4671
Distinct pages edited 1828
Average edits/page 2.555
First edit 17:58, 15 November 2005
 
(main) 1979
Talk 687
User 261
User talk 384
Image 19
Image talk 11
Template 103
Template talk 23
Category 1
Wikipedia 1044
Wikipedia talk 84
Portal 68
Portal talk 7

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: All sorts of various odds-and-ends. I do some vandal fighting, so the rollback tool would be useful. I have found AIAV to be very diligently watched, but I'm sure the admins there can always use more help making short, preventive blocks. I would also close various deletion discussions and perform teh deletions; I already participate xonsiderably at AfD and think I could make a significant contirbution there. Of course, there are all sorts of other small tasks to be performed: working on deleting the backlog of untagged or copyright-violation images (I think it unfortunate that we say that untagged images will be deleted after a week when they sometimes sit around for weeks), monitoring speedy deletions, even performing small tasks such as pages where a page deletion is required. (I've come across more than one of those, and they often take longer to bring to the attention of an admin.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I've been active contributor to the Tropical cyclones Wikiproject, which I must say is one of the most productive WikiProjects on all of Wikipedia. I've contributed to many, many different articles under the WikiProject, but most particularly to Hurricane John (1994), which is currently on FAC. I am, of course, proud of much of our work. I also contribute to other WikiProjects (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and New Jersey), though less extensively. I've also created numerous short articles on other subjects, which I think is one of my most important contributions; People are often reluctant to start a new article and more willing to expand a short article, so creating stubs and short articles helps encourage an expansion of our scope. I guess I'm really just proud of all of my 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, in my earlier days on Wikipedia, I was involved in what some have termed "the Great Userbox War" (on the pro-userbox side, if it matters). I was never one of the editor warriors, but things certainly got heated in the TfD and DRV debates. However, I eventually came to my senses and realized that neither side was accomplishing anything to further our goal of creating a comprehensive and accesible encyclopedia. Back in early March, I deleted my userboxes (Clarification: removed all userboxes from my userpage) and avoided TfD for a full month. While I now poke around at TfD occasionally, I make a point of not being drawn back into the debate. Even though I think I managed to keep my cool throughout the debate, eventually an ongoing disagreement gets tiresome. I prefer to avoid them.
4. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of Wikipedia's: (1) policies, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals? --Cyde↔Weys 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: You’re not allowed to call that one question! That’s twelve questions! (Just kidding.) I guess I’d better get started.
To start off, I think the goals and policies of Wikipedia are greatly intertwined, and I think it would be problematic to rate one as more important than another. We strive to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, and a comprehensive encyclopedia must be verifiable and must have a neutral point of view. To that end, I think the purpose of Wikipedia’s policies are simply to lay out our goals in more detailed terms and aid us in achieving our goals, more so than any of the guidelines or processes.
Process on Wikipedia is something that I have had debates with some about, and I maintain that process is an important aspect of Wikipedia. Process allows us to get input from many different people from across Wikipedia, input that may come up with a novel solution one editor acting alone might not come up with. Furthermore, I think it fosters trust among Wikipedians, as unilateral actions all too often leave contributors feeling as if they have been trampled all over by the more established. I understand the negatives of process, the most significant that it slows things down, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives in most reasonable instances.
Guidelines are just that—guidelines. They should be followed as often as is reasonable, largely because they delineate what is considered proper by the community, but they are by no means binding. However, I prefer to follow guidelines and cite them as rules except in extenuating circumstances.
Finally, I don’t believe such a thing punishment exists, or at least should exist, on Wikipedia. We do not punish editors for their mistakes, and even blocks and bans are merely preventive measures. I would always invite back a banned user who appears to have reformed. Certainly blocks may be issued to combat vandalism or repeated incivility, but I would hesitate to call them punishment. Guidelines are guidelines, and “punishment” thus cannot be issued for violating them.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only in very limited circumstances, and with the use of common sense. There are rare cases in which no actual policies are violated but there is a clear violation of the spirit of a policy such as repeatedly reverting a page thrice per day where a short block might help to alleviate the problem. That said, I do not approve of excessive use of admin force, and I would be very hesitant to sanction any admin action taken outside of policy.

Question from Yanksox (when he should be on Wikibreak) (optional)

What, in your opinion, is the greatest burden facing Wikipedia in the future? What, in your opinion, is the solution? Could you bring this solution forth with admin powers? Yanksox 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of answers I think I could give to this answer, and I'm not sure that any of them are, in fact, the "greatest burden" Wikipedia will face. However, I'll try to cover one that I think administrators as whole (rather than myself alone) could combat, and that is Wikipedia reaching a sort of critical mass of size and accuracy.
Right now, Wikipedia as a whole is constantly improving. Certainly, great articles degrade and may lose featured status, but, by-and-large, the number, quality and length of articles is increasing. However, as Wikipedia continues to expand, if our community does not also continue to grow at the same rate, the rate of improvement of articles will eventually reach a sort of equilibrium where quality is gained and lost at the same rate because dedicated and high-quality editors are too few. It is thus necessary for us to ever increase the number of administrators to cope with this problem, particularly since, as Wikipedia grows, not only do the number of articles that could potentially be vandalised grows, but the number of vandals also grows. (While administrators are not the only editors who can fight vandals, it is undeniable that they can do so more effectively.) In that sense, I could do my part as an admin to help fend off this tipping point of quality that Wikipedia may otherwise reach in the future.
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.
Category