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

TKD[edit]

Final (38/0/0) Ended Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:04:55 UTC

TKD (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia since early December 2005, and have contributed primarily to the area of machinima and, as an extension from there, video games in general. However, I do participate in RC and NP patrol occasionally, and have built up my watchlist as a result. Although I anticipate remining an editor first and foremost, I think that I could help with admin chores periodically. Specifically, I've seen WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:RM become backlogged from time to time, and, I'd like to be able to help out there. I also have significant experience working with images and templates, so I'd be able to help with image backlogs and protected edit requests that involve templates. Although I'm not the most active XfD contributor, I've participated in a number of discusions there in the past, and have had some experience in closing discussions when the page in question was speedied by another administrator, or when the debate was an unambiguous keep (as non-admins are allowed to do), so I'm no stranger to that area. As well, I've participated in a wide range of other Wikipedia processes and policy discussions. — TKD::Talk 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. I accept. — TKD::Talk 11:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As I mentioned in my statement, I'd like to help out with WP:AIV, CAT:CSD (including image backlogs), and WP:RM and protected edit requests. As I currently use a variant of godmode-light to handle vandalism on my watchlist, I'd also find true rollback useful. I could see myself helping out in other areas as I gain more experience, but I'd want to tread lightly at first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: By coincidence, around the time that I joined, there was a push among other editors to improve Red vs. Blue to featured article status. So I became heavily involved there, and the article was promoted in early March. After that, I discussed the idea of a WikiProject Machinima with the other regular editors, in order to organize our contributions and apply what we learned in working on Red vs. Blue to other articles on machinima. More recently, I expanded Diary of a Camper from a stub to FA status and, in hoping to have an example of a decently out-of-universe character article, was able to get Donut (Red vs. Blue) to GA status. I've also done some copyediting, having worked on Halo: Combat Evolved, Final Fantasy VII, and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones before or during their respective FACs (all of which were successful). I've also done some image and template work; for example, I've added several parameters to ((Infobox Machinima)), and I created ((machinima-screenshot)) specifically for tagging screenshots of machinima productions. Some game companies allow machinima filmmakers to claim copyright on their original filming work as a whole, while obviously retaining copyright on the game elements themselves. So ((machinima-screenshot)) was created to express this duality, which wasn't completely satisfied by either ((film-screenshot)) or ((game-screenshot)).
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've been fortunate, in that most of the members of WikiProject Machinima are reasonable folks. However, we have had minor disagreements here and there. For example, while working on Red vs. Blue, the issue arose with how to handle the growing characters page, which was discussed at Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive4#Splitting up the character page. An editor had, in spirit of WP:BOLD, split the page into three, but another and I disagreed with this change. I was able to propose a compromise split into two pages, instead of three, which was acceptable to everyone. (Incidentally, as the series continues, more and more out-of-universe information is becoming available to sustain individual character pages, but a lot of them need cleanup, unfortunately.) I also have had a number of disagreements stemming from WP:WAF, which I have supported from the outset; however, I try to remain civil and understanding. A couple of WAF-related discussions that I've been involved in can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive2#In/out universe comparison and at Talk:Gotham City#verb tenses. In fact, I'll point to Talk:Red vs. Blue and WT:WAF and their archives in general as indicative of how I handle discussion. I think that WP:WAF will continue to cause some disagreement, as it's a foreign concept to many people, I plan on attempting to continue handling such disagreements civilly, yet persuasively.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ignoring all rules means that rules are a means to an end (the encyclopedia). However, given that Wikipedia has been in progress for a long time now, the policies and guidelines that we do have have been carefully thought out and gradually expanded to cover more and more situations hopefully optimally, and they shouldn't be ignored lightly. Yet, not every single circumstance can be covered. One thing that needs to be considered is that deviating from the established rules may surprise other editors, and as such can distract them from improving the encyclopedia. One alternative is to interpret all rules, in which the spirit of existing rules is kept while foreign situations are accommodated. This will be a more natural way of handling the situation. Only if this proves to be inadequate (because the situation is so unusual) should WP:IAR be invoked, and then a strong rationale is needed. One example where I "interpreted" a rule loosely was when I had a template whose purpose was to provide some shorthand in section-linking to a specific article. When that article was deleted via AfD, the template had no reason to exist, yet a TfD seemed a bit too process-heavy. So I marked it for speedy deletion under CSD G6 (noncontroversial housekeeping), explaining thoroughly that the template was solely dependent on a now-deleted article. An admin accepted my reasoning and deleted the template.
As for WP:SNOW, it means to me that when consensus has become overwhelmingly evident for a certain debate, there's no need to force the debate to run its full length. The debate does need to have been open for a sufficient amount of time, and enough people need to have commented in order to really be sure that there really is a snowball's chance in hell that the consensus might change. For an example of what I consider a proper application of this principle, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Screen of Death. It's unlikely to be truly applicable in cases like WP:RFD, where only a few people tend to comment on any given nomination.
5. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Any successful organization or project will have its critics. It's fine, and indeed beneficial, to listen to legitimate feedback; however, sites like those two caricaturize the situation, such that it's not worth the hassle of paying too much attention to what's written there. The energy is better spent focusing internally on improving the encyclopedia. I was once a very active moderator and administrator of Internet baseball forums (not nearly as successful as Wikipedia), and, off and on, some self-declared rival forum would try to start a disruption and/or heavily criticize our staff on their site. I learned from experience that it's really counterproductive to do anything but matter-of-factly end any immediate disruption on one's own end, prevent it from recurring, and focus on being the best that you can be going forward. As I said, we should be open-minded, but it takes two to tango, and, if the other side isn't willing to establish and maintain an honest dialogue, then there's little hope of actually achieving anything from communication with them. — TKD::Talk 23:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support; good all rounder. Everything seems in order.--Andeh 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Good use of sumamrys, good all round contribs, definitley meets the 1FA thing, looks like a respectful and kind user who could do great things with the tools. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support great user. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Another great user who deserves the mop (as punishment for being a good user). As for character, this recent change indicates that the user demonstrates proper restraint as well. -- RM 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, great user, will not even contemplate abusing adminship (do not quote...) Good luck. haz (talk) e 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Looks well-rounded to me. >Radiant< 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support but please try to get a more broad experience. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, good contributor and dedicated to wikipedia. Shyam (T/C) 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Michael 19:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support without reservation of any kind. Themindset 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A very good contributor to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Great user. Nishkid64 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support one of our rising editors; obvious support. — Deckiller 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian ※ Talk 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support diligent, well-informed & great work on RvB ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support such a great user that was partly responsible for my namechange in light of the great contributions. Teke (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Zaxem 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support—per nom, discussion & review of User contributions of Wikipedia... Appears eminently trustworthy. Williamborg (Bill) 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Answered my question thoughtfully and kept a cool head. Showed they would have these traits as an admin. Anomo 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. The work by this person on New Pages and Recent Changes has been very positive. Yamaguchi先生 01:46, 18 October 2006
  26. Support. Quality editor with good answers to the questions. I was particularly impressed with number 3, and this question is far more important than the first two in my mind. Irongargoyle 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Poor TKD gets squeezed for lack of controversy over his/her RFA. ~ trialsanderrors 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: I hope you'll spend more time warning vandals. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Should be a good admin. -MrFizyx 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Has writing the encyclopedia at heart. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Jusjih 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support reviewed this user's contributions, which look quite good. Do a good job with the mop! -- Samir धर्म 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good Contributor, well familiar with wikipedia, and helped out wikipedia a good amount. Alan Talk - Contributions 20:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Looks like a good candidate. I would really like to see some more activity in vandal fighting, intervention, etc, as you will be bombarded with this as an admin. Since most likely you will succeed here, be bold, and at the same time use caution (work that out). I see no problems with giving this candidate the mop. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Mike | Talk 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No problems SOADLuver 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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