Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dustimagic

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dustimagic[edit]

final (49/6/3) ending 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dustimagic (talk · contribs) – I have been with Wikipedia since November 2005 as a registered user, however, I had been editing before then using several different anons. I feel that I would take this role with utmost responsibility. I treat others with respect and civility, and when I make a mistake I try to make amends. I realize that my number of edits this month is low compared to previous months, this is due to the fact that I have been out-of-town for about 1.5 weeks without computer access. Please consider this nomination even though I know many of you do not like self-nominations. Thank you. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I acccept this self-nomination. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support - He demonstrates thorough collaboration with other editors, tireless reversion of vandalism, a strong desire to achieve consensus, and all-round excellence. Make this Wikipedian an admin! - Richardcavell 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Yes. A bit too soon though --Jaranda wat's sup 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support No outstanding reason; just support. joturner 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Richardcavell. Having reviewed some of this user's edits earlier, I was inclined to query him on his talk page as to whether he might accept a nomination for adminship (I don't add this to insulate the self-nomination against criticisms [as levelled below, for example, by Moe], but rather to illustrate that my confidence in this editor's ability to be an admin preceded his having put himself forward for consideration). Joe 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per Richard and Joe. JoshuaZ 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also Self Nominated Support. All your papers seem to be in order. What I do see in your edit history is a whole lot of Adminy type stuff...AfD voting, vandalism rollback. You obviously have the credentials. What doesn't jump out at me is major article contributions...however just because I haven't noticed them doesn't mean they're not there, and it also doesn't mean you won't make a good Admin. We need all the mops we can get, so have one yourself. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Just passes my standards. GizzaChat © 06:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Looks like a good addition to the team. Mathbot says there were comments for 98% of major edits and 100% of minor edits. They have 3700 something edits.[1] Nephron 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - looks good.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support - Looks good. I believe he will be a good admin Leidiot 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support based on the very good reason that I can't find a reason not to, and adminship is no big deal. Hiding talk 10:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Terence Ong 12:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Go for it. haz (user talk) 14:05, 20 March 2006
  14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Will do fine. mmeinhart 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Self-noms are fine - they show initiative, one of the most important traits for Wiki-admins to have! Edits look good, contribs look good, attitude looks good. Good candidate all around. And we are running low on admins, so let's give him the opportunity to prove himself. --Go for it! 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, give him a feather duster. The one with the pink feathers, if you have it. JIP | Talk 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Nomination is maybe a tad early, but I've had positive personal interaction with editor. Seems like good wiki-janitor material. Xoloz 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Very proactive in seeking resolution to problem issues, both of formatting/categorization and of interpersonal nature. Good at resolving copyvios. Dedicated to the 'pedia. Give him this honor/duty. Chad 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Joe I 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Partially just because of the oppose votes here...But I think he has made enough good edits to prove himself trustworthy.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Strong contributor, strong vandal fighter, will do well with the extra tools! I would have nominated him if I would have thought of it -- Samir (the scope) 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per the nomination. If 5 months is too soon, meh. --Jay(Reply) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good job! Prodego talk 02:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--Jusjih 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good editor. Devotes a lot of time. Polanco 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support as per above... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support looks good! --rogerd 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --Latinus 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support appears to be a good fellow, and adminship should be no big deal.--Alhutch 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good editor. Gwernol 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Adminship should be NBD. +sj + 10:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, close but hits the right buttons Deizio 12:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Meh, why not? pschemp | talk 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Meets great requirements. Comment: Make a little less user talk edits. Crna tec Gora 04:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? People edit where the wiki road takes them, I very much doubt he'll be thinking "you know what, I'd better not reply to that new message on my talk page or post a welcome to that new user because User:CrnaGora told me to cut down on user talk edits". --kingboyk 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A solid citizen whose good sense has often been seen over at AfD. Ready, imo, for greater responsibility within the community. Bucketsofg 06:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Ahonc (Talk) 14:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support!! this guy is really nice and very skilled. Although I haven't edited a lot, I've been looking at Wikipedia everyday for the past 2+ years and I've seen him around. Comedy240 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support God spread of contributions, looks worthy. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "God spread"? ... Nutella? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
  47. Support. Dedicated user. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Strikes me as hard-working and sensible. Bucketsofg 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Doesn't meet my standards. A little to soon of a nomination. And self-nom is usually not a plus, I would have waited for someone to nominate you. Moe ε 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you know, that many if not most non-self-noms are nominated on the nom's request? Dustimagic merely skipped that step. No harm there. --Go for it! 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Not active enough with the Wikipedia communittee. --Masssiveego 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Sorry, just a little to new for me. In a month or two with someone else's recommendation you will have my vote--Looper5920 08:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant Oppose - have to agree with Moe - good start - need more time. Trödel 13:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - agree with Moe and others. Five months is too little time to become an admin, in my opinion. Please try again later if this nom fails. Johntex\talk 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose as above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Sharp decrease in edits for this month worries me (197 to last month's 1,582). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't mean to be pushy at all, and I understand why Oran and others would be concerned. However, as it said at the beginning of my nomination, I have been away from a computer for the most part of 1.5 weeks. By the end of March, I should have over a thousand edits this month if that is what is concerning you. Like I said, I do understand where Oran is coming from with his worries in regard to edit count (however quality of edits is more important). I appreciate the remarks. Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 06:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually its "Orane", not "Oran". I don't care about actual edit count as my above post indicate; I care about degree/level of participation. And where did you get the idea that we don't like self noms? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies about your name Orane. If you look at some of the oppose votes on my RfA, I think you can get the idea on why I think that. Also, by checking out people's standards for support I got that idea. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't know what's the fuss about self noms. Isnt the fact that he's getting supports from others recommendation enough? (User:Looper5920 et al) Mine was a self nom that passed with 80/1/1. Anyway, I've now changed my vote to support. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I think this user needs to be here a little longer. I have no problem with self nom. --kingboyk 09:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Needs more experience.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I like the self nomination. It shows initiative. But I think another month or two of experience wouldn't hurt. If you nominate again in 4-8 weeks and otherwise look as good as you do now I'll be on your side. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Dustimagic'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 anticipate in helping mainly in the areas of vandal fighting by reverting vandalism (god-mode lite isn't that great), blocking those who have been legitimately warned 4+ times and checking WP:AIV, and helping with speedy deletions. When fighting vandals there have been several times I wish I could block anons , but instead I had to go to WP:AIV and often the responses would come late. I am willing to assist non-admin users any way I can so frustration can be avoided.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I must say that I got off to a rough start on Wikipedia. I created several copy-vio articles before I realized Wikipedia's policies in that regard. I now fully understand these policies and I have worked to remove content in violation of these rules. I am working with some of my schoolmates in developing my school's article. In fact, in my first weeks as a user I ignorantly nominated it for featured article status before I realized the whole thing was a copy-vio. I have helped in re-writing the article, however, it still has a very long way to go. I am pleased with it because I have formed new bonds with schoolmates in the process of writing this article. Also, I am pleased to honor my school with an article on Wikipedia. I hope it continues to improve as more students get involved (positively) from my school now that MySpace has been blocked by our firewall and they are looking for something else to do on the Internet.
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 have had my few disputes here and there, however, they have all been resolved through compromise and/or understanding. Sometimes, I have mistakenly warned anons for edits that appeared a t first glance to be vandalism, but I apologize and try my best to make amends.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dustimagic&oldid=1082476952"