Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CyborgTosser

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 21 October 2004 (vote - oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CyborgTosser

Vote here (23/4/2) ending 07:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This user self nominated himself six weeks ago. He failed on the basis that he was too new with too few edits. Well time has passed, edit count has increased and CyborgTosser continues to make good solid contributions. He has asked me to renominate him, which I am very happy to do. His earlier request can be seen here

[Nominated by Theresa Knott]

User has 994 edits as of 07:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good user, and I must protest the inevitable coming of the marauding edit count warriors. Ambi 07:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Last time I said "he has done good work, and is more active than most in discussing matters in article talk pages. Good admin material, imho," and that seems even more true now. —Stormie 07:51, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Opposing based strictly on edit count seems pefectly silly to me. Sarge Baldy 07:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
  5. — Kate Turner | Talk 08:22, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  6. Support. Overdue. "Too new" - he's been here since Sep '02! VeryVerily 12:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that he is credited with but a handful of contributions before spring 2004, and these were anonymous contributions later re-attributed to him. Perhaps the Tosser himself can clarify for us whether all these early edits were indeed his. uc 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Has plenty of experience in time, if not edits. Kim Bruning 13:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Happy to support now (did I last time? can't remember). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:34, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  9. Sure. –Andre (talk) 17:00, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Good nomination. Support. --Lst27 15:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. I don't generally support cruelty to cyborgs, but.... ;-) func(talk) 16:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. ffirehorse 21:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Antandrus 21:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) Looking through his contribs, I see he is a very fine editor indeed. For dyed-in-the-wool edit-counters, consider that his length of "service" here and the substantial nature of his edits offsets a seemingly low number.
  14. I supported last time too, and see no reason to change that. --Michael Snow 01:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. A low number of edits but they are good. {Ανάριον} 07:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Fire Star 20:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Would prefer more edits, but can hardly oppose in the above respectful company. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. I agree with Jfdwolff. --ℛyan! | Talk 16:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Yo, Cy...you got yourself some REAL heavy hitters in your camp. Good enough for me. Support. - Lucky 6.9 23:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. I opposed his self-nomination, but that was mainly because I'm inherently skeptical of self-nominations. Strongly support. --Slowking Man 06:06, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  22. I don't believe that those who do non-controversial editing on non-controversial topics are any less deserving of adminship. —No-One Jones (m) 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. User has less than 1000 edits. Over 150 of those edits are on his own user page - User:CyborgTosser. Also those edits often break down to many edits on one page (looking recently 14 for Symbolic combinatorics, 8 for Semi-empirical mass formula). This user has mostly editted pages on music he likes, science fiction and electrical engineering. He has not been involved at all in pages like this one (requests for adminship), votes for deletion or any other page which shows him having much interaction with other Wikipedia users. This is something Johnleemk brought up during his previous self-nomination, and I concur with him. We have no idea how he would act as an admin, since his interaction has been limited, and admin privileges are all about how he deal with interaction. He edits pages in his fields of interest, occasionally posts on a discussion page, and once in a blue moon has a discussion on a discussion page. Due to his limited number of edits, which are on his user page or the same pages multiple times in a small number of fields, and his lack of interaction with other users which is what admin power is all about, I oppose this nomination. Ruy Lopez 18:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, for the reasons listed above. I've seen nothing that suggests that this person is cut out to be an administrator. The mostly non-substantive comments in support of this nomination have done nothing to persuade me to vote in favour. I have to wonder what qualifies a person for a position of authority who has not even interacted with the community in any significant way. The standard should be higher than that. Shorne 19:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User has less than 1000 edits... I don't recall a circumstance in which someone has been promoted with less than 1,000 edits... I don't see a compelling reason for breaking an established precedent and waiting a bit longer for adminship, as I did with User:AndyL, User:Snowspinner, and User:Neutrality (who were here for less than three months when I nominated each of them, albeit on those occasions unsuccessfully) out of consideration of the huge scope of their contributions in a short time span. 172 20:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Too few edits, and with only two days left has not accepted the nomination nor answered the candidate questions. Lack of participation on this nomination page makes me very unimpressed. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)#Oppose. Too few edits. Kevin Baas | talk 21:34, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. uc 14:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC). I previously supported, but I believe User:Ruy Lopez raises valid objections. A careful review shows that many of CyborgTosser's contributions are indeed to pop culture articles and other ephemera, and I wasn't able to find much that really impressed me. Therefore I am undecided for the time being. uc
  2. Why do you want to become an admin? Get-back-world-respect 20:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support -- a good contributor. 172, I don't know what you're talking about -- many admins were promoted with less than 1,000 edits (I think a significant minority or a majority of promotions from 7/2003 - 1/2004 were in that category), and I was promoted with less than 500 edits. Jwrosenzweig 20:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Sorry, moved my vote because I think I should look into Ruy's comments more carefully. I do still feel, however, that the 1000 and 2000 personal edit requirements aren't being reasonable, in light of past successful promotions.

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CyborgTosser&oldid=6759885"