Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steel359
Voice your opinion. (2/0/0) Ending 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Steel359 (talk · contribs) – I don't like to boast about myself in this way but I guess that's what I have to do here.
I've been a Wikipedian since April 2006, and during that time I've been highly active made some 5500+ edits, a healthy 500 being in the Wikipedia namespace. I've been involved in many areas of Wikipedia, including Wikiproject CVG,[1] vandal patrolling[2][3] (including AIV[4]), tagging for speedy deletion,[5] requesting protections,[6] various image-related things,[7] and the odd controversial AfD.[8] I've contributed to the actual encyclopedia[9] and pass *FA (though that criterion seems to have gone out of fashion recently). I like to think I provide sensible, unbiased opinions during content disputes and the like.[10]
- Edit count - 5507[11]
- Time around - Since April 06
- Email enabled? - Yes
- Controversial userpage? - No
- Any blocks? - None
- Stupid signature? - No
- Edit summaries - 100% for both major and minor
- Civil? Yes. Always.[12]
- Personal attacks? - None
- Mistakes? - A couple of minor ones from a while ago
- Any edit warring? - None
-- Steel 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accept. -- Steel 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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: It is, in my opinion, imperative that admins are on-hand when they're needed, and my primary focus would be on areas where swift admin action is required, namely WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and CAT:CSD - all three of which I already participate in and can take some time to be reviewed by an administrator. Having said that, I'd be more than willing to clear out backlogs, like CAT:NT, and just generally lend a hand to whatever task needs doing at the time, whether it be WP:RM, CAT:RFU or WP:OMG. I currently participate in discussions on WP:ANI when I feel I can give an informed and/or intelligent opinion on something.[13][14] I imagine my activity and usefulness there would only increase as an admin.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Featured article Shadow of the Colossus is currently at the top of my list, which was improved from B-class to it's current standard by me and a few other Wikipedians. What I've always found interesting is that the idea to improve it to FA standard arose out of a cleanup the article underwent after a content dispute. Metal Gear Solid 3 is my current project. Originally rated as start-class, it's improved leaps and bounds after serious time and effort was invested in it. Currently in peer review, it's due to hit FAC in the not too distant future.
- 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 been in a share of content disputes, and I feel I handled them extremely well. The most recent one was a dispute over whether the various uses of the word "Bowser". In particular, whether Nintendo's King Bowser deserved and should be moved the primary/root page Bowser, or whether it should be a disambiguation. Just on the off-chance anyone is interested, the discussion is located partly at Talk:King Bowser and partly at User talk:JzG. I remained completely calm and civil even when another user started throwing round insults (indeed, admin Jus zis Guy thanked me for my calm presence[15]). Staying calm is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way to solve disputes.
- Comments
- See Steel359's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Support
- First Support. I've encountered Steel359 a few times on AIV, edit summary usage meets my criteria, has a FA, and didn't freak out in conflicts that I can see. In short, I see no reason to assume that Steel359 would abuse administrator privledges. Syrthiss 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support per [16]. Gwernol 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Rama's arrow 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral