Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:'''9.''' An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected [[WP:RFC]] as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to [[WP:RFAR]] as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then? |
:'''9.''' An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected [[WP:RFC]] as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to [[WP:RFAR]] as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then? |
||
::'''A:''' Would support the other admins decision and comment on the RFAR. I would then attempt to create a dialog between both parties, attempting to understand both sides of the arguement. If one continues to ignore, I will talk to them on their talk page. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
:'''10.''' You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD? |
:'''10.''' You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD? |
||
::'''A:''' |
::'''A:'''Are you talkimh about this AfD? |
||
:'''11.''' In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? |
:'''11.''' In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? |
||
::'''A:'''In theory technical, in pratice political. So political. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
;General comments |
;General comments |
Revision as of 11:05, 23 October 2006
Hamedog
(2/2/2) Ending 10:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hamedog (talk · contribs) – Today is the 365th day since I joined Wikipedia and I thought its probably time to "take it to the next level". My main contributions are to Rugby union related articles - I'm a member of WP:RU. Whilst you may see in my contributions I haven't done much RC Patrol or reverting of vandals, this is first and foremost an encyclopedia, one which I am committed too. If I fail, I won't be dishearted in anyway, so please express your true opinions.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Belated co-nom: Hailing from Australia, Hamedog has been an editor at Wikipedia since October 23, 2005 -- one full year. He's made a number of contributions with WikiProject Rugby union, most notably getting Scotch College, Perth and Super 12 champions to good and featured status, respectively. As we can see from his contribs in the Wikipedia namespace, he's frequently involved in both peer reviews and discussions of Main Page content. As was mentioned, he's been around for a year, and has in my experience been an active, civil, and helpful member of the #wikipedia IRC community. E-mail's enabled, he's responsive to other editors. Thanks to his geographic location, he may be of additional use, being able to cover admin tasks in the late night hours when fewer of the active admins are available. To be honest, I've thought he was an admin for some time, and just a humble and quiet one. He manages to mostly stay out of disputes, but generally manages to keep a cool head, from what I've seen. Luna Santin 10:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I live in Australia, but hail from New Zealand. Moving back to Wellington in Jan next year!
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Look up and you will see this is a self nom--HamedogTalk|@ 10:04, 23 October 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 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: I will be happy to help in all of them. Variety is the spice of life as they say and I think it is extremly important to spread your roles around in Wikipedia, otherwise things can become tedious. Administrative backlog would probably be the first area I would seek out to help in.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Yes, and its actually a list. Super 12 champions, my first featured subject. I love the table in it, I thinks the only table I've done on Wikipedia that looks good.
- 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: Yes, the naming of North Korea/Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In the several articles we have on North Korean missle tests, I changed North Korea to DPRK. This was opposed by many editors so I ran a Requested Move. It failed. Later this year I did a similar edit and was informed it was against the majority of editors, so I proceded to stop.
- Questions from Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs · count)
- 4. Have you, in the past, contributed to many articles for deletion debates? If so, please provide some links to the more recent ones.
- A:No, not really, unless they are of personal interest to me. Last one I can remember was probably about Brian Peppers, but, I don't generally visit those.
- 5. You indicate you are willing to do a variety of things. Have you got any experience in a variety of tasks, like tagging CSD, closing AfD's (per the non-admin procedure) and AIV?
- A:Yes, I have tagged one or two articles for speedy deletion. Never closed an AfD but if I was to gain adminship, I would take more interest in these areas. Never been to WP:AIV before, but as per previous sentance, this is something I can look to be contributing more to.
Questions from Terence Ong (talk · contribs):
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).
- 6. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- A: Is this before or after a check user? That changes the whole situation.
- 7. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
- A: Reinstate the article and put it up for AfD to achieve a better vote. Inform the admin of this decision.
- 8. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
- A: Block them, there is precedence of them going against the majority.
- 9. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- A: Would support the other admins decision and comment on the RFAR. I would then attempt to create a dialog between both parties, attempting to understand both sides of the arguement. If one continues to ignore, I will talk to them on their talk page.
- 10. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?
- A:Are you talkimh about this AfD?
- 11. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
- A:In theory technical, in pratice political. So political.
- General comments
- See Hamedog's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion
Support
- Support cool first! this guy needs to be an admin Jeffklib 10:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Luna Santin 10:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose You admit having little experience doing adminly type things, so what would be the point in giving you the extra buttons? --Alex (Talk) 10:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Please take the time to form the RfA properly and answer the questions before you add yourself to the main page. Grandmasterka 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral, I have a good impression of this user and his attitude and abilites. However, I must reserve my judgement until the answers have been filled in, so I can make an informed decision - currently, I'm not 100% sure, but good answers could sway me. Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done, sorry about that!
- Neutral, looks like a good guy. But I can't support due to some doubts raised by the above user, I am not sure yet, will see first. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)