Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/C.Fred

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.

C.Fred

[edit]

Final (32/0/0); Ended 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Fred (talk · contribs) - C.Fred has been a Wikipedian since September 2005 and an active editor since January 2006. For those interested in such things he has made nearly 6000 edits to the project, with 4000 of those being to the mainspace. C.Fred appears to me to have exactly the sort of experience needed to make a fine administrator. He is active in reverting vandalism and issues appropriate warnings. He also has good knowledge of our deletion policy, being both a new article patroller and regular AfD contributor. Where taking part in AfD he makes valid contributions to the debate beyond simple votes and obviously keeps track of the discussions, making further comments as necessary as they progress. In patrolling, he makes correct use of speedy templates and especially prods - I'm sure he would deal well with those requests as an admin.

C.Fred is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways and focuses his attention on editing articles that fall within that project's scope and those on sport, especially football. C.Fred is a highly civil user and I've seen him be a very calming influence in a number of disputes. He shows a readiness to write personalised messages to problem users rather than resorting to templates - something that gets much more positive results [1] and which we need to see more of. So in short, I think he has both the temperament and policy experience to make a good admin. WjBscribe 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to accept this nomination for admin. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The first areas are to continue with the work I've been involved with: vandalism cleanup, proposed deletions, AfDs, and speedy deletions. The second place will be to attend to items in Category:Administrative backlog. Additionally, I'm sure there will be places where I can either consult on a matter under discussion, assist in keeping a Talk page discussion civil, or otherwise answer a request for help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The easiest to identify are the Interstate Highways project articles, where I've worked to standardize exit lists. I also took the articles on Interstates 35E and 35W and made separate pages for the two instances of each numbering. Additionally, every so often, I find a random article that can grow with a little attention. The recent example that comes to mind is Peter S. Fosl: I wikified it, broke it into sections, added references, added categories, and otherwise helped to evolve it. Outside of the main article space are the talk comments: the templates are good as a general baseline, but sometimes users can be helped along with a more personal touch and trying to at least find out what their concern is. (More on that below.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I can think of two conflicts I've been in. One was fairly recently, over the UCR mascot Highlander deletion and repeated re-addings. On 28 March 2007, it evolved into an edit war on the Highlander article. The problem user in question began using inflammatory edit summaries; I avoided that issue entirely, stayed to the situation at hand, and invited the user to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page. I did make the accusation of said user being a sockpuppet of a banned user, but only after noticing the pattern of common behavior and after making a comment at an admin's talk page about the ongoing issues and specifically my suspicions of sockpuppetry.
The other conflict I've been involved with was the I-95 exit list/mass renaming of state routes in the U.S. Roads project. I was not as involved in that conflict, but what's relevant is that even then, I was looking to build consensus on a controversial edit—and then go forward with the consensus that was established, per this talk comment.[2]
How will I deal with it in the future? The same way, by focusing on the matter under discussion and not the editors involved. Admittedly, there will be editors whose only goal is to disrupt the encyclopedia, but I draw an analogy to officiating here: I don't throw players out of ball games; players throw themselves out by their misdeeds, and I just administer the results of their actions per the guidelines for the game (i.e. the sport's rules). I draw one other comparison to sports here: the more irate the coach gets, the calmer the official needs to be.
Optional question from —dgiestc
4. How would you handle an expired prod where you see the article was previously deleted by prod and the same editor created the articles both times?
A: Ideally, it would be a non-issue: the prod would have been detected as such earlier in the process, and the article should have been sent to AfD for discussion. Assuming the article isn't a candidate for speedy deletion (and G4, recreation, is not an option for an article deleted via prod), AfD is still the venue, since the deletion was opposed (recreation is an implicit, if after-the-fact, challenge of the prod). A courtesy talk message is in order to the original editor with the referral to AfD anyway; I would also ask why they let the article get deleted via prod and didn't contest the deletion sooner (since they may be new and not understand that they can delete prod tags). If they're the only contributor, db-author can short circuit the AfD process nicely, of course. In any case, discussion via AfD or talk page is a better approach than prod-delete-recreate-delete-recreate....

Optional question from Durova

[edit]
5. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. DurovaCharge! 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. First and foremost, assume good faith. I mean, if edits are made to Microsoft's article that are NPOV and reliably sourced, I don't care if they're made by User:WGates, User:SJobs, or anybody in between. I can think of two autobiographical articles I've worked on: one by the spouse of a published author in the mainstream press, the other by a college professor who has earned multiple awards. In the former case, the editor was willing to work with us on the improvements to the article, and everybody was happy: he got an article about his wife, and we got a reliably-sourced article about a notable author. In the latter, the article was actually in very good shape, and I wouldn't have caught it as an autobiography except for the picture included on the page.
That said, I've also come across dozens of articles that are just links to a website, copyvio text from a web site or brochure, or shameless advertising: they aren't informing the reader about the company, they're selling the company's product. Those are the situations, plus any case where an editor claims ownership of the text and says it has to be "just so," where the edit warrants admin intervention. The article should get speedily deleted, the edit reverted, or other necessary changes made. When the user's contribution history shows they've contributed a glowing write-up of their company and added their company as an external link to every article in a three category radius, then it becomes very easy to say that the sum of their contributions indicates a tendancy toward manipulating Wikipedia and the user should warned or blocked for spamming. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/C.Fred before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support as nom. WjBscribe 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Y not? 02:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Edits seem reasonable, sufficient participation in policy issues, looks like a good candidate. --Shirahadasha 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Well-reasoned participation in AfD, good answers to questions and experience. —dgiestc 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A good candidate, most certainly. Daniel Bryant 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Experienced editor. utcursch | talk 05:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Knows policy. the_undertow talk 06:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Okay...I find myself agreeing! Jmlk17 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support another candidate that looks good for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WJBscribe nomination = instasupport. – Steel 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, why not. --Phoenix 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good candidate --Infrangible 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support John254 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no concerns here. Seems qualified for the job. —Anas talk? 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good thoughtful answer to my question. I hope you'll drop by WP:COIN and WP:SSP and help when you have the tools. DurovaCharge! 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good user for adminship. Captain panda 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seems to be a good candidate and has many edits giving him experience on how it is to be a regular editor.VK35 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Excellent editor; excellent nominator. Xoloz 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Rettetast 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Insightful answers - I'm impressed. -- MarcoTolo 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom. PeaceNT 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - As per Mailer Diablo. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support I'm pleased to say that this is another case of a great candidate with a great nominator. Acalamari 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support as per FayssalF. -- Jreferee 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - as per all..----Cometstyles 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Appreciate thoughtful answers to questions. 75.23.155.218 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but only logged in editors can express support in an RfA. If you have an account, please log in and confirm the support. WjBscribe 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Steel. – Riana ⁂ 13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Good answers to the Qs, by the way. -- Seed 2.0 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per WJB. Sarah 08:47, 19 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/C.Fred&oldid=1089910804"