Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Natalinasmpf

edit

final (65/4/3) ending 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs) – I've seen Natalinasmpf ask for assistance at least a dozen times about things she's catched here or there. This prompted the usual cliche since she has over 8,000 edits[1], has had her user page vandalized 76 times, including an impersonation by the communism vandal; and has contributed much to subjects associated with her home of Singapore (We need more Asian Admins so things get done while us North American Admins are sleeping) I think she'd be a great addition to the admin family. karmafist 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased and honoured to accept. -- Natalinasmpf 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Obligatory Nominator Support. karmafist 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support! Anarchist, communist, free software lover <3 Surprised i haven't seen you on SU* articles. - FrancisTyers 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. Hedley 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good luck; when you get the admin, breathe deeply and count to 10 before hitting the red button... BACbKA 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. FireFox - 21:54, Friday December 23 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. howcheng {chat} 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per nom. bd2412 T 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yes --Jaranda wat's sup 22:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. strong Support solid editor. freestylefrappe 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support one of the most interesting (and young) editors around. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Glad to support another Singaporean. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rd232 talk 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support First-rate user, very trustworthy. Xoloz 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support definitely. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. «LordViD» 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I'm not one who normally says this but ... I thought she already was one.-gadfium 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Anyone who creates so much work for the admins deserves to be one. --Deathphoenix 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, of course. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, looks perfect. - ulayiti (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, why not? Its time for your gain some recognition. Just remember to buy us lunches. - Slivester 02:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --dcabrilo 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. DarthVader 08:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Thought she was one! --King of All the Franks 08:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. After checking contributions, user appears sound Dan100 (Talk) 09:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Tremendous work. Mark1 10:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Let me think ... hmm ... yeah! - Darwinek 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support jnothman talk 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Looks good. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 13:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Sceptre (Talk) 13:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. She's not an admin? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Clear support.   Nightstallion ✉ 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support of course. An active contributor to SG articles and other articles. She will make a good sysop. --Terence Ong Talk 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Santa Support, of course. I'm glad to see more SGpedians to be trusted by the community to take on the responsbility of mop and bucket. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Everything looks great, KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Blackcap (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support without reservations. FCYTravis 23:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Natalina and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Jobe6   00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support a very civil, bright, helpful editor. 172 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I almost got a shock reading Boston's comments below, but I am more shocked knowing I have been talking to a she than a he all along. (giving a guage of my true level of "shock"? :D) Anyhow, she has been one of the most active not only in content addition, but also in talkpages, getting involved in disputes, and basically still managing to come out of them with a good reputation (in particular the recent clashes in opinion over Nguyen Tuong Van). Certainly not an easy feat over a very touchy topic for various cultures.--Huaiwei 07:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    shocked knowing I have been talking to a she than a he all along Thanks for mentioning that matter of pronouns. Now I know that I'm not in bad company in having made that mistake, and don't feel so stupid. I need to be careful with my use of pronouns on Wikipedia, rather than assumping that individuals happen to be male just because most Wikipedia editors happen to be male. 172 07:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, although I'm far from being communist, despite what one particular editor might think. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:22, Dec. 25, 2005
  44. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I worked with this user briefly on how to draw the Signapore flag, since she is from there. She was pretty helpful with her suggestions and I was glad she gave me the OK on the drawing. I believe she will make a good admin, dispite what occured below. Zach (Smack Back) 10:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. In addition to Freakofnurture's comments; one does not need to agree with someone's political ideas in order to think that he/she will make a great admin. -- SoothingR(pour) 10:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support: --Bhadani 12:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Will make a great admin. -- Jbamb 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Seems like a great candidate to me. Keep up the good work. --Gutterball1219 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. support; a) don't want the wrong lizard; b) admin shouldn't be too big a deal and she seems to be a good contributor c) looking back into history of talks she seems to communicate well with other users and has done for a long time. Mozzerati 20:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Appears to have the personality needed to handle Admin tasks well. --Improv 00:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. El_C 00:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support We both like Marx, but with me it's Groucho --rogerd 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support excellent vandal fighter and NPOV editor, just what we need in an admin. Of course, a great content contributor too. --Vsion 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Good contributor and janitor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support —Locke Cole 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. purpose made RfA voting sockpuppet 16:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. I have to oppose for now. support I too got into a heated discussion with Natalina on the photosynthesis page. She agressively reverted my edits despite disccusion on the talk page where I was trying to point out the scientific errors she was making in her edits. She finally accused me of making personal attacks because I refused to agree with her interpretation. It took A LOT of discussion to persuade her that her edits were factual errors. I find it worrying that an editor can be so strong willed when they are editing material for which they do not have a strong grasp. I suggest that rather than digging in and fighting she should review her position if challeneged with reasonable rebuttals. If this had been a one off incident it would not be a problem but her strong personality is coming out on this page too. The many 3RR offenses are unacceptable. On the positive side when she is making edits that agree with consensus she does a good job. She also makes valuable contributions on the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. I doubt my oppose vote will stop her becoming an admin but i am still going to vote this way since I hope Natalina will look at her previous actions and learn to be less of a bull in a china shop when other editors disagree with her. Please take this as constructive criticism. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, ok. I personally thought that was a dispute (if very minor) over the wording and presentation, as I was trying to emphasise the overall effect in a summarised way, which came out in an entangled mess, and Daycd had to reason with me (although I perceive myself as having sufficient grasp, just that the interpretation didn't come out properly and I thought there were no problems when sufficient when they were not). I have since changed my editing style, as well. I urge Daycd to reconsider. -- Natalinasmpf 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I had a more careful look at your edits and I think you are less dogmatic than in our last encounter. I will accept that there could have been an interpretation problem. But when you get frustrated, AGF if the other editor is not an obvious vandal. Good luck David D. (Talk) 16:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. — Trilobite 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Even though this vote seems a forgone conclusion, just wanted to still express my support.--Alabamaboy 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose commie Support -- « Wikiacc » 21:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Guettarda 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. The "can't support communists" oppose vote was funny. Everyking 07:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Bandwagon. --Golbez 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support My feeling is that this editor is earnest and observant. Hamster Sandwich 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sarge Baldy 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This vote didn't make it in time for counting--Tznkai 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. OpposeI have misgivings about giving admin to this user. The user engages in revert wars, and has been warned, continued his/her revert wars and was suspended. The user has been asked to agree to cease this behavior, but has not agreed. The user has repeatedly failed to give newcomers the assumption of good faith, but has treated them as vandals. The user does not practice the guidelines of conflict avoidance / conflict resolution. I think the user could benefit from a thorough review of the Wikipedia guidelines, and I would appreciate from him/her a statement that he/she will abide by such. Only after a period of demonstrating adherence to the guidelines over a period of time, would I consider supporting the user's admin candidacy. BostonMA 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time I was suspended was for posting comments on vandal User:Wikipedia is Communism's user page. That was back in April, when I was venting my frustrations over vandalism. I have since learned and grown as a user. Yes, I engaged in several reverts in a dispute, but that was in conjunction with consensus given by User:172, User:Mattley and others. I have welcomed many newcomers, even clueless newbies. I did not treat Gibby as a vandal, as seen in User talk:KDRGibby, but rather notified him about policy. I practice the guidelines of conflict resolution: or I would not have filed an RFC and a request for mediation, a request which I initiated, which can still be seen on both our talk pages. I am aware of guidelines and policy. The time where I violated the 3RR was due to because I thought the other revision was in favour of consensus, upon which I have duly noted and have not practiced the same mistake again. The recent episode at communism proves this with User:GMB where I sought other users at #wikipedia for help over reverting to what I perceived as consensus. Many users, including myself, wanted to work out the exact changes first before any sweeping ones were made, especially if they affected the quality of the article. The current policy is to propose any radical new additions or revisions at the talk page: 172 has already implemented a modified version. -- Natalinasmpf 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You write the time that you violated 3RR. You have violated 3RR more than once, and demonstrated a pattern of repeated reverts, which are strongly discouraged by WP:3RR.
    For example,
    On Aug 9 [2], [3], [4]
    On Aug 24-25 [5], [6], [7], see also [8], [9], [10]
    On Sept 15, [11], [12], [13], see also [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
    On Dec 10, [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], (see also [24], [25]) You were warned [26], [27].
    Dec 11, you make a request to another editor to revert so that you won't be caught in the technicality of three reverts [28].
    Dec 12, [29], [30], [31]
    Once again, a warning was given. This time rather stern. [32], [33]. Rather than heed this warning, you made one more revert [34] with the edit summary "yes, this is what a revert is called". After that the article was locked [35], and you were again warned that you violated 3RR [36]
    You seem to believe that violations of 3 reverts and a full scale edit war are justified if done in conjunction with 172 and Mattley. I disagree.
    Your welcome to me was to remove my edits without comment. You have been warned repeatedly not to bite the newcomer. [37], [38], #::You say that you practice the guidelines regarding conflict resolution. However, I made a proposal that we all abide by these guidelines [39], [40] and explicitly invited you to endorse this [41], but you have so far been unwilling to do so. (BostonMA 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talk • contribs) [reply]
    Yes, but those are 3RR violations from a user which I considered to be working against consensus, who by the way, makes severe personal attacks and is in violation of many policies other than 3RR. As I have explained, I have since learned the lessson, and it is not something I am inclined to do. Note there is nothing wrong in asking another user to revert changes - it is perfectly acceptable. This is what I did with communism today in #wikipedia on IRC. The warning on the talk page I did not see until I had finished my revert. I had considered my reverts justified because I thought consensus backed me, and would have reverted by another user, except I had the sense of immediacy this is not something I would repeat, and a function that would be easily accomplished, as I have done today, by asking other users. I pledge this will not be a problem in the future. -- Natalinasmpf 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To the updated comments, I did not bite you on the basis of being a newcomer, but I did treat Gibby as a newbie who wasn't aware of existing guidelines. 172 and Mattley are respected members of the community, as were others who partook in the revisions. I did not endorse your guidelines, because it seemed to be implied that signing your agreement meant endorsing your revision, which was not my intent. It was not my intent to refuse to abide by guidelines or policy. Besides, no one else signed your agreement. I didn't think it was necessary to prove that I abided by guidelines. I hope this isn't being interpreted as lack of enthusiasm for policy and guidelines. -- Natalinasmpf 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be frank, but I don't think citing aetherometry is a good example, considering that aetherometry is considered to be pseudoscience outside the mainstream and is like changing "animal magnetism" to "natural science" - bordering on vandalism, which was my view at the time. Now I have taken a softer approach and a different view, and have evolved as a user, and I have even removed the pseudoscience tag in order to achieve peace. Is there a problem? Neither of the three earlier examples you cite were 3RR, or a huge dispute, because I compromised or backed down, except for aetherometry, as I have explained both before and below. Even User:William M. Connolley, User:Guettarda and User:Theresa Knott took part in aetherometry, which may I mention, many other administrators as well. -- Natalinasmpf 12:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You insist that you have "evolved as a user". I'm sure you have. However, you also insist that three reverts in 24 hours is acceptable practice because a) there was no "huge" dispute, b) because your changes were factual, c) because others were involved, d) that you didn't read the talk page e) that the person reverted was working against consensus, and so on. This gives the appearance that you don't think the guidelines were really meant to apply to your behavior. So, unfortunately, I feel I need to reiterate my original observation, that I think you would benefit from a thorough review of the guidelines on conflict avoidance / conflict resolution, and a period of demonstrating a willingness to apply these guidelines. (BostonMA 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    A 3RR violation is more than three reverts in 24 hours, not three. Mark1 17:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. I was mistaken to refer to most of the cases above as violations of the 3RR rule. However, the guideline WP:3RR states that "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable." and "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others." (BostonMA 17:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    Guidelines are guidelines, they do not apply 100% of the time, while applying many times. I abide by policy, and I abide by guidelines in spirit. The 3RR applies 100% of the time - aetherometry for example, was an exception to the guideline. I'm sure you're not going to favour a bunch of pseudoscientists with their "metrics of the aether" violating NPOV by asserting their minority theory as fact? In that case, I chose to revert, as did other administatrators. I feel that I had perceived consensus to support such a revision, judging by the actions of other respected members of the community. I think aetherometry was a laughable case. The incident with 172 concerning gift economics was hardly a revert war; and we actually discussed the issue (unlike, Gibby who reiterated the same thing). I feel that wasn't warring. How have I persistently reverted? There is a different between guidelines and policy, and I felt that in this exception, I had the oppurtunity to revert. I did not persist in most of the reversions. I in fact, achieved peace with most of the users you mentioned, ie. 172 and Nobs01. I rest my case. -- Natalinasmpf 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And I rest mine. (BostonMA 00:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    To your new additions, they're either dealing with Gibby or aetherometry, the context of which I have already explained. -- Natalinasmpf 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that dear Natalina: she has 'evolved' as a user, but in the same breath argues that Wikipedia rules do not apply to aetherometry, simply because a 'consensus' has decided that aetherometry is 'pseudoscience' - ergo, no rules of courtesy or policy need to be observed. Forgive me, dear Natalina, but it is very hard not to think that your new "peacemaking" persona with respect to the aetherometry entry has been created just to make you look good in this bid for adminship. And no, the fact that somebody is studying the metrics of the aether does not make them contemptible. You should educate yourself on the history of the concept of "aether" (but NOT by reading the Wikipedia entry for it, you know.) Did you know that Einstein, for example, wrote about the possible need for a concept of "gravitational aether"? Are you familiar with the work of Harold Aspden? Do you think for yourself, or is it all 'group think'? FrankZappo 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but I can't support communists...  Grue  07:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask politely, does being communist affect my abilities as a sysop? -- Natalinasmpf 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    They're the enemy? El_C 00:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Found out she "hates Marx", I should retract my vote due such reactionary, counter-revolutionary nonesense (not joking). El_C 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I must admit I lean to the Kropotkinist side of communism. Oh, I just oppose half of Marx's theories, and hate the concept of treating it like dogma, but otherwise, it's not personal hatred. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my vehemence! Incidentally, I recently reread Krap-otkin's Memoirs of a [counter-] Revolutionary (or whatever it's called in English), and was (again) thoroughly unimpressed. El_C 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Very good user, but a little aggressive at times in discussions, so just keep cool when acting as an admin. Harro5 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That temper has reared it's ugly head in this RfA, as Natalina gets way too defensive and turns to aggressive. Oppose for fear of consuming newbies whole on the odd occasion. Harro5 08:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always been very kind to newbies. I thought I should generally explain my actions and how they will not affect my integrity as a sysop. -- Natalinasmpf 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per User:BostonMA. Candidate's behavior in editing disputes, including one currently involving me, is inconsistent with admin responsibilities. Monicasdude 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2 - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I don't agree that " We need more Asian Admins so things get done while us North American Admins are sleeping " and " This prompted the usual cliche since she ... has had her user page vandalized 76 times, including an impersonation by the communism vandal " are valid arguments for the nomination. — Instantnood 08:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, too. Not everybody is either Asian or North American. There are other ethnic groups and nationalities. I would probably belive that Europeans would be the next biggest contributors to WP. And since karmafist thinks that only Americans edit Wikipedia, then that would definetly mean that most vandals are American, too. --Kilo-Lima 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually I got my comment at the top from Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Johnleemk. And it doesn't take good 'ol American know how that Asia, Africa and South America are poorly represented among the global Wikipedia community compared to those other pesky continents. The more views we get, the better off we'll be. karmafist 02:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In complete agreement with Insta, I find the nomination in bad faith rather lacking. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That was only a supporting and distinguishing remark IIRC, not the main one. I accepted because of the need to do sysop duties around RC patrol. -- Natalinasmpf 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I only see the following in your nomination: "I've seen Natalinasmpf ask for assistance at least a dozen times about things she's catched here or there ... I think she'd be a great addition to the admin family." My vote is not a vote against you, and the nomination certainly wasn't under your control. However, the nomination is one aspect of an RfA that I (personally) take into account before voting. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I accepted the nomination because I always had to ask for administrator assistance with a scenario for functions, ie. block, protect, etc. on IRC, rather than be able to resolve problems according to the policy and guidelines as I came across them (ie. people who continue to blank afd notices, or vandalise, etc.), which I would think be conviction enough, especially as it improves vandal-fighting (and bad image licensing-combatting) efficiency. -- Natalinasmpf 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't like communism but then again, Lenin had a good idea before Stalin, Castro and others turned it into a symbol for oppression. I'm most concerned about edit wars. You seem to have gotten into numerous heated edit conflicts. I've heard several good things about you though, so I'm torn. Your beliefs should not be a factor, but Wikipedia being run and largely populated with Capitalists, such discrimination is inevitable. I want to see less edit wars and less personal attacks from you before I support you. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I perceive myself, the only real two disputes I ever think I got into was aetherometry and over Gibby. I consider incidents with BostonMA and Daycd, etc. a misunderstanding, which I have already adopted attitudes to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. I don't think I have made many personal attacks. The only insults I remember throwing were at the aetherometrists, I have generally avoided flaming from then on. -- Natalinasmpf 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for hijacking, bub Wikipedia is populated AND run by capitalists? Um, Wikipedia has been called many things (Communism included) but... I've never heard of it being populated and run mainly by capitalists... -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've removed an anon vote, as they are ineligible to vote. Anyway, thank you for supporting Natalinasmpf's RFA. #Support 217.132.77.60 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) --Terence Ong Talk 18:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I do RC patrol a lot. Often, I come across articles that aren't vandalism but needs lots of cleanup, or an afd, as well. I like to be industrious and clean up and resolve everything within my ability to reach. I tend to notice that the speedy deletion category often becomes a huge backlog, and isn't cleared speedily enough, while often, people incorrectly nominate articles for speedy deletion, so I replace it with an afd. I am aware of policies for deletion in other categories, such as images or copyright problems, and I notice that often these aren't dealt with efficiently enough, while images tagged as unsourced remain undeleted for months. I've often encountered Willy on Wheels or Wikipedia is Communism vandalism, and obscene usernames but was powerless to stop them. I'm very kind and sympathetic towards new users and clueless newbies who may be awed at the fact they can edit a page and test things repeatedly, and I take a hardline policy against malicious vandalism. There is also a huge amount of work to be done at requested moves, or two similar articles that need to be merged, and being able to move individual edit histories would prevent a violation of the GFDL.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I contribute heavily to Singapore and South-east Asia related articles. I wrote a lot of content for History of Singapore which I plan eventually to reach featured article status, while trying to maintain organisation, conciseness and efficiency in other Singapore-related articles. I am extensively involved in Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and its child articles. It is currently up as a featured article candidate. I also edit significantly in politics-related articles, which are often quagmires. Often, the problem is not content, but redundancy and organisation. I have cleaned up many of those. I edit heavily in science articles, such as cancer and photosynthesis. I also am in the process of translating articles which help combat systemic bias in en: to French, which is particularly difficult but I have managed with help of other French speakers. and correlate my I am particularly pleased in contributing to the light-hearted areas of Wikipedia and its community aspect. I was a participant in the chess championship between users, as well as I enjoy interacting and playing with other editors such as User:Linuxbeak and User:William M. Connolley and have organised such institutions as a medium to do so, as it fosters a sense of community while keeping in mind Wikipedia's primary mission. I created the template for Go, was involved in the evolution of Template:chess position which has become template:chess diagram, and have delved into particularly esoteric template mechanics such as template:switch and template:qif. I also do a lot of cleanup and copyediting regularly, and try to efficiently organise and present to readers the content of an article as best as possible while avoiding redundancy and too many forks, especially of articles in related areas.
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 conflicts with several editors who went against a few guidelines. I was accused in two of those disputes of supporting a "cabal". My first dispute was with WiC, who I quickly became a target of. I have been in an entangled dispute over aetherometry in July with some theoreticians who (ie. http://aetherometry.com) who asserted their fringe theory as fact (see the original history). This later blew up into megabytes of talk conflict. Despite the fact that I was no more than a participant of a side that won by majority, I felt bad as the users on the other side of the dispute ended up decrying the project. This dispute resulted in them calling Wikipedia a "techno-cult" of ignorance. During this time, I learned more about compromise and mediation, and that even if my stance is mainstream and represents policy, not being sensitive would turn off potential contributors who weren't familiar with policy or didn't have mainstream views. I have since learned to be more tolerant, to stay calm and cool and about compromise even for the most unreasonable users, as it doesn't help coming to a resolution. I am in a minor dispute with KDRGibby in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby, and that has also taught me how best to respond to disruptive and rude editors. Any dispute tends to raise my wikistress, but I have since taken a stoic approach to most disputes.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf&oldid=1082478143"