Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straphanger and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shimdidly: Difference between pages

Revision as of 02:49, 14 February 2007

Revision as of 20:55, 31 March 2007

Line 1:

===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shimdidly|Shimdidly]]===

===[[Straphanger]]===

'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shimdidly|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}

'''(0/5/0); Scheduled to end 19:43, [[7 April]] [[2007]] (UTC)'''

:{{la|Straphanger}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straphanger|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 13#{{anchorencode:Straphanger}}|View log]])</noinclude>

previously tagged as a candidate for deletion for unencyclopedic content; I feel this is a decently reasonable article for inclusion but before removing that tag I though I would bring it to wider discussion. There has been some discussion already on its [[Talk:Straphanger|talk page]]. I feel this is a '''keep''', but in need of '''cleanup''' [[User:Cornellrockey|Cornell Rockey]] 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

{{User|Shimdidly}} - I would like sysop privileges for just a short while (maybe a week). All I really want to do is view the history of deleted pages, somewhat out of curiosity. I do understand the weight, responsibility, and respect meant to be associated with such a position, and that's why I am asking for a "temporary pass." I will not use any of these extra tools to damage Wikipedia in any way or to go beyond consensus, and I will not openly brag (i.e. look at me I'm an admin haha). So basically I just want to have a behind the scenes peek for about a week, unless that's not perfectly acceptable.[[User:Shimdidly|Shimdidly]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''', the nominator themselves believes it should be kept.... !! I suggest withdrawing the nomination and then you can close it yourself if there are only keep votes. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] ^{[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]} 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. I first heard this term in the context of the Straphangers Campaign, a group that advocates the improvement of the NYC Subway system, which is mentioned in this article. --[[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:''

*'''Delete''' I see the nom has opted for "keep", but I'd be more than happy to step into the shoes of the nominator and nominate it myself. This article is essentially a dicdef, a slang term for commuter. The balance of the article is clearly a dicdef, given the heading "other definitions". The alternatives to deletion are to redirect to [[commuting]] or to transwiki into the wiktionary. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' or '''transwiki'''. Looks like a classic dicdef. If it can be expanded beyond that, keep. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept such a nomination

*'''Keep''' - The fact that there is a film by the same name already demonstrates that this is not ''just'' a dicdef. It does, however, need to be improved and expanded. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' If the ''film'' is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia entry, then we can have an article on the ''film''. However, just because a movie has the same title as a word in the dictionary doesn't make that word worthy of an encyclopedia article. Looking at the IMDB entry for this movie, there is no indication of what it is about, how the term is used, or the context in which the title applies. If the "Straphangers Campaign" is encyclopedic, we can have an article on the "[[Straphangers Campaign]]" (and we do). There are movies, companies, charities, etc., with the word "united" in their title, but we don't have or need an article on the dicdef "united" ("[[united]]", by the way, is simply a disambig page, no article or definition). [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 02:49, 14 February 2007 (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 participants:

:'''1.''' What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

::'''A:''' If I attain such a position, I will try to help Wikipedia the best that I can in that time. As mentioned above, it's really for one purpose, (just kinda curious about what I can't see). I will probably revert vandalism that I am able to come across. I would also not mind protecting pages that have been so requested of and are due for such an action. Assuming it is most appropriate.

:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

::'''A: '''I haven't done a whole lot here, except beat a dead horse on [[Talk:Zezima]]. I have started a two articles, which I don't claim for myself but of course release them wholly to Wikipedia. [[Antoine Silverman]], [[Dan Yates]]. In an example case, if another user wanted these deleted, I would not use "admin authoritaw" to override him, I just want this position for the afore mentioned reason.

:'''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: '''Yes I have. At first I lashed back like a child, and then realized how immature that was. I will never do that again, instead, I will 'comment on content, not users'. The same user that I have had issues with, I have taken the opportunity to apologize and make ammends where they are needed.

;General comments

<!-- begin editcount box-->

*See [[User:Shimdidly|Shimdidly]]'s edit summary usage with [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Shimdidly&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Shimdidly|talk page]].

<!-- end edit count box -->

*

----

<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "comments" and "questions" sections. -->

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite.''

'''Discussion'''

*This is an interesting request. I don't believe temporary adminship rights have ever been given out here (with the exception of three to edit the Wikimedia board election page). '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:blue">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly|<sub style="color:green">(o rly?)</sub>]] 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*:Those rights were given for a clear, necessary purpose. Shimdidly is requesting +sysop so he can take a look at the interface that he can't see, and that he can read deleted pages. I'm a little concerned about the implications of supporting such a request. [[User:Alphachimp|<span style="color:MidnightBlue">'''alphachimp'''</span>]] 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*::I think if the community was going to entertain such a request, it would need a lot more specific information about what Shimdidly intended to do with the admin rights than he's giving us right now. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#11117D;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#11117D">Train</span>]]^{''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]} 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*::I believe I understand what you mean by the implications. If I can become admin for a week, why not everyone else? You might be referring to the "slippery slope theory (one thing leads to another)." The implications for supporting this could lead to more temporary adminships for other users that have not entirely established trust, and thus use such abilities irresponsibly. If there is any way I can establish enough trust to allow this, I will do it. [[User:Shimdidly|Shimdidly]] 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*:::The only way to establish that kind of trust is to amass a large (2000+) body of edits over a long period of time. I'm afraid there's no magic bullet for community trust. You're probably best off just withdrawing this request. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#11117D;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#11117D">Train</span>]]^{''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]} 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

::Is it possible to only attain some of the extra tools, but not all, or is this an all or nothing deal? [[User:Shimdidly|Shimdidly]] 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It's an all or nothing deal. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#11117D;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#11117D">Train</span>]]^{''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]} 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*: What if we created a role account which had sysop powers, but a program would enable the password to be only changed by crats or sysops? The password should change once a day, and people who have met the criteria required for such a test (like no vandalism history in last month, 100 + edits, of the sort) could have the daily password emailed? That will be such a useful tool for admin coaching, too. [[User_talk:Evilclown93 | The Evil Clown]] ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Evilclown93|my contributions]]</small>} 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*::That would be instruction creep from hell, in my opinion. I'd suggest having a look at Shimdidly's talk page history and contribs before I started lobbying to create a new position on his behalf, if I were you. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#11117D;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#11117D">Train</span>]]^{''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]} 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*::So basically I need to establish that I won't destroy Wikipedia with these abilities by amassing at least 2000 edits? What else do I need to do?

'''Support'''

#

'''Oppose'''

#'''Oppose'''. We don't have the community resources in place to allow such a request to happen, whatever the merits. You have less than 500 edits. If you would like to see the admin interface, email me. I can send you screenshots. If you'd like to see the text of a deleted article, we can do a similar thing. [[User:Alphachimp|<span style="color:MidnightBlue">'''alphachimp'''</span>]] 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' [[User:John254|John254]] 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' Barring a desysoping from ArbCom or Jimbo Wales admin status is intended as a lifetime appointment, not a peepshow for the curious. [[User:NeoFreak|NeoFreak]] 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' per everyone else. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' original suggestion, but giving all sysopp powers to someone with inadequate experience cannot be good, be for a week or a lifetime.--[[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]] 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''

#