Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trödel

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.

Trödel

[edit]

Final (54/0/1) Ended Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:36:30 UTC

Trödel (talk · contribs) – One of the most solid editors on Wikipedia - Trödel has been editing as User:Trödel since January 2005, prior to that time he edited as User:Trodel since July 2004.

Many editors come to him for advice, support and conflict resolution assistance as he is a trusted member of the Wikipedia community. He is level-headed and neutral in his work.

His work has included the creation and modifying of various templates, fighting vandalism, getting articles to good or featured status, assistance with citation systems, and involvement in various Wikiprojects.

His involvement in Wikipedia initiatives and overall committment to the process is apparent from his work and attendance at Wikipedia conferences. He is a natural leader and has well over 3000 edits (which I believe is the maximum edits of individual editor's standards.

- Visorstuff 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept --Trödel 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination. After being nominated by Visorstuff I reviewed some early edits and hope that I can emulate the guiding hand that some admins had over me and my initial contributions to Wikipedia. I see adminship and admin actions as a stewardship and responsibilty to the community and intend to treat the tools that way to build a better encyclopedia.

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: Several:
  1. Vandal fighting - I currently revert several times a day, but it would be easier if I had the proper tools
  2. High profile template editing - I was working on making the citation templates consistent but had to stop because they were protected for being high profile
  3. Image and speedy deletion - I have a good understanding of the policies and would seek a second opinion where I have doubts
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Bishop (Mormonism), Frances Oldham Kelsey, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bob Parsons, Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board, President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service (created)
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: Of course :) I've been here for a while. I have went on a semi-wikibreak (one time for about 3 months), I have removed the articles in questions from my watchlist, I have used persuasion on the talk page, I have brought issues to a larger audience when they were being discussed on an obscure page...

Question from Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs)

4. Can you explain your understanding of voting vs. consensus?
A: I think we should avoid the term "voting" when possible, but I think it is useful to have editors indicate a clear preference when discussing which action to take. If there is an overwelming preference for a specific solution, then the discussion acts more like a "vote" and, barring anything unusual, that shared preference should determine the outcome. Where there is not an overwelming preference for a specific solution, the comments should be carefully read to determine if a unique solution has been proposed that would address editors concerns, to verify that the proposed solutions stay true to our core principles (verifiability, neutrality) and support our goal (of building an encyclopedia), etc. If no proposed action has significant support, then the result should be no concensus (yet ☺).

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: First, ignore all rules, to me means that while having a process and method of doing things is necessary, they should not get in the way of our goal - to create an encyclopedia - nor should those processes have results that are contrary to creating neutral verified content. When they do we should ignore them. In other words, we should focus on getting it (the encyclopedic content) right instead of "dotting the i's" and "crossing the t's" of every procedural step. IAR is also invoked in the Wikipedia namespace - there I think IAR should be invoked more carefully, should support encyclopedia creation, and should be invoked, as much as possible, in a way to avoid escalating conflict.
   Second, when some proposed action has a snowball's chance in hell of reaching concensus, in my experience, it usually is either 1) in violation of WP:POINT or 2) asked innocently by a new editor who is unfamiliar with the background of an article, and 3) often involves setting up a vote prior to discussion. (1) Since envoking SNOW probably won't stop the attempt there is a need to consider carefully (and seek guidance about) how to invoke SNOW but not be afraid to do so. (2) Usually resolved with a link to the prior discussion and guidance. (As a result of a negative impression I inadvertantly gave, I now notify and give a short time to respond before invoking SNOW.) (3) Explain the need to discuss issues to reach concensus and that voting tends to polarize rather than harmonize disparate views.

Question from Anomo (talk · contribs)

6. What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia?
A: My view of these websites mirrors my view of those that criticise Wikipedia. We should welcome constructive helpful criticism in good faith, and work openly to improve Wikipedia. However, we should not confuse such criticism with trolling or the rantings of those who have been banned from the community (i.e. those whose views failed to gain concensus, who then tried to push their view anyway, and were then banned from further edits). Unfortunately, most of what I have seen on these sites is the latter, rather than good faith efforts to help improve the encyclopedia. The useful criticisms I've seen have also been available in the Wikipedia namespace or on the mailing lists. Thus, I am not sure whether they provide any positive benefit that does not already exist through those channels (though I am not familiar enough with either site to draw definitive conclusions).
   I am, however, extremely concerned about the efforts of some of those sites to document personal details of Wikipedians with the express purpose of harming them - an editor I greatly respect abandoned Wikipedia because of calls to his employer. That behavior and those responsible for it should not be welcomed in our community. I also find wikitruth's editing policies to be hypocritical in that they have taken what they claim are Wikipedia's faults and implemnted those very faults in a much more extreme fashion and are much less open.
   Finally, they obviously exist, and they (or sites like them) will always exist when a large, diverse, and successful organization (such as Wikipedia) exists. I only hope they can show more self-restraint and good judgment.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support: great contributions, he's got my vote. --Lethargy 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly support: He's been a strong, active, and level-headed member of the Wikipedia community for a long time. This is overdue. COGDEN 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Suport for reasons stated above. -Visorstuff 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Can't see a reason not to. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support looks OK. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - strong reasons are listed above in nom -- Tawker 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'd say this is a tröstworthty and levöl-headed usör. >Radiant< 14:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Trustworthy, been here long enough, sensible ideas on consensus. --Improv 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, but be careful when rocking the boat as you may fall out. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Süppört, he's contributed a lot here and he's familiar with Wikipedia processes. That's good enough for me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, looks a reliable contributor to me. Shyam (T/C) 19:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. Michael 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks like he has good potential to use the admin tools well. (aeropagitica) 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support For obvious reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Well-rounded user in all aspects of Wikipedia. (See talk page for editcountitis info) Nishkid64 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Lots of strong contributions, understands policy well. Great all-around candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian ※ Talk 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support for a qualified, experienced user with no troublesome issues. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Unterstützung ~ trialsanderrors 05:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support.  Grue  07:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Pro. As the say on the German Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Zaxem 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support—Qualified & experienced user. Voice-of-All’s observation that “I suspect use of the tools will be sporadic,” is not in any sense a disqualification—Wikipedia editors grow into new skills and roles— Trödel can be trusted not to misuse the tools & that it the single most important qualification. Williamborg (Bill) 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Easy to work with, respects and is able to gauge consensus. No reason to assume he would abuse the tools. Viel Glück! --Ligulem 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. El_C 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I have seen this user in action and consider him to be very subdued in reactions - a trait I consider to be valuable when a person has enhanced powers to react. I have seen him disagree, yet avoid conflict. I believe he will make an excellent admin. --Blue Tie 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - solid editor would make good admin. Jpe|ob 05:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support He has been excellent to work with and will be an asset as an admin. Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2006
  37. Support. Ral315 (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Pile on support. Themindset 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sure ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support JoshuaZ 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support based on answers above. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, without any question. Am now wondering why I didn't nom him myself an age or two ago. Alai 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support good answers from a good editor, should make a fine admin. Badbilltucker 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Seems like a reasonable candidate. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support. I've interacted with Trödel and he (she?) is very reasonable and civil. He is a productive Wikipedian and would make an excellent admin. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. He's not one already? Support. JYolkowski // talk 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support good editor. Anger22 01:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support civil, succint, and smart. good addition. --Quiddity 21:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Not only is his edit count high, his edits are very constructive. SOADLuver 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: Fine. --Bhadani 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No problems here! TruthCrusader 15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Aromanian 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral Not that it matters a jot anymore. But I had a very ambiguous encounter with this editor over a template proposed for deletion. I have to refer to: [1]--Pan Gerwazy 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you simply had a difference of opinion. --Blue Tie 12:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Trödel&oldid=1146560137"