Yugipedia:Requests for adminship/Cheesedude/1

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cheesedude

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

Fairly active and contributes a lot, steady contributions to discussions, friendly in discussions, seems to know the policies and fixes things from that. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 23:39, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I accept. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Result - successful 
Successful request. Adminship granted. -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:12, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Questions from Dinoguy1000

Please answer directly under each question. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:19, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

1: What work do you plan to do that requires administrator tools?

Moving card sub-pages after moving the main article. I don't come across this very often, but I did run into into when I was moving articles with "(Card)" in their name to include "(card)" instead. Other than that, dealing with vandals, though I'll admit myself that I've never had a lot of tolerance for them. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 10:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

2: What do you consider to be your best contributions to the site, aside from vandalism reversions or general cleanup?

Expansion of GX anime episode and GX manga chapter articles from stubs. I wouldn't call my summaries the best, but it's certainly better to have something there. My most complete summaries are chapters 5-39 of the manga and certain random Season 1 episodes, episode 46 being a good example.

I also consider my card appearances additions (to the main articles and the appearances subpages themselves) to be among my best contributions. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 10:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

3: What conflicts or trouble have you been in in the past on this wiki? What did you learn from these conflicts, and how did you change your behavior or outlook as a result?

I had a lot of trouble dealing with NoRtHWeSt93 when he was active. He simply would not listen to warnings given to him by anyone. I recall admitting to Deltaneos that had I been in his position, I probably would have ended up blocking him. From that experience, I certainly learned when I need to take a step back and log off for a while. I tended to take editing this wiki a bit too seriously, to the detriment of my own edits. I could have easily spent the time that I was fuming at NorthWest actually contributing. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 10:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Deltaneos

Some more questions. -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:56, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

1: When is it okay to: block a vandal, block a user who isn't a vandal, block someone from editing their own talk page?

It is okay to block a vandal when vandalism persists after you have warned the vandal. There is no point in blocking someone after they vandalize one page. It's just as likely that they'll stop editing as it is for them to vandalize more pages. A warning should be issued first.

If someone makes persistent personal attacks against other users, a block may be imposed. Edit warring is also a sound reason to block someone (once again, after issuing a warning), though it should be a last resort. Discussion should be encouraged.

If a user is only using their talk page to argue with other users while they are blocked, then they are continuing to be disruptive, so disabling their ability to edit their talk page would be justified. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

2: Supposing you find an article that has been flagged for deletion that definitely should not have an article, but the user who wrote it thought it would be a good addition and put a lot of work into it. How would you handle the situation if you have admin abilities? And have you noticed any such situations in the past?

First I would see if parts of the article could be integrated into an existing article. Perhaps the topic shouldn't have an article of its own, but did have some good info that could be put elsewhere. I would then explain to the user in question why the article they wrote isn't necessary, but encourage them to continue contributing. I wouldn't delete the article until explaining my reasoning to the user. Simply deleting it could easily cause someone to become discouraged and start vandalizing. I have not ever seen a situation like that before on this wiki, but saw several of them when I actively edited Wikipedia. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

3: Have you commented on any articles flagged for deletion before?

No. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

4: Have you commented on any disputes that you weren't involved in before?

Yes. I attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to mediate the dispute between FredCat and GrouchMan at certain points. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

5: If someone comes to you after having an argument with another user and asks you to block the other user, how would you handle this?

Check the contributions of the user in question and determine whether or not a block is needed, as the person asking may just be trying to get the other person blocked out of spite. A block isn't something that should be taken lightly or without thought. If a block isn't needed, I would then explain to the user that asked for the block why it's not necessary and encourage the two to try to work it out. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support

  • I am quite impressed with this editor's responses to Deltaneos' questions, responses which are probably better-than-average even for many veteran Wikipedia contributors (and, indeed, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this editor has contributed significantly to Wikipedia). Whether the editor seems to have any particular need for the tools hardly matters to me (I'm pretty sure there's an essay about it somewhere on Wikipedia...), but adminship in general is no big deal, so I'm saying why the hell not? I do have one last question, though: I would like to know the editor's reasoning behind the "This user is not an admin, and does not wish to be one" userbox on their wikipedia userpage - is this an objection to some aspect of the culture surrounding admins on Wikipedia, perhaps, or a more general opinion? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 00:50, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
    • I did not have any particular desire to be an admin on Wikipedia when I was active. Trying to pass an RfA seemed to be more trouble than it was worth. I added the userbox in response to at least three separate users asking if I was interested in adminship, in the hopes that no one else would ask. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:02, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
      • Aah, that certainly makes a lot of sense. =D For everything I've heard about Wikipedia's RfA process, I actually suspect my own RfA was somewhat atypical (it was ridiculously simple and stress-free for me, other than being anxious about seeing the result). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll say support. I trust this user and he's made significant additions to the content part of the site. He nearly always explains why he reverts non-vandalism edits and is always willing to consult rather than try to force something his way. I can't see him abusing any of the extra access. I did say below that he currently doesn't have as much use for the extra abilities as other users might, but a small amount of use is better than no use and better than abuse. The extra access would be there if he needs it and I'm sure he'll find more use as time goes on. -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:30, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • The explanations he gave are very informative and well thought out. He'd even be a great role model imo. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 02:57, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • I support. Cheesedude contributes content to the site regularly and could use some of the tools (edit history shows a long experience with vandals and spam pages) granted to him as an admin. Toob (talk • contribs) 18:31, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Other comments

Though I do accept the nomination, I do want to make something very clear. I do not keep myself up-to-date on new boosters and rules, as I no longer play the card game and I have no plans to do so. Though my edits do veer into to some articles like at times, it's mostly style cleanups and such. I primarily deal with anime and manga articles. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't decided if I'll say I'm in favour or neutral. I don't think I'll be against. Here's what I think...
Out of the four users nominated yesterday, Cheesedude is the one I would trust most with sysop access. I can't see him abusing any of the extra access. However, out of the four, he also seems to have the least use for it. He hasn't moved very many card articles. This is where >90% of usage (I think) for "noratelimit", "suppressredirect" and "movefile" goes. He hasn't flagged very many pages for deletion or commented on deletion discussions, so I don't see much use for "delete". He seems to have use for "rollback". I can't see a lot of use for "protect" and "block" either. Although if he was to be an admin, people would be more likely to come to him when one of those two may be needed, in which case I trust he would make the right decision.
In short, I see no disadvantages to making Cheesedude an admin, but only a few advantages. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://yugipedia.com/index.php?title=Yugipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cheesedude/1&oldid=1777149"