Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 6 July 2006

Samsara

Discuss here (45/1/0) Ending 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Samsara (talk · contribs) – Samsara is an exceptionally good admin candidate; he has excelled as an editor, a mediator, and a project maintainer, and he is unfailingly civil. He contributed significantly to the collaboration on Frog, which brought it to featured status. He has been a consistent voice of reason and compromise during the often contentious debates at Natural selection. On the topics he frequents, Samsara's knowledge and expertise is outstanding, but he also recognizes his limits and respects the contributions of others. For some time, he has maintained the Science Collaboration of the Week and Portal:Biology, and is also active with AID and other collaborations and WikiProjects. I'm sure others who have edited with Samsara have many other positive things to add. As an added bonus, he is a native speaker of German as well as English, and frequently puts his language skills to work with translation duties. To recap, Samsara: helpful, intelligent, friendly, level-headed. ragesoss 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - ragesoss 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Suppose Excellent contributor to the Sciences, an area where we really need good people. Also has demonstrated good conflict resolutions skills. pschemp | talk 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
3. digital_me 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, trustworthy, calm user, that would make good use of the admin tools. --JoanneB 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Roy A.A. 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Could use more user talk edits, but Support. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support This Fire Burns....Always 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support great article contributions, actions are intelligent and well-reasoned, and more admins with science backgrounds is a very good idea. Not every admin needs to be a vandalwhacker and not every one-off vandal needs a test template. Opabinia regalis 20:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, no questions asked! -- Kim van der Linde 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Seems to have the experience, is trustworthy and dedicated. Good admin material. -- Banes 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support but please issue warnings to users like this when you do revert vandalism. --WinHunter 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Good candidate, but do remember to issue warnings as requested above! Support is given on this basis. Abcdefghijklm 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support edits a wide range of articles with sufficient edit summaries been here quite a long time too. I'm convinced even though they fail my RfACriteria.--Andeh 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Merovingian {T C @} 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Per Pschemp, JoanneB, Opabinia regalis and Banes... "More candidates like this one, please!" Support ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Oh, hey, a sciences editor! We need to support more non-vandal-only editors into adminship. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Not likely to abuse tools, trustworthy user. No problem at all...Rx StrangeLove 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per nomination, the answers, and my review of his user page and contributions. Agent 86 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Yes Jaranda 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Samsara is a great contributor and would do well to have these tools. --WillMak050389 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Fabulous candidate, and the endorsement of Ragesoss only serves to confirm this impression. Great choice! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Werdna (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Weak Support for the fact that he seems to be an excellent editor, but the points made by Crzrussian have slightly affected my vote hoopydink 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support. I have come across this editor many times and in several difficult situations. He will make a great admin. The points made by Crzrussian do not alter my view one little bit. An admin does a variety of things. They do not all have to do everything, nor should they if we want our admins to remain sane. --Bduke 02:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support —Quarl 2006-07-05 03:37Z
27. Support - per above -- Tawker 03:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. The fact that anyone could oppose someone for not having enough contributions to the cesspool that is AfD is so stupid that it boggles the mind. Rebecca 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Support; this is an exceptional candidate, and likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support would have co-nominated but missed it (spent the day off-line driving to a student's thesis defence) Samsara is level-headed and hard working in the service of the wiki (RC & AfD are not the only forms of service to WP). He's been a positive force in some trying times on natural selection, not only does he deserve the mop, but he's sure to use it well. Pete.Hurd 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - fellow article writer and science enthusiast.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Thrustworthy contributor. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per above. DarthVader 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Cliché support. SushiGeek 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
35. Support More to adminship than RC patrol, we need more like Samsara. Hort Graz 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)change to neutral
36. Support Samsara would benefit from use of the tools.--Kungfu Adam 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
38. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, per nom Alphachimp 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, per nom. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, per Quarl. Titoxd 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Excellent user, unlikely to abuse tools. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - excellent user, good admin material abakharev 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Joe I 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - good editor, strong contributions to the encyclopaedia. Guettarda 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong Support a real asset to the project. FeloniousMonk 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have counted merely seven AfD discussion in his 767 WP:space contributions. That, along with the the noted lack of RC patrol, or any other janitorial/deletion activity, and along with the answer to Q1 leads me to believe that Samsara has not demonstrated familiarity with deletion/vandalism policies, or indeed a need for those tools, as he evidently does not plan on using them (Q1). In that case, I cannot grant them. Samsara appears to be a great contributor - he should stay that way. He does not need to janitorial tools to do it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

   Speaking from experience, there are many more things that admin tools are helpful for than deletion and vandalism. One is dealing with categories, where renaming actually requires admin tools. When working on large organization schemes, the ability to fix it right away rather than wait days for CFD is immensely helpful. This editor has shown he can be trusted, and that's all an admin is. However, he prefers to work in areas other than AFD. If you are afraid that suddenly he will go on an insane mass AFD closing and deletion binge as soon as he is promoted without stopping to ask directions, I think that those fears are quite unfounded, considering his pattern of careful editing.pschemp | talk 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, that's well and good, but I don't grant deletion and blocking rights to those who have not demonstrated fluency with deletion and blocking policies, irrespective of prior careful editing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

   I didn't know much about blocking policy, nor other admin-only things like protection policy, before I became an admin. Personally I'd rather support a potential admin who will learn and work well with others rather than one that knows the current policy but may make rash decisions or wheel-war. —Quarl 2006-07-05 03:37Z

Neutral

Neutral - A good editor in many aspects, but the amount of RC patrol seems minimum. Also, candidate did not issue warnings in most of his vandalism reverts . --WinHunter 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when did we promote admins becasue they were vandal fighters? Some admins never touch vandalism, and that is perfectly acceptable. If you read Samsara's statement you will see that he is not climing to be a vandal fighter. We need all types here, not just the ones that do the splashy work of RC patrol. Misplaced Pages has a niche for everyone and I'd urge you to consider that. pschemp | talk 20:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a great point, vandal fighting seems to be the only way into admin-ship these days. It's critical for sure, but there are other ways to contribute and to learn policy and guidelines. Rx StrangeLove 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral pschemp deleted comments from Mongo. Samsara should answer Mongos question. Is there something to hide? Hort Graz 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Samsara's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 03:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Samsara (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 160 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 05, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 28, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.33% Minor edits: 99.6%
Average edits per day: 22.16 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 494 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.74% (37)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.58% (429)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 33.06% (1653)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 41.7%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1387 | Average edits per page: 3.6 | Edits on top: 8.3%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 71.18% (3559 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 21.12% (1056 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.5% (325 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 1.1% (55 edit(s))
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 47.96% (2398) | Article talk: 11.42% (571)
User: 7.44% (372) | User talk: 7.12% (356)
Misplaced Pages: 14.12% (706) | Misplaced Pages talk: 2.84% (142)
Image: 3.28% (164)
Template: 3.52% (176)
Category: 0.24% (12)
Portal: 1.04% (52)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.02% (51)

• Samsara's edit count using Interiot's tool

Username Samsara
Total edits 6486
Distinct pages edited 1773
Average edits/page 3.658
First edit 02:08, 16 August 2003
(main)         3265
Talk         851
User         537
User talk 400
Image         169
Image talk 3
Template 181
Template talk 24
Category 17
Category talk 4
Misplaced Pages 767
Misplaced Pages talk 146
Portal         70
Portal talk 52

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I've been doing occasional category work for a while, so I expect to be involved with that. I once set to work on linking to orphaned pages, and found it interesting. I've also occasionally asked for circular redirects to be removed (you may know that this often requires the redirect page to be deleted so that it shows up as a red link in the original article), and as an admin, I would be able to do this without assistance. At the same time, I would like to continue contributing to articles in my areas of expertise, and translate some more German biographies.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I was pleased when Frog became an FA. I'd like to think it was one of the best FAs at the time, because we all (about five of us) put a lot of work into it, and it's very child-friendly, which is something that I'd like to encourage where appropriate on Misplaced Pages (there are other articles that will be of interest to a more academic audience and benefit from an appropriate tone). I also like to think that people find some of the templates I instigated useful. I had some positive feedback on those from the academics to whom I suggested they might bring them to their first year students' attention.

Of the WikiProjects that I started, I'm going to guess that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced GA has the most potential to improve articles. There are a lot of good articles in existence that can become really amazing with a little bit of cleanup. Creating bots to help with this has been a recent interest of mine, although the main lesson learnt is that bots are never perfect and the output should always be checked by a human operator. They can make things a lot easier, though!

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've tried to avoid conflict, and unless I feel it is an issue fundamental to what Misplaced Pages represents, I'll walk away from disputes. I have a life outside Misplaced Pages, and if you think about it, few people have ever died from the presence of a particular passage in any text. I hope to keep up this attitude as an administrator. Especially in a text-only medium such as Misplaced Pages, disputes can arise from misunderstandings, so it's important to rule out this possibility in the first instance. If it turns out to be a more complex issue that I still feel strongly about, there are always second opinions and help available from other editors or admins.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz

1. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he returen before you start to do longer blocks?
2. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
3. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
4. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?