Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Indrian

Indrian

final (4/6/1) ending 17:37 16 November 2004 (UTC)

Indrian has been a dedicated RC patroller since July 2004, often tagging CSDs before I get a chance to look at them. I know that he would use the powers of adminship to aid him in these tasks and would serve the community well. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

• I am honored to be nominated for this position and will accept the charge if the community feels I am worthy of having it bestowed upon me. Indrian 21:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
2. Support. ugen64 22:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Don't see the harm. anthony 警告 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Deletionism is not a reason to oppose adminship, and this contributor has shown no other reason to do so. Ambi 13:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 1/3 (226/734) of his edits are VfD-related. Rest are fairly minor – long runs of category (Sep 6) and redirect bypassing (Nov 5). Politics around deletionism (or inclusionism) is probably over-blown on RFA, but participants in ADW are a different matter. Contributions he's made adding content to Wikipedia are over-shadowed by this. I also note a lack of edit summary use. Maybe in a couple of months. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
2. Too few edits. Should have more than 2000. Passw0rd 22:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Indrian has more edits than his edit count would suggest, due to the vast number of SDCs he's tagged. I also maintain the belief that edits counts do not matter with regard to adminship. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:35, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

3. New page patrol is great, but he has a very broad definition of a speedy delete, (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7—this one got to me because it was obviously a newbie's atempt at a redirect, ect). Failed attempts to speedy appear to consitute a shocking portion of his non-VfD edits. Granted, much of this stuff is garbage, but they don't fit speedy criteria. He hasn't done it in the last week and a half, but I would much prefer to have other admins review his deletion judgement for the time being. Aside from that, he has great contributions and I'd almost undoubtably support him next time around. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Lack of edit summaries makes it almost impossible for me to assess his contributions. Not tagging your edits shows a basic lack of courtesy to other editors. Start making an effort to tag edits please, and maybe I can support. I'm neutral on the deletionism charges: politics shouldn't play a part in adminship. The number of incorrect speedys is impossible to pass judgement on without knowing the number of correct speedies: it may be a very low error rate for all we know. Shane King 04:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
5. Agree with the above: Some of the speedys show poor judgment, and no edit summaries. Furthermore, too few edits. I'd prefer to see more value added rather than just deletion of articles. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
6. Agree with the above. Please try again in three months. --Lst27 (talk) 23:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I've found him to be thoughtful and concerned, and I think it takes conscience and a desire to improve the project to go through RC, to tag speedies, and to go through VfD. He thinks about the bigger issues, and this is very good. As for Netoholic and others who think that VfD voting makes one inelligible, I will say nothing except that it is a very strict minority view. My neutrality is based solely on time on project. I am in favor and supporting him and will absolutely support on a re-nomination. Geogre 15:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• 734 edits -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
• Is there a way to get a count of how many articles he's actually tagged for speedy deletion, since those are invisible in his contribs? -- Netoholic @ 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there is. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would undertake any tasks that I was called upon to discharge and would do so in strict accordance with the rules and policies while also taking into account the sensibilities of the community at large. Areas to which I would pay particular attention would be vandalism and deletion.

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

A. I am particularly pleased with my work on the History of Myanmar. While there are still gaps to be filled in by someone with a more specialized knowledge of the country, I took a page that was very short and lacking in a good deal of basic information and made it into a full-length account of the country's history through a series of edits undertaken over several months. I am also pleased with my ongoing projects of contributing and expanding articles on baseball players and Holy Roman Emperors.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I will admit up front that I have been involved in some heavy debates on notability, particualrly of schools. Heated words have occasionally been exchanged in this debate, but it has mostly been civil. I have worked with Posieduck, who is trying to reach a compromise on the matter, and have always accepted the will of the community when a decision has not gone my way. I have some strong opinions on what should be in an encyclopedia, but I have never purposely or knowingly violated a rule, policy, or community mandate to further any agenda of my own, and I always place the will of the community before my own once a decision has been made.