Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fropuff

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izehar (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 16 January 2006 (→[[User:Fropuff|Fropuff]]: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fropuff

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fropuff|action=edit}} Vote here] (31/2/0) ending 17:01 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fropuff (talk · contribs) Fropuff has been here for nearly two years, making edits of high standard in the mathematics/mathematical physics area. Has all the qualities required, intellectual and human. Charles Matthews 09:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept the nomination. Fropuff 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Charles Matthews 10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC), nominator[reply]
  2. Support. Great contributor, always cool and seeking consensus. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've only had good experiences with Fropuff. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, now that the questions have been answered. — JIP | Talk 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Mihai -talk 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good contributions in article namespace, which is, after all, what this is all about. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good editor. We can trust this user --rogerd 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Good editor. Massive number of Article edits outweigh lack of edits in my normal favourites of User talk and Project namespaces. A quick glance over his user talk shows that he's willing to colloborate, although I'm not quite sure if that's the case, considering I can't understand about 80% of the maths jargon that is there. In any case, seems like we can trust him. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--MONGO 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Admrboltz (T | C) 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:20Z
  16. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Good user. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 12:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support 172 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Is the username intentionally cute?  :) --King of All the Franks 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a nickname given to me years ago due to a badly needed haircut. It's now my preferred moniker online. I did eventually get my hair cut. -- Fropuff 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neato! --King of All the Franks 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Silensor 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I am a little oncerned about the low number of contributions to policy discussions, as I think ideally administrators should participate in that portion of Wikipedia. However, the user seems to watch over a large number of pages for vandalism, and does so well - so I think it would be best to provide the tools of adminship for vandal fighting. Johntex\talk 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --NaconKantari 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: --Bhadani 08:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, but I agree with Johtex. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support been around for so long now? gets my support. Gryffindor 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support:Ancheta Wis 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Liberatore(T) 14:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support obviously a maths expert, will make a useful admin --TimPope 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Izehar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, low project-space participation, most of which is content-related rather than admin or deletion related. [1] --Interiot 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BDAbramson T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would be happy to help with article deletion requests or assisted page moves, especially in the mathematics and physics communities in which I am active. I watch nearly 1500 pages in these communities for vandalism. I am also willing to help resolve disputes between members in these communities. Although perhaps not requiring adminstrative powers, I have recently taken over maintenance of the mathematics portal.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am pleased with the work I did on the articles on Clifford algebras and the classification of Clifford algebras (which I started from scratch). I improved the Clifford algebra article from a fairly shameful state to a concise summary of what can be found in any mathematics textbook. I also have done a large number of commutative diagrams for articles relating to category theory and improved many of these articles. See universal property for an example.
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. For the most part I work soley in the mathematics community where editing disputes are much less frequent than in other areas of Wikipedia. That being said, I have been involved in several (polite) disputes over how certain term should be defined or what notation should be used. These are almost always resolved in a civil manner. See Talk:Almost complex manifold for a discussion I had with User:Lethe last summer. Disputes have never caused me any stress.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. {{test1}} should be used when a someone appears to just be testing the edit button rather than vandalizing. When in doubt this is the appropriate message. {{bv}} should be used in clear cases of vandalism where a series of warning may not be appropriate. (I've always thought the wording of {{bv}} was strange though—if they are a blatant vandal why are we welcoming them?)
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I would treat this on a case by case basis. In some cases a warning that their actions "violate the spirit of the 3RR and could still get them blocked" would be appropriate.
6. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I am inclined to follow the policies/guidlines at Wikipedia:Notability. In general, however, I lean towards restraint; what is unremarkable or unnotable to me is not necessarily to someone else. In many cases a polite inquiry to the author of the page in question would help determine whether it qualifies for speedy deletion.
7. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. Sockpuppets are much more likely to jump into a ongoing debate/vote/edit war with few edits elsewhere and show greater knowledge of Wikipedia. Numerous technical tools (such as Help:CheckUser) are available to help identify them. Accusations are serious however, and should be made only with good evidence.
8. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. Why ask me? We have extensive guidelines on this. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fropuff&oldid=35457898"