Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samsara

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.


Samsara

[edit]

Final (68/5/1) Ended 19:48, 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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support - ragesoss 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, trustworthy, calm user, that would make good use of the admin tools. --JoanneB 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. Roy A.A. 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Could use more user talk edits, but Support. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This Fire Burns....Always 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  10. Support, no questions asked! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seems to have the experience, is trustworthy and dedicated. Good admin material. -- Banes 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support but please issue warnings to users like this when you do revert vandalism. --WinHunter (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. Merovingian {T C @} 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Pschemp, JoanneB, Opabinia regalis and Banes... "More candidates like this one, please!TM" Support ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  18. Support Not likely to abuse tools, trustworthy user. No problem at all...Rx StrangeLove 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nomination, the answers, and my review of his user page and contributions. Agent 86 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes Jaranda wat's sup 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Samsara is a great contributor and would do well to have these tools. --WillMak050389 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Support Werdna (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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 hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  26. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 03:37Z
  27. Support - per above -- Tawker 03:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support; this is an exceptional candidate, and likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 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)[reply]
  30. Strong Support - fellow article writer and science enthusiast.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Thrustworthy contributor. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per above. DarthVader 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliché support. SushiGeek 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. SushiGeek 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support More to adminship than RC patrol, we need more like Samsara. Hort Graz 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)change to neutral[reply]
  33. Support Samsara would benefit from use of the tools.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, per nom Alphachimp talk 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, per nom. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, per Quarl. Titoxd(?!?) 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Excellent user, unlikely to abuse tools. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - excellent user, good admin material abakharev 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Joe I 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - good editor, strong contributions to the encyclopaedia. Guettarda 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support a real asset to the project. FeloniousMonk 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- very good editor, will be good as admin. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support if for no other reason than he has contributed less than once per week to Talk:Natural selection in the past several months, successfully bypassing the constant infighting. He actually fails User:TedE/Administrator standards, due to his lack of activity on WP:AfD, which has now made me rethink why I have that requirement (curse him for making me think!). He is an editor's editor, and I really don't see him doing any significant amount of banning or AfD. His reasons for why he wants the tools are good, and I believe he has demonstrated the maturity to use them wisely. TedTalk/Contributions 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support everything looks good and I apologize for the impolite manner in which I questioned you earlier.--MONGO 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Never encountered this user before, but edits look good and seems like a stable and reasonable person. Good answers to the questions as well. Tombseye 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I worked with Samsara on Frog, and it was the best contribution I have had on Wikipedia. Things got done, discussion was constructive and we finally reached FA on a broad subject. That is the kind of admin I would like to have on Wikipedia. --liquidGhoul 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Excellent editor. -- Avenue 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Fine. --Bhadani 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Extreme "I met Pchemp just after you" support. So there. Mwa. —Celestianpower háblame 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. — TKD::Talk 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per my interaction with Samsara and reasonable answers to questions. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I disagree with some of the answers, (especially the attitude towards blocks of AOL and related issues) but overall a very good candidate who will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. support: Per nom, et al. Ombudsman 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support: Has experience handling controversy civilly. Knows how to work a project. Has produced great product as an individual contributor and as a sort of team leader. Wants admin tools for other tasks besides fighting evil and has immediate plans on how to use them. Seems to put Wikipedia in perspective -- I liked his answers to question 3; the first sentence might give some the shivers (an admin walking away from a fight?) but he's not out to be one of the legendary warrior-admins. What's not to like?--A. B. 03:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support: I once rv an edit of his and gave the edit summary "rv vandal removal of cat". He came quite politely to my talk page and the thing was settled very fast. We need admins that _talk_ _and_ _listen_ to people. All Wikipedians should be like this, but for admins it is more important, as they should give good example to others. Samsa, thx again for having come to my talk. And all the best for your adminship in case the RfA goes through. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Dryman 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I was previously -71.57.105.178-, --Bouquet 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. RC Patrol is not critical to becoming an admin; his level-headedness, and commitment to the project are what have me sold. Themindset 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, excellent candidate per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Samsara seems very qualified. Michael 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Rebecca 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per pschemp ( Is that OK? You can put down the stick now  ) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment - Guys, Please stop the ED nonsense. This is not the same person as the ED contributor. I will put my adminship on the line to vouch for our Samsara. I know him well and he is a sweet, kind academic with no interest in wikipolitics or hurting someone. The people opposing are playing right into the hands of ED, and while this is a sad coincidence, that is all it is. The lack of assuming good faith here is appalling and saddens me greatly. pschemp | talk 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's not let our disgust over the ED site make us jump to unwarranted conclusions. It's my fault that I mislabelled this person as being the troll that is over at the ED pages...the only thing they have in common is the username. Please don't let my original coments, which were both incorrect and poorly placed, be a determining factor on any opposition votes for this fine editor. Thanks--MONGO 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 (talk) 2006-07-05 03:37Z
  2. Oppose due to unproven, unspecified suspicions, and more importantly, the candidate's failure to satisfactorily address them. — Jul. 11, '06 [07:43] <freak|talk>
    Would you care to elaborate? This is very very vague.... because There is nothing at this page that could point to it.....-- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Found it. See below.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tony Sidaway 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Ditto. This one doesn't smell right.[reply]
    You can smell him through your computer? That's awesome! Maybe I should switch to Linux; I didn't know it could do that.--ragesoss 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was going to say something, but rageross' response is beautiful to say the least. Please assume good faith. --liquidGhoul 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Freakofnurture. SushiGeek 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Freakofnurture. I smell a rat. Rebecca 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As per convention, I'm not supposed to be campaigning on my own RFA, but seeing that you're willing to engage in personal attacks, I do kindly request that you at least specify your "suspicions". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, you are free to respond to unclarities, questions and allegations as long as you do not start wikilawering or so. I think I found out the objection, and that is this one: http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/User:Samsara connected with the basic question, are you the same person? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for digging that up, Kim! If that is still the objection, I would urge people to review what I and others have already said on the subject. As stated below, it is a case of coincidence or impersonation. I'm leaning towards assuming coincidence since the other user has, to the best of my knowledge (I do not follow his or her contributions except for the two occasions that my attention was brought to them by a third party), has not actually parodied any actual contributions of mine. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing that up. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I can't see any reason not to take Pschemp at her word, so I'm switching my vote back to support. Rebecca 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You should only vote for me if you actually trust me, not if you only trust Pschemp. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, almost always, some people object against a nomination, for whatever reasons, valid or not. Second of all, people form their opinion not only on their own experiences, but also the experiences by others, and by sharing those experiences. Third of all, your nomination was going (is going I hope) to pass on a solid margin of ~93% of the people in favour, which shows that there is a sold support for you to become a administrator. Therefore, I ask you to not let this minor issue overrule the for the rest very possitive nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose answers to Q1 and Q4 show limited need for admin tools, and, combined with the low project space edits (excluding wikiproject ones) do not give confidence that editor knows the ways of the mop well enough to entrust with all the extra buttons. Good editor, yes, but being a good admin is a different skillset, and I would expect potential admins to be more involved in the discussions/decisions that they will have to make as admins. Regards, MartinRe 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I run two mediawiki servers myself, so I should at least be safe against the shiny buttons syndrome. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The thing is, that while you turn out to be the best admin since sliced bread, (and I hope you do) all I have to go on is your wikipedia contributions. And it's the low level of project space edits that concern me, so perfer not to take that risk as admin type mistakes (even well meaning ones) can have bigger impacts. For better or worse, all the admin tools come in one package, and whether you intend to use only a subset or not, you will still have the ability to use them all, so personally, I need to feel confident that they will all be used correctly. That's why I was very wary of your answers, as it did not indicate a need for the tools - anything an admin can delete immediately can be tagged by a normal user with the appropiate {{db}} tag. (An admin can not just delete to bypass the appropiate *fd, which pschemp's reply to Crazyrussian above seemed to suggest, for example) And asking for the ability to do things without showing a need for them did raise concerns for me, and left me wondering whether you fully understood what admins can, and, more importantly, can't do. Hope that clarifies the basis for my objection. Regards, MartinRe 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1]. --WinHunter (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wikipedia has a niche for everyone and I'd urge you to consider that. pschemp | talk 20:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Not necessarily. You can see the discussion about it on pschemp's talk page, but it basically comes down to pschemp knowing that that person and the Samsara on Wikipedia are not the same person. I guess that will be impossible for anyone to prove. Frustrating, because it can be quite horrific to be 'accused' of something like that, especially in the course of an RFA. Perhaps pschemp shouldn't have deleted the comment here. Perhaps MONGO should have asked Samsara directly (not via this RFA) for a reaction. But in my honest opinion making a big deal of this is giving the people behind this more credit and attention than they should get. --JoanneB 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have emailed him...no response has been forthcoming. The purpose of an Rfa is to determine the suitability of a candidate and I have a zero tolerance for on or off wiki harassment, especially the libel that has been posted about me on hat website. A simple, "I'm not that person" would have garnered a support vote from me. It's not too late for that though.--MONGO 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this has been discussed extensively in my absence. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any action I can take against the impersonation, nor do I think it is necessary, given the contrast between that user's contributions and mine. I've written a brief reply to you, MONGO. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to change my vote back to support, but I dont want to reward the vote campaigning on my talk page. Hort Graz 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a comment on your talk page to show that there was no longer any ambiguities. No one, least of all me, is campaigning for your vote one way of the other.--MONGO 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

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

--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 Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 47.96% (2398) | Article talk: 11.42% (571)
User: 7.44% (372) | User talk: 7.12% (356)
Wikipedia: 14.12% (706) | Wikipedia 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
Wikipedia 767
Wikipedia talk 146
Portal         70
Portal talk 52
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'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia represents, I'll walk away from disputes. I have a life outside Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
The two main things for me are the ability to a) delete circular redirects (assuming all links have been fixed) and b) delete pages in my userspace that are no longer needed. It has been correctly pointed out that I have not been involved in *fD requests or vandal fighting, nor have I ever asked for another user or IP to be blocked. To me, Wikipedia is first and foremost about the articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Let me answer these questions in one chunk. First of all, in the same way that I stated above that few people have died from reading false information, I also think the costs of not being able to contribute at a certain time are small. Given that I have been a simple editor for a long time, I have been in situations where I couldn't contribute to an article because it happened to be protected at the time. However, since the wikitext for the article remains accessible (iirc the "edit" tab simply says "view source" instead), it is possible to write the contribution and submit it at a later date, at the acceptable cost of having to merge in any changes made by other editors in the meantime. I hope this answers your concerns. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Samsara&oldid=1143863661"