Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shauri

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.

Shauri

[edit]

Final (45/8/1) ended 09:23 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Shauri (talk · contribs) – has been with us since March 4 2005. She has 1822 edits which is a sufficient number for becoming an admin and they are well distributed over different spaces. These include welcoming new editors, fighting vandals, voting in vfd and nominating for deletion. However, this is not the only reason why I nominate her. Firstly, I nominate her because of her competence and high quality work: Shauri brought Spring Heeled Jack to featured article status on March 21st 2005. It was translated to German where it became a featured article as well. It has also been translated to Hungarian. Currently, she is assiduously working on bringing Texas Ranger Division to FA status as well. To her writing skills testify the fact that she was third on Wikipedia's International Writing Contest 2005, a finalist on Wikimania Writing Contest 2005, and she won the Current Events & Pop Culture category. Secondly, I nominate her because of her kindness and politeness, which has earned her the saint barnstar. If there is anyone that I have met on Wikipedia who is a model of what Wikipedia's face outwards should be like, it is Shauri.--Wiglaf 09:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am flattered by Wiglaf's words, and honored to accept. Shauri Yes babe? 12:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support--Wiglaf 09:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. zOMG feamele1! Redwolf24 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Sorry about before. Left the computer sitting too long and it logged out. CambridgeBayWeather 10:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I first met Shauri shortly after seeing Spring Heeled Jack appear on Special:Newpages. Since starting that article, she has shown a determination to improving Wikipedia and commitment to working with the community. Should make a fine admin. --Allen3 talk 15:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sopport a contientious editor Journalist | huh?
  6. Support no question. JobE6 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support KHM03 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Alx-pl D 09:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support extremely intelligent and beautiful. Molotov (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Although Grace Note, as usual, brings up good points, but the response was good, and Spring Heeled Jack is an interesting and informative article.--Scimitar parley 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support- quite frankly, I don't think any of the objections indicate that Shauri will not be a good administrator; while I would like to see more time on the project, her answers to the questions impressed me. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - extremely talented writer and editor. I have seen no contentious behaviour that would make me think she would abuse her admin powers. To the contrary, I think she will use them well for the betterment of the community. Johntex\talk 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Andre (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support despite the low count, I can see that valuable contributions come from this editor and see no reason why she'd be different as admin. Alf melmac 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support great editor. Grace Note's arguments are not convincing at all.  Grue  06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Seems to be a fine user, most Wikipedians will have periods of time away from the project now and then, so that is not a worry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support El_C 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I think she is doing good things here. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support and great work on Spring-Heeled Jack. I added some stuff to that awhile back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I don't see why taking wikibreaks once in a while means she's untrustworthy. Borisblue 13:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Looking at her contribs, this is a great editor. I fail to see why her "jumping right in", so to speak, should be counted against her, even if she was doing it because she wanted adminship. As for her short tenure at Wikipedia, that would normally dissuade me from supporting but this seems an exceptional case. --Briangotts (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. supporting an editor who combines above-average editing skills with above-average community-skills: we need more editors, and more admins, like her. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 00:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support , Of the most enthusiastic kind. I admit, I'm biased...but my bias is based on her proven abilities, personality and all around good judgements. All essential qualities for an admin. All of which go far beyond simply how long one has been an active Wikipedian, or sheer volume of edits or articles started. This is a clear case of quality over quantity, and it is my privillage and pleasure to vote AYE! for quality. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, I'm unfamiliar with Shauri but I find the supportive arguments here far more convincing than the opposing ones. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, Well, I've only come across Shauri through seeing her edits, which have impressed me; the Spring Heeled Jack article was fascinating - I'm sure many people worked on it, but it was her "child". I am also convinced by the argurments used up ^ by supporters who know her. Her edits seem responsible, well thought out and valuable. \m/ SoLando 18:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. The only important criteria for an admin is trustworthiness in following policies and improving the place. The answers below are impressive, and in comparison the objections are minor. I'd like to see a longer period of consistent activity too, but there is enough to show trustworthiness and that she has the best interests of the project in mind. That should seal it. And a Valenciana? Cool. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I don't see why not. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Great contributor, great communicator. --HappyCamper 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC) What's really interesting about her edit history is that this is the first RFA where I can actually determine quite readily the "rate of increase of her enthusiasm" on the Wiki. See Image:Shauri.PNG for example, although if you wish for an explanation, leave a message on my talk page please. --HappyCamper 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Too many illustrious names above for me to withold a non-illustrious one. In particular, HappyCamper's and Taxman's remarks seal it for me.—encephalon 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - per HappyCamper. --Vizcarra 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Breaking my usual practice of not supporting anyone I wasn't previously familiar with for a close nom. It looks as though Shauri has both the familiarity with Wikipedia and the temperament to use adminship well. This should be no big deal. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Wel rounded editor. Some gaps in participation, but that is not a big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. This user has shown both a commitment to being even-handed and pleasant on Wikipedia, and to the use of communication to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. Despite Oppose comments below, I am confident that this user will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. --NicholasTurnbull 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support without hesitation. A good, conscientious, balanced editor, who shows courtesy on the talk pages. Personally, with my Celtic and Anglo-Saxon background, I feel slightly shocked when strangers end their comments with "Hugs" but I suppose that's my problem, not hers! ;-) Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support An excellent editor who is very responsive. I support her strongly.sumal 03:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Rogerd 07:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Ok, support. I am not giving any reason as sometimes silence is more musical than music. --Bhadani 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support – I've not seen much of her, but FA writers are rare, and have to really bend their backs at FAC. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, good editor. I found Spring Heeled Jack to be a very well-written article. Robert 01:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support a good contributor. Bishonen | talk 06:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, a nice lady - will be a nice editor. --MissingLinks 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, clearly.NightBeAsT 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Looking at her contribs, going back a week or two, there's a flood of votes on VfD, a host of welcoming messages for noobs and loads of edits to her own "workspace". The first looks too much like pumping up her namespace total because some vote against candidates for not editing Wikipedia (something I think is very misguided) and is mostly a bunch of "me too" delete votes from what I can see (which I don't care for because it's my belief that AfD should be a discussion, not a pile-on), the second, well, okay, maybe she was feeling that kind of feeling and the third, well, do it in Notepad, why not? There are also lots of minor edits that are suggestive of an editor who doesn't use the preview button (something many of us, me included, fall foul of from time to time). I don't want to be too critical: she seems okay and it's just this side of neutral for me. Grace Note 11:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to address your concerns, Grace. I swear that at no time, any of my edits has been made with any other purpose than doing something I believed to be correct. As for the first point, yes, I've been actively involved in AfD lately. I also believe it should be a discussion, but that's not what usually happens, since a huge percentage of the submitted articles present a clear case and don't leave space for that. But I've also seen others where discussion was in order, and I try to participate in it and collaborate if possible. By going active into AfD, I've discovered articles worthy of keeping, being *this* close of deletion due to an awful style, not to its contents; and the course of action I took (and will continue to take) was to improve the articles themselves. To your second concern, indeed, I've found an enormous pleasure in welcoming "noobs" (sorry, Grace, but I really don't like the nickname that much). While many of these new users won't end up participating in our project, some of them surely will, and I like the idea that they know that someone is willing to help them, aiding them to understand the basics of this place, and that they're welcome here. A few times, I've been thanked for the welcome... in the usual messy way... hey, the way we all did when we first came, and if I can keep on doing it and lending a hand, be more than sure that I will. As for your third and final objection, yes, as well; I've been using a temp page when working on large projects that interests me. I decided to do it after my experience on Spring Heeled Jack, in which time after time after time, something was always missing, be it a typo, a small detail in the layout, a reference... I'm a sick perfectionist, and instead of doing it at the articles themselves, I have the feeling that it's better to have a whole clear picture by myself before my work goes open for the general community. I've used my "Workspace" page to make two articles so far, Juan Cortina and Texas Ranger Division, and will continue to do so, since I prefer to clog my temp page's History with minor edits instead of the articles' ones. Btw, by doing them on Notepad, I can't see how they will actually look! Last but not least, the minor edits that you see come rather from my perfectionism in the detail (I confess, I'm sick!) and the fact that English is not my second, but my third language, and when typing, a minor spelling or grammatical mystake always remains :( But I take pride in using Preview all the time, to the point that it is by default the button that I use.
    I'd also like to thank you for your kind words towards me, and sorry for taking this space, but I really don't like the feeling of being suspicious of doing anything wrong, specially when I've always tried my best to behave properly for the best of the Wiki community. Shauri Yes babe? 12:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose active for one month, then a long hiatus, then very active for another month. Will support after a couple more weeks of activity. (for reference the reason I'm opposing is a combination of the gap and activity, not the lack of activity by itself) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not a lot of edits for someone that has been on wikipedia for such a long time. Private Butcher 19:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I'm pleased by the recent burst of activity, but I feel there needs to be a pattern of effort which is not yet evident. From the user's first post on March 4th through September 23rd, the use of edit summaries was just 33%. Since the 23rd, it's been 99.24%; a startling increase in dedication to using edit summaries. Why the sudden change? Regardless, two days is insufficient to make a pattern of behavior. Also, 28% of the user's edits have happened in the last two days alone. These two days have been quite remarkable. In fact, the 244 edits so far today and the 285 edits yesterday are more than 12 standard deviations away from the mean of this nominee's normal contribution effort per day (counting only days that the nominee contributed on). Wow. I mean really wow. That's an incredible deviation from the nominee's normal editing behavior. Furthermore, if you look at the nominee's contribution graph (see below in comments section), their contributions are almost all within a total of 10 weeks worth of editing. I'd like to know why there was a nearly editless absence from mid-April to mid-August? Lastly, the average # of edits per day over all days is recently increasing, but still too low at less than seven per day (with last two days removed). If the current pattern of contributions and use of edit summaries continues, I'd happily support in another month's time. --Durin 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear Durin, I was planning to add nothing more to this page, because I must confess that I'm rather taken aback by the fact that I believe I have addressed Grace's concerns with honesty and truth, and I have nothing to be ashamed of; yet no reply from her has been posted, and her arguments have been adhered by two more users. Being distrusted not for my personal standards, my past behaviour nor the quality of my work, but by a suspicion based on numbers, saddens me; it gives me the impression that all I did at WP was worth nothing. I know her motives are good, and that she hasn't had the chance to know me before; I also don't want anyone to review their votes, bust just a simple "OK, I believe you act in good faith, but I want you to be more experienced" or whatever other reason as to why to oppose was enough.
    Yet you still wait for an explanation for my gap of inactivity and my increasing involvement, and I do believe you sincerely want to know why, so I'll gladly give you the reasons. As for the first, it was all due to personal problems, including, but not limited to moving out of town and being unable to have internet acces for a long while; that's the plain truth. Regarding the second, I simply love this place, more and more which each day that passes and as I get to know more people. At first, WP was simply a place where to share my humble knowledge, but it's become more important than that. I've learnt the how's and the where's, and I'm extremely happy to exercise them for the best of our community. You may or not may notice that today, my level of contributions has been high for a Monday; and take my word for it, it will continue to be on Tuesday, Wednesday and for as long as I can, regardless of any decission taken here. For me, it's been as simple as that, as true as that, without second intentions. I know your motives and concerns are sincere, just like Grace's are, so do me a favor and don't change your vote over what I've said. Thank you for listening to me, Durin. Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 22:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Shauri, I do very much appreciate the answer. Please, please understand; I don't think anyone really wants to cast doubt on your sincerity or motives. For my part, I just wanted to understand why there was a sudden change in contribution patterns. You have to admit a 12 sigma change is a stunning change! I think you're going to make a very good admin. I personally just want to see the pattern continue for a while before shifting my vote to support. Thus, my comment about "in another month's time". For now, based on your answer, I'll shift to neutral (your request on this not withstanding :-)). --Durin 01:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Grace Note. freestylefrappe 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Grace Note. Bahn Mi 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose as Ryan Norton. I think you are generally good contributor, but I expect candidates have a couple months of consistent activity preceeding their nomination. Don't get discouraged though, cause Wikipedia does need people like you, and if you can keep it up for another month or so, I'd probably support you then. Dragons flight 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose too new, too low of an edit count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Alkivar, I would have hoped that the nice words and the support you gave to my SHJ article at its FAC stage back in March would have been correlated with a different position here; but hey, if the number of edits is what matters to you, I guess I can understand. No hard feelings. (Btw, I simply loved Colditz Castle. I supported it to FA back then, but never got the chance to say it to you - congrats!). Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, It is definately nothing personal... I prefer candidates I support have 2500+ edits, and have been on Wiki for at least a year. I will however support the moment that happens! Keep up the good work.  ALKIVAR™ 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never implied that it was personal, Jon! I told you I understand, so put yout mind at rest. Thanks for the lovely words! Shauri Yes babe? 0:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: nothing personal, just a bit too new to really evaluate. I'm sure in a couple of months she'll be a shoo-in. Jonathunder 17:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I do not wish such administrators. Genyec 15:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you went through the trouble of registering Wikipedia account just to oppose Shauri's nomination??? Why do you hate her so much? Grue  16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An obvious sock-puppet. Should not be counted among the votes.--Wiglaf 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question, my dear Grue... I have no idea who could I have angered so much, but if somebody considered me worthy of taking the trouble of registering, making a couple of hasty edits to his/her User and Talk Pages so they appear as blue links, and come here to oppose, I suppose I should feel important! I guess I´ll never know; but if whoever did this though he/she needed to hide behind a sockpuppet, I think it´s not because of something I should be worried about. Shauri Yes babe? 12:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral until the standard questions are answered. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Changed to support; see above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral: See my prior oppose vote (now cancelled). --Durin 01:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Shauri-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Showing a chart is a deplorable way of evaluating a candidate. I nominated her not because of patterns on a "chart", but because of the fact that I have seen Shauri interact with users. Shauri has qualities when interacting with bullies and rude people that don't simply show on a graph.--Wiglaf 07:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I confirm this. Alx-pl D 10:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone here (well, very many) are accusing Shauri of being a poor editor or being poor in interaction in others (indeed, my own personal experience points to otherwise). Evaluating candidates can be difficult - none of us has time to look at every one of the 2000 or so edits of a candidates so we need to skim them taking an occasional look at many of the good and bad ones. Heck, I'd even argue that evaluating a candidate just based on personal experience (or any one thing for that matter) is also "deplorable" - you really do need to take a look at the edits for warning flags. Based on the contributions and the graph the candidate has not had two consistant months in editing, which I believe is important (what good is an admin who doesn't answer a message for six months? I'm not saying that would happen here but I'd like the consistancy as reassurance). Besides, "deplorable" is POV and you should really Assume good faith :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't assume bad faith in this case. In fact I am impressed with the graphs. However, when a user has not been on Wikipedia for a long time, periods of absence (due to moves, vacations, etc.) will give the wrong impression. Frankly, I have not nominated her because of her "long and faithful participance" but because of her qualities, and they do not show on graphs, and that is why I think it is deplorable. BTW, I consider POVs to be allowed on discussion pages ;-).--Wiglaf 05:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that the two of you feel this way. It has never been my intention to attempt to quantity a nominee into objective measures. In fact, my whole point in creating the charts for nominees under 2,000 edits is to help their nominations, by diverting people away from editcountitis and focusing on other issues related to participation in Wikipedia rather than a simplistic look at edit counts. Indeed, doing the chart for this particular nominee raised concerns with another oppose voter (Ryan Norton) who noted the gap in contributions. Such a question is a legitimate query for an admin nominee. I too raised that concern. As yet, it's not been answered. (thank you for answering Shauri!) Further, my analysis showed some concerns regarding contribution patterns. These are legitimate concerns that are far away from base editcountitis. If you'd like more information about why I make the charts, you might want to have a look at User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. I think the information there, especially under User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts#.22Isn.27t_2000_edits_pretty_arbitrary.3F_Why_not_3000.3F.22, will surprise you. --Durin 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I feel that these charts are a helpful tool for helping evaluate candidates. While I do not judge candidates solely on edit counts or the graph, the chart helps build a comprehensive picture of the candidate, especially when someone has not interacted with the user before. While no doubt there are many much more important factors to be considered, the graph assists in helping other users understand part of the candidate, and I feel that they are a great plus for RfAs. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the graphs are very helpful. Anyone who knows me here know that I've voted support for people with very few edits and have rallied against editcountitis on numerous occasions and have almost never even raised the amount of edits in my reasoning. I just want an admin who won't be mean to users and who is at least here reasonably consistantly (say at least drops in every week or so). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the graphs. In this case, I still voted to support the nomination because I think Shauri is a great editor who will make a great admin. However, the charts do give good data, and I wish we had something like that for every candidate for admin. Everyone is still free to interpret the data how they wish. Johntex\talk 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing - I think this user is a fantastic editor! I just wanted a couple more weeks out of her. I have no doubt she'll make a great admin. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you so much for the kind words, my dear Ryan! I'm more than you sure that your motives are sincere, and I always encourage everyone to act according to the dictates of one's concience. If I can point out one thing I'm happy about my RfA, is that is has given me the chance to meet good and talented people like you. One last thing: almost a week has passed since you posted that... I hope I have fulfilled at least 50% of your expectations ;) Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 11:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind a few final words?

This is still several hours away from closing, but whatever the outcome is, I wish to thank everybody who took the time to participate in my RfA. I've tried to be as careful as possible to avoid any direct or indirect campaign for myself, and thus I've intentionally limited myself to talk about it only at this page or when directly asked by other users. That's why, although I'm extremely eager to thank all users who have graciously given me their support, I'll wait until the time expires to show each and everyone my personal gratitude and, hopefully, my friendship. This is "not" limited to those who saw fit to support me, but also to those who opposed in a constructive way, because I'm extremely far from perfect and the only way to improve myself is through positive criticism. I'll cherish this week as the most intense wiki-time I've ever had, and no matter the result, I've gained far more than I could have expected: to get to know each and every of you. From the depths of my heart, a big THANK YOU! Your friend, Shauri Yes babe? 14:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.)
I've become seriously involved lately in AfD and in RC patrolling, and I find the task both useful and fulfilling. As such, I've had the chance of helping prevent cases of attacks, abuse and vandalism. I therefore hope that the sysop functions will be helpful not only me to act more efficiently, but also to other admins that won't have to deal with the cases that I've spotted and flagged.
However, it is in the field of ongoing disputes between active users that I feel I belong the most. Having witnessed one too many edit wars and acrid disputes that could have been easily solved through a better communication, I intend to be more active in mediating in complaints and filing and participating in RfCs, which I believe is an underestimated tool. I'm an utmost defender of the principles of dialog and assuming good faith, and sometimes the pride, or the difficult attitude of a few users create a major hindrance for the rest of the community. As such, I believe that as an admin, I could be in a better position to achieve peaceful solutions to otherwise bitter (and endless) arguments; and if dialog is not an option, then instrument whatever measures are deemed necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I always consider Spring Heeled Jack to be my favorite contribution, for the warm and enthusiastic welcome it received in the whole Wiki community, which had an added value to me since it was my very first serious project. The improvements on Texas Ranger Division also please me, and although I intend to present it to FAC soon, it's not just ready yet imho (will it ever be?). In the last times, I've taken a break from that article after many days of work, and I'm creating various related articles from scratch: Juan Cortina, John Coffee Hays, Leander H. McNelly, Samuel Hamilton Walker, Manuel T. Gonzaullas are some of them. I'm a maniac, I know it, so even on my stubs I intend to be as complete as possible. I'm also happy to have helped in wikifying and cleaning up many works of other editors, and I intend to keep on doing it as often as I can.
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?
Like most users who have spent some time here, I've had my dose of arguments over edits. However, as I said above, I believe the best way to solve disputes is to avoid them in the first place with communication. More often than not, an agreement suitable for both parts can be hammered right away, if the will of doing so exists on both parts. An useful example of this just happened to me a couple of days ago, regarding the Texas Ranger Division and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, since their articles claimed that both organizations were the oldest law enforcements agencies in North America. Within an hour or so, a potential edit war and a dispute had been solved at the RNC article's Talk Page. This pictures exactly the way I've always tried to face my own arguments with other users, and I hope to be able to help others do the same in the future.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shauri&oldid=1126796269"