Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fabrictramp

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Fabrictramp

[edit]

Final tally(50/1/1); Ended 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp (talk · contribs) - Fabrictramp (old username: KApplebaum) is one of Wikipedia's quiet contributors. He She has made about 24,000 edits, including 19,000 edits to articles, at an astounding rate of more than 1,000 edits for each of the last 12 months. The edit count perhaps overstates Fabrictramp's investment of effort: these are mostly minor edits using tools such as Twinkle and AutoWikiBrowser. Fabrictramp has focused on two large projects: (1) Updating all-time rosters within Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, including Chicago Cubs all-time roster and St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster; and (2) cleaning up the vast graveyard of Wikipedia:Dead-end pages.

Fabrictramp has more experience dealing with Dead-end pages (i.e., articles without links to other articles) than anyone else, and this experience has familiarized him her with essentials of the deletion policy. Among his her recent contribs and talk page comments you can find evidence that he she has listed many pages for proposed deletion. Though he has limited familiarity with other administrative functions, such as vandal-fighting and dispute resolution, I am not worried about this, and I trust that he she will learn whatever he needs to know to serve Wikipedia effectively as an administrator. I think Fabrictramp may be particularly willing to help clear administrative backlogs at CAT:PROD and CAT:CSD. Shalom Hello 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.--Fabrictramp 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to address a few issues that seem to come up in every RfA. One is main space editing. The vast majority of my edits are main space, but many of them are small edits. (While I use AWB extensively, rarely are these edits automatic. Instead, I use AWB more as a list manager and a macro tool.) While major article contributions are the foundation of wikipedia, I'm not comfortable writing large blocks of encyclopedic prose and instead prefer to write stubs and to do minor rewrites on articles others have started. I have done some translations of articles, including work on Claude Nobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Nobs&diff=80519533&oldid=77759347). I feel that a large volume of small amounts of writing does give me a good grasp on what editors are up against in the quest to make a good encyclopedia.
Another issue is reporting vandals to AIV. I have made very few reports, but that is due to the nature of the articles I work on. Between DEP and new page patrolling, most of the warnings I issue to vandals are the first entry on their talk page, or the first entry in a long while, which does not qualify for an AIV report. When I have encountered a vandal who qualifies for an AIV report, I have not hesitated to do so.
(And for the record, I would like to state that I'm a female.)
Sorry about that. (A female baseball fan?? Ha ha...) Shalom Hello 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! (And to think I was going to wish your Red Sox well in the postseason. *grin*) --Fabrictramp 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have been actively involved in nominating articles for speedy deletion, prods, and AfD discussions, and as an admin I would like to help with the workload in those areas. There are also some page moves for name standardization in the baseball player pages that need an administrator. Because I am not heavily involved in vandal fighting, that is not an area I see myself doing much work in for the present. Because page deletions and editor blocks can have far-reaching consequences for Wikipedia, I will only be involved with work that is within my comfort level, or work where someone can coach me until I reach a comfort level.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My two best contributions are the Dead End Pages project and my work on the baseball all-time rosters.
In the DEP, I do a mopping up around wikipedia. I find a lot of articles that need to be deleted, and a lot of articles that need some basic improvement. We see ourselves as doing basic triage, but I also try, where time and patience allow, to improve each article as much as I can, through wikifying, rewriting introductory paragraphs, and other cleanup. Although I use AWB for much of this work, it is certainly not automated. I handled the last regeneration of the DEP list, and am currently working on the next regeneration of the list.
I am particularly proud of my work on the all-time rosters. I have worked with WikiProject Baseball to develop consensus on what information should be included in these pages to strike a good balance between useful information, clear presentation, and not being a duplicate of existing categories. Once that standard was developed, I have worked to implement it. This means checking the information against other sources, formatting pages, checking every blue link to make sure it is going to the right page, checking the existing categories to see if there are incorrect entries there, and writing a number of baseball article stubs and disambiguation pages to clarify which players belong to which roster(s). For the most recent one I completed, check Detroit Tigers all-time roster. This revision shows what the page was like before I started working on the project.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Working extensively in the Dead End Pages project, I do get the occasional conflict with editors who are upset about maintenance tags or deletion recommendations. I have two methods for dealing with this. First, I try to diffuse any conflict from the start. I remind myself that it is a real, live human I'm dealing with, who has feelings as I do, and who can make mistakes as easily as I can. I assume good faith (until shown that I shouldn't), and part of assuming good faith is assuming that the other editor is trying to improve wikipedia just as much as I am. I find that pointing editors to links to relevant guidelines and asking for clarification if I'm not 110% sure what the issue is, will diffuse most tension before it can get started. And, if I feel anything escalating, I walk away from the computer until I've had a good night's sleep. There is no sense typing anything I might regret later, that would unjustly accuse someone of something, or that would hurt feelings that don't need to be hurt.
I have not had a conflict that escalated beyond this point so far, but if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to ask a neutral party to mediate.


4. I notice you don't seem to have an email enabled for use with the Special:Emailuser feature; especially in situations where you may be blocking users, some people may find they have little means of contacting you, except via email. Historically, there's been a bit of an expectation that admins will have email enabled. Would you be willing to enable and confirm an email address? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fabrictramp before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support. Indeed a quiet editor. I believe she will be constructive if sysopped. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I don't see any problems. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, I was acually thinking about nominating him her as well. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — excellent work at WP:DEAD. Good luck! --Agüeybaná 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support sound answers and a look at his her deleted contributions shows good familiarity with the deletion process. Good quiet gnome and should be a good quiet admin. And in case anybody feels like opposing on grounds of low vandal-fighting, low contributions to article writing or high semi-automated edits, let me preemptively note that a) the candidate is well aware of the fact that he she'll have to learn the ropes if he she wants to start blocking vandals and b) you can't wikify, categorize, deal with dead-ends, fix templates, etc for a full year without developing a keen sense of what Wikipedia is. Pascal.Tesson 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - No worries here. ScarianTalk 03:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Solid contributor. Phgao 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've never seen Fabrictramp around before, but I'm sure (s)he would use the tools well. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Jmlk17 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Happy to give my support. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support; probably not mental + could use the tools = a yes from me. Neil ム 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Neil... --DarkFalls talk 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per all above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as one of the people who follows her mopping up the slime trail of deadend tags, I feel she would make a great admin because of her edit history and overall contributions to cleaning this place up! Spryde 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Amazing edit count! •Malinaccier• T/C 16:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Regular contributor with over 1000 edits per month. Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Sterling contributions to cleaning up some of Wikipedia's worst pages. Espresso Addict 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems like a fine editor. Number 57 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Me too. Backsigns 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Good answers to the questions and nothing to prove (s)he would abuse the tools. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Enthusastic support Nothing but positive interactions with this editor over at WP:WPBB (although the name change threw me off at first). As a self-admitted wikignome who specializes in baseball articles, I fully endorse the mopping of other self-admitted wikignomes who specialize in baseball articles. Caknuck 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Solid candidate who will not misuse the tools. — Wenli (contribs) 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Female baseball fans are sexy. Wikipediarules2221 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Why not? At a quick glance I see nothing that would lead me to believe that this person would abuse the tools. On top of that, this user has plenty of constructive edits. Good luck!:)--SJP 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I think the work on dead pages is very helpful, and I liked her comments about how she deals with conflict there. Bigglovetalk 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good history, good to go.--Sandahl 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Helping it snow. I agree with all that she is a great editor and deserves the tools. Keep it up! Brusegadi 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support appears to be a well-qualified nominee. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Suppport - looks like a good editor, no problems, trustworthy. Bearian 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Fabrictramp seems fine. She will be a great administrator. Acalamari 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I do not believe this user would abuse the tools, and wish her all best in what I hope will be her new role. - Philippe | Talk 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Definitely. Looks like a great future admin! -jj137 (t • c) 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Great editor. -Lemonflash(do something) 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Fine editor, no reason to oppose. Good luck Fabrictramp! GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support good contributions and experience. You need the tools. Carlosguitar 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - we seem to be having a trend of absolutely brilliant RfAs at the moment. This user will be yet another valuable addition to the Wikipedia admin team. Lradrama 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - looks fine to me. Another candidate with a proven track record and reasonable knowledge of policy - Alison ❤ 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I spend a fair amount of time at WP:DEAD as well, and Fabrictramp's contributions there are definitely appreciated. JavaTenor 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I've encountered Fabrictramp at several AfDs. I'm impressed by her answer to Q3, and her interactions on her talk page show her to be patient and friendly, even when her visitors are difficult to understand, as at User_talk:Fabrictramp#text_copyrighted_problem. Her recent PRODS suggest she is prudent and thoughtful with nominations and keeps an eye on them (see, for example Mystic Angel and Forensic network). I think there's little reason to doubt that she will, as she says, "only be involved with work that is within my comfort level". She doesn't seem to be hacking & slashing away at good content. :) Her contribution history indicates dedication to the project, and I think she'd do well with the mop. --Moonriddengirl 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Reedy Boy 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, looks fine, good luck! Melsaran (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - looks like she knows what she's doing... WjBscribe 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Zaxem 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Looks very good. --Kudret abiTalk 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Nothing to suggest she will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. M.(er) 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose Awesome house keeping skills. No doubt a very dedicated wikipedian that is an absolute benefit to wikipedia. My only compliant is I would like to see more user interaction such as enforcing policy and mediating controversial edits. --I already forgot 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, she's a gal, and it doesn't matter if you don't know her. Acalamari 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe David thinks that he has to know the candidate before supporting, and he doesn't, but that's his decision. Sebi [talk] 05:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely. Completely up to each and every editor how they decide. ScarianTalk 19:37, 20 September 2007 (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.