Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isotope23

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

[edit] Isotope23

Final (83/0/0); Ended Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:44:40 UTC

Isotope23 (talk • contribs) -- I started editing here as an Anon in January 2005 and registered my account in April 2005. Since then I've made a pretty decent number of edits here including article edits, AfD discussions, and more recently picking the low hanging fruit at WP:AN/I. Until recently, everything I've done on Wikipedia has just required regular editor privileges, but lately I've started noticing that in some situations I could more effectively contribute if I were able to take action instead of just reporting incidents at the admin noticeboard. I've also noticed some backlogs like sockpuppet investigations and page protection where I feel I could help out.
I'm civil, reasonable, and I think overall I have shown good judgement here at Wikipedia. When confronted with disagreements over content or edits I've always tried to engage the other party on the article talk page and as an admin this would continue to be my style (except of course in cases of blatant vandalism by vandal-only accounts where immediate action to prevent further damage is warrented). When I've acted boldly and been wrong I've apologized and worked with other editors to get it right. Overall, I feel I could be an asset to the project if I'm given the mop and bucket. Isotope23 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As I've indicated above I would probably focus on helping out on backlogs and watching WP:AN/I. I have pretty extensive experience with articles for deletion and I could help out there as well as on speedy deletions. I've done a bit of vandalism fighting and I imagine I could help out on that front too. I see myself as being more of a "general practitioner" and I don't think I would necessarily limit myself to just a few areas of administratorship.

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

A: There are two actually. One is Plastic Jesus, which is the first time I ever typed something into the search box and realized there was no article about a topic and I actually knew enough about it to write one. It's small, but I'm glad to have started it nonetheless. The other is Sweetest Day. This is a small observance that is only celebrated in a few cities in the Midwest. when I became aware of the article via an AfD, it looked like this. Another editor came along with what I consider to be an novel understanding of verifiability and original research as well as many characteristics of a tendentious editor. After a rather long editing process pages filling several pages of Talk:Sweetest Day, a request for comment, & a request for mediation. The article today looks pretty good, is well sourced, and has a consensus behind it. The truly gratifying part though was when I noticed that in 2006, for the first time in the obligatory news stories that run in local newspapers every year, the official history was accompanied by mention of the information from the Wikipedia article (and in fact somewhere else I saw an article that was nearly a text dump from the Wikipedia article that a reporter had just slapped their name on). Though the writer never mentions Wikipedia by name, the fact that this article appeared October 20th and contains text from the version of the article that existed on the 19th warms my heart (though it does create a interesting sourcing debate about using a 3rd party source that was obviously based on Wikipedia). It's not a featured article, but the whole process was a learning experience for me and in the end people apparently felt it was good enough to borrow from.

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: Well, this goes back to my answer to #2. I'm not going to go into all the sordid details as there is a historical record on the Talk:Sweetest Day page as well as on User talk:Isotope23. Suffice to say I think there was a very large divide in opinion on that article with one editor disagreeing with the consensus. Through out the whole process I continued to engage the editor who disagreed on the talk page and I think that if you peruse the Archives of that talk page you will see that I was at all times WP:CIVIL, even when it was being suggested by that editor (without any sort of evidence) that I was an "industry spin doctor". I will admit that after a point I got tired of some of the shenanigans that were happening there as well as the constant failure on the part of that editor to assume good faith, but at no time did I lose my cool and I requested an RfC & RfM to try and come to a consensus. Other than that, there have been a few times I've had disagreements with editors who were trying to introduce unsourced or POV information into an article but in all cases I made a good faith attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page for the article. I don't think any of this has ever caused me stress; just mild annoyance.

Optional questions from Malber (talk • contribs)

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?

A: It depends on the type of edits they are making to the article. I actually encountered this situation on the article about Phil Hine where the subject expressed some ambivalence about being the subject of a Wikipedia article. I contacted the subject on his user talk page and advised him that it would be acceptable for to remove unsourced and incorrect information from the article as well as add sourced information with a cite provided he explain the edits on the talk page (per WP:BLP; which I linked to on his page), which is exactly what he did. In the case of an editor who was making unsourced and/or self-promotional claims in an article about themselves I would first point them to WP:BLP and WP:AUTO. If they continued to add the material to the article or engaged in disruptive behavior than I would consider a short cool-down block of the account.

5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?

A: I wouldn't semi-protect in the case of a content dispute. Semi-page protection should be used to interrupt vandalism in progress by multiple IPs and should be a short-term solution. If there was a full on content dispute that involved an anon and had become disruptive to the point where protection was warrented I would fully protect the page rather than semi.

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: Confronted with a G11 I would have to judge how blatent of advertising the article is and if there is any redeemable content or quality about the subject matter. If the company obviously met WP:CORP then I would probably remove the content, create a stub, and watch the article for adverts. If the subject clearly didn't meet WP:CORP but was not obvious advertising, I would remove the CSD and either AfD or PROD the article. If it was obvious advertising for a company that doesn't meet WP:CORP I would delete it speedily.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

7. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

A:I think the potential for spam is always going to be something that Wikipedia is going to have to deal with and the more popular the website becomes the more spam we are going to see. Because Wikipedia is open to anyone for editing there are always going to be individuals and entities out there that see Wikipedia as a free webhost (even though it is expressly WP:NOT) or as a vehicle to increase their visibility. I think it is something we will always have to deal with as a community going forward. I think external links are useful in the respect that they allow us to point readers to external information sources that expand upon a topic and perhaps go into more detail than in necessary or appropriate in a given article (or are comprised of copyrighted text). That said, I think that WP:EL is a valuable guideline and external links should be vetted for content as well as their relevance to the topic they are linking from. For example, in my opinion a link from China to a site containing topographical maps of the country would be appropriate and useful, while a link to a travel agency booking trips to China would not. As far as Myspace is concerned, I'm not a huge fan of MySpace links in articles, but the consensus seems to be that "official" MySpace pages for a subject are an acceptable external link from a relevant article and I respect that consensus. The only real problem I would have with a MySpace link is if it were being used as a source in an article for a particularly extraordinary claim as I don't think you can really consider MySpace a reliable source in many cases because it is not independent 3rd party sourcing. My feeling on blogs are similar to my feeling on MySpace. Linking to a subject's blog, particularly if they are notable as a blogger, is acceptable but using said blog as a source for the article can be problematic. YouTube has its own unique issues relating to copyright. Generally speaking I would be cautious about linking to YouTube content unless it was clear that the video was on topic and free of any copyrighted material. I think removal of YouTube links in articles where the content is clearly copyrighted and the uploader doesn't have permission to post said content is the correct course of action.

Optional question from badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs):

8. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:In a nutshell, WP:IAR is the safety valve to avoid having Wikipedia descend into bureaucracy. Personally I can only think of a couple of times I invoked it by name; Once in a DRV for Lostpedia where it appeared that WP:WEB was being applied in letter and not in spirit, and the second time was in the discussion about ProtectionBot Where I felt that even if Dragons flight had violated the letter of WP:SPAM (and I think that was debatable), his intentions were good and action against him was not warrented. Other than that, I've used it in spirit if not in name on occasional AfD's where I felt the relevant guidelines were not necessarily appropriate for the subject. For example, in the past the way the WP:MUSIC criteria was written made if extremely difficult for most opera singers to qualify. WP:SNOW I've only linked on AfD's where there was clear consensus one way, particularly if I had initiated the AfD. I think WP:SNOW needs to be used with care because it isn't a policy or guideline and only in cases where there is a clear consensus or it is obvious that someone is gaming the system (as in the case of spurious AfDs that should be speedily kept). Even then, I see it more of a statement of position rather than a justification for taking action.

Per the diff provided by User:Badlydrawnjeff I didn't actually invoke WP:IAR by name in the Lostpedia DRV. Sorry for the confusion.--Isotope23 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from TeckWiz (talk • contribs)

9. Why was the edit summary "revert vandal" in this diff.? It seems a user just bolded a word. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A: As Steve alluded to below, after I warned User:Kronecker about unwanted edits he was making to User:Tresckow's page, he responded by editing my userpage. While I don't WP:OWN my userpage and WP:USER allows for others to edit my userpage, it is hard to not see User:Kronecker's edit as the equivilent of giving me the finger in response to my warning, even assuming good faith. That is the reason I reverted it as vandalism.--Isotope23 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment you need to look further than the edit comment. User:Kronecker edited another user's page here [1] which was vandalism. Isotope23 warned him nicely and got some vandalism of his own pointing out he was not an admin. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Isotope23's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Per WP:GRFA#Closure, I will not be sending out individual messages thanking editors for their participation here; I will leave a blanket message on the RfA talkpage as well as my own user talkpage. Thanks!--Isotope23 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support. I'm familiar with this editor and believe the nominee needs the tools and will use them well. Good record and history. Agent 86 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support a good user who knows what they are doing. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support A very common name around here. I see no reason why not to support. Arjun 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I see this user around often, and am surprised he/she is not already an administrator. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - I can say mountains about this user's diplomatic and calm manner. Give him the mop. Yuser31415 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support The answers to the questions indicate a well rounded user with good understanding of Wiki policy who would be an appropriate administrator. I have encountered this user before, although in what capacity I can't remember. Definite support. Addyboy (talk • contribs)
7. SupportThis user seems to be a good candidate. He has reminded me in the past to leave an edit summary and now I nearly always do. Good luck- Tellyaddict^{Talk 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)}
8. Support. Seems like a reasonable and cool-headed editor with a good amount of experience. Coemgenus 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. (just wondering, what element are you, Oxygen, sodium...? ;-) ) --Tone 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support No problems with this RfA application! (aeropagitica) 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support No concerns here at this time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Nothing seems wrong here, so why not? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Excellent contributor; absolutely trustworthy. Xoloz 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)\
14. Support A trustworthy editor. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Your answers are very well written, and you've got the experience to boot. You'll be a great admin.Ganfon 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support per good contributions, answers above, and excellent comments in noticeboard and other discussions. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Michael 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Would like more mainspace edits, but the ones you have are great. Great answers, contributions, no problems here. --Wizardman 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Great candidate. You should be a great help with the tools. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Solid answers and his contributions at AN/ANI recently have shown the sort of attitude an admin should have: he's poured oil on troubled waters, rather than pouring it over the fire. Isotope23 has been doing excellent work every time, and everywhere, our paths have crossed in the past six to eight months. I raised the question of an RfA the other day, so I'm very happy to have the chance to offer my support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support first saw him around AfD where he's quite active. Good editor, takes the time to make his point more precisely when needed. Also convincing answers to questions and already working in "pre-admin" fashion with his work on ANI. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: Looks pretty clear. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support and yell at the nominator for not doing this earlier. JorcogaYell! 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Yes--Doc^g 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Strong Support. Seen this user around doing good work since I started editing. Contribs check out and very persuasive reasons for the tools. Has shown a consistently strong understanding of policy. Absolutely no reservations in supporting. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - strong experience and understanding of polices. No real reason to oppose. Insanephantom(my Editor Review) 08:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Go 'Topes! >Radiant< 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Yup. Proto::► 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - per above. Addhoc 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen nothing but good things from this editor. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support I've checked the diff-generator; there were no problems in your AfD and ANI participations, and you seem to show a good grasp of the policies you want to help enforce. --ais523 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Terence Ong 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support solid and dependable candidate. MLA 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Great editor and candidate. --Kukini 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support No problems here. A great editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support all good. The Rambling Man 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support my only worry is what is your half life? Wouldn't want you to end up quickly becoming only half an admin.... Mathmo ^Talk 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Excellent contributor been here nearlly a year. They should well know the policies. Rasillon 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Nothing-wrong-at all Support --tennisman sign here! 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support looks excellent.-- danntm ^T _C 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support.--Húsönd 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support A little more Mainspace edits wouldn't hurt, but he seems to know enough about policy. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Yep. -- Kicking222 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - Well reasoned replies to the questions, I can't see anything that would make me not trust you with the mop. As such, go for it! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. –Llama man^{sign here} 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Cliche support. Trusted longterm contributor -- Samir धर्म 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Very Strong Support. Everything I've seen gives me nothing but confidence in Isotope23. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support-Answer to my question good, and good candidate. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. Mature, thoughtful debater and valuable contributor. -- Satori Son 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Definitely Support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
54. A Chlorine is strolling and meets a depressed Hydrogen. Cl: H, why are you so sad? H: I lost my electron! Cl: Are you sure?? H: I'm positive!! - crz crztalk 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not at all certain that that shouldn't merit a community ban. :) Joe 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

55. Give him the mop Great answers. --Dweller 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. Nothing witty to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs). - 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Good heavens, yes. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Of course. A great candidate.--Kchase T 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support--Rudjek 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Solid candidate. --Allen3 ^talk 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support a good user usualy makes a good admin. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Joe I 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Support (changed from neutral, I didn't read it as a joke before, I feel rather silly). No problems if that's counted as a joke. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
64. Strong Support --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Easy support. One of the good guys. I was going to nominate Isotope myself, but obviously events have overtaken me. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Looks like a solid candidate. No problems here, so Give-em-the-mop^TM JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support. Cbrown1023 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Zaxem 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Per JzG, was thinking about nominating but not much time Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support per MGM... Joe 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Great contributor. utcursch | talk 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. Great user, definitely qualified. Nishkid64 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
73. S. Support - Deserved. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support, great user. the wub "?!" 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support, positive contributor. -Will Beback · † · 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support, solid record of positive contributions, while demonstrating an outstanding sensibility in answering question 4, 5, & 6. Isotope is going to make a great admin. --Matthew 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
77. ²³Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support always reasonable in deletion discussions ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support Reasonable and positive contributor in both article and admin spaces. Mops ahoy~ Georgewilliamherbert 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. A positive and good candidate.  INFORMATION CENTER©   ^{Talk   Contribs}  05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Yessir. Support. —bbatsell ¿? 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
83. Support | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose per answer to question 8. If this person feels that this is at all a positive use of IAR, I do not trust him/her with the tools one bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I daresay that was meant in jest, rather than meant as an indication of what the user will do with admin-tools. --Deskana (request backup) 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If Badlydrawnjeff's only argument to oppose is a joke made almost three months ago, I am afraid it is likely his comment will be discounted for its ludicrousy. Yuser31415 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It'll likely be discounted because no one else seems to care. If it's a joke, I'm not sure I see where. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's not too much of a faux pas to respond here, but Deskana is correct, that statement was intended to be tongue-in-cheek based on some of the other comments made in that DRV.--Isotope23 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then, and apologise for misunderstanding it. If I can ask, then, did you still see a problem with the entire "letter v. spirit" thing? I simply want to make sure I'm understanding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I pretty specifically mentioned a DRV that I thought I had invoked WP:IAR at by name when I actually had not, which undoubtedly was confusing. I was answering that question from memory and apparently I've gotten to the point where my memory of specific edits is a bit faulty. As for Letter v. Spirit, I've stricken that as well because I don't think it applies in this case. I endorsed deletion there because I didn't see any evidence at the time that the AfD closure was out of process or incorrectly done. WP:IAR had nothing to do with it. Just for clarity sake, I can't think of a single instance where I would unilaterally justify deletion of an article under WP:IAR.--Isotope23 03:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood, thanks a bunch for the clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Another "grippy back when" moment but I'm not a fan of self-noms. There is a part of me that wants to see an admin candidate "stand out" in their record of service--at least enough to warrant a nomination from another respected editor. (And yes, I similarly disdain "buddy nominations"). I'm also a tad partial to nominations from a respected admin since they know a bit of what character is needed to be a good admin. 205.157.110.11 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a username; maybe you forgot to log in? Unfortunately, RfA is a vote, and therefore votes from non-logged-in users aren't counted, which is a shame, because your vote appears to be entirely serious and good faith. --ais523 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RfAs are not votes, sorry, but IPs can't voice their opinion; they are welcome to participate in the "Comments" and "Questions" sections. Yuser31415 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that RfAs pretty much are votes at the moment, even though I believe they ought not to be (otherwise there would be no reason to strike anons). Still, this discussion should probably be on WT:RFA, rather than here. --ais523 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral per Badlydrawnjeff. IAR isn't used very often and this has probably drawn Isotope's attention so hopefully he will take care with it in future. Other than that there are no problems I'm aware of. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) changed to support James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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.