Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adambiswanger1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Adambiswanger1

Final (69/5/1) Ended Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:14:02 (UTC)

Adambiswanger1 (talk · contribs) – I have been involved with Wikipedia since February, dabbling a bit with different IPs and using it for the sake of reference until I realized the importance of having a username. Using this account I have been editing heavily since May, and I have almost 7000 edits. I am very well-rounded in my editing style, in that I can be found monitoring recent changes, writing/rewriting articles, reorganizing articles, getting very heavily involved in AfD, CfD, etc, proofreading, etc. I am a member of Esperanza, as well as the creator of the featured-status Poetry portalImage:LinkFA-star.png, several history/religion/philosophy-related articles, and the sonnet project.

My editing has slowed down a bit in the last month because I have just started my freshman year of college. It's very hectic right now, but I plan to become more active as soon as my workload lessens here. I am well-versed in policy, and I have several ideas in my back-pocket that I would like to propose in order to clarify or improve current policy. Nothing radical, and of course, I would not circumvent current policy to push my own agenda. But let's cut to the chase. Why do I want to be an admin, you ask? Well, in addition to obvious utilities for vandal-fighting, I'd love to clear the RfD, CfD, and AfD backlog, as well as help out at WP:AIV and New Page patrol. I have been involved in editing disputes (See: this), and I think this encyclopedia desperately needs to have more admins who can protect pages and are willing to dive head-first into a dispute and act fairly. There are also plenty of flaws and outdated news articles on the main page that I would like to lend a hand with. After all, the main page is the face of Wikipedia. AdamBiswanger1 02:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept as a self-nomination. AdamBiswanger1 02:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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: Aside from typical mopwork which I mentioned in my nom (closing XfDs, WP:NPP, WP:AIV, front page, , I anticipate overseeing disputes when they arise and warning reverters, and if need be, temporarily block someone for WP:3RR. I've felt the brunt of horrific backlogs at WP:RM, so I'd love to help there also.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I spent alot of time pulling the Poetry portal together, (thanks also to both Sam and User:Stumps for their help), and creating articles on several obscure historical figures was quite difficult and required alot of research. The good news is that the online information regarding these figures is now on Wikipedia. I'm very proud of that fact and I thank those who have worked so hard on those articles.
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: A while ago I and several other editors were in a dispute as to whether "Syracuse" should link directly to "Syracuse, Italy" or require a disambiguation page because of the Syracuse in New York. Being a student at SU, I disagreed, and it developed into a very long, very heated conversation. But I kept my cool throughout, although one or two flashes rudeness might've leaked as a result of several Europeans accusing those on my side of having some sort of American arrogance. However after this I made it my ultimate goal to cultivate a clear, rational, and civil conversational style.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not often that established users become unruly and detrimental to the project. But, if the user consistently breaks the rules and refuses dialogue, then an admin has no choice to administer a block. I would use the utmost hesitation in doing this, because just one individual, especially an established one, has the potential to improve the encyclopedia so greatly. I can't really answer in terms of a specific situation, partly because I can't reasonably imagine one, and partly because the circumstances would be so complicated that extensive thought and explanation would be required beyond the practical means of this answer. But, I can assure you that I pride myself in my awareness of my actions, and I will not hold power trips or act unreasonably. AdamBiswanger1 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
E. (for exceedingly optional) Can you expand on what you mean by "One might even say that the snowball clause applies", below? In what manner do you feel it would apply in this context? -- nae'blis 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea it doesn't make as much sense as I thought. I just think they both convey the same message. I would paraphrase it as something like "don't needlessly go through the motions and follow them meticulously if the situation is such that something silly or trivial is clogging up the system." But again, I don't plan on striking the vote and I don't want to say anything controversial, mainly because I am not thinking anything controversial. Hope that answers your question ; ) AdamBiswanger1 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mostly; I'm still confused as to what you think should be snowballed; your RfA? The removal/striking of the oppose vote? Some third thing I'm not smart enough to figure out? The rest of your answer was just fine, thanks, I was just curious what you were referring to as the object of the sentence. *grin* -- nae'blis 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Your referencing WP:SNOW confused me too, and would like to know what you thought should be snowballed. I'm also confused when you say you "Just think they both convey the same message" as to what "they" are. I do hope you're not suggesting you can remove votes, comments, or other impediments because they seem "silly or trivial or [are] clogging up the system." JDoorjam Talk 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Strong Support a great editor. Rama's arrow 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Good, experienced editor who has proven he can be trusted with the buttons... a no brainer for me hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Michael 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. This editor can defintely be trusted with the tools :) Hello32020 03:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, cliché, etc. Naconkantari 03:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. -- Merope Talk 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support – strong presence at AfD, great answers to questions, and just an overall good editor. All the best, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 05:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yup. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, good user, I trust him with the tools. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. —Khoikhoi 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Knows how to calm down passionate users, myself included. --Pan Gerwazy 10:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Needs the tools, deserves the tools. -- Kicking222 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support good user.-- danntm T C 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support and create article for German town Bieswang.See "oppose" section if you don't get it.--Húsönd 16:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Good work in AfD and all-around strong contributions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support A solid editor, should be effective with the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 17:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Excellent trustworthy candidate. Already involved in a number of thankless tasks. Pascal.Tesson 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Looks like a model editor, and the sheer idiocy of the oppose vote rather helped me make up my mind. Moreschi 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Big Wang Support. Trustworthy user who has a good deal of WikiExperience. I was going to nominate this user for adminship in like a week. --Nishkid64 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, great candidate for adminship. NawlinWiki 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support great candidate, trust with tools. Pete.Hurd 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Reasonable editor, should be a good admin. -Will Beback 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support.  Doctor Bruno  21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per above comments. RFerreira 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - Canderous Ordo 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. "Big wang" support See "oppose" section if you don't get it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think that has the potential to catch on. AdamBiswanger1 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Big wang support! Why the hell not? --Aaron 01:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, seen this editor around many times, in RC patrol, AfD, etc., always well-reasoned and a healthy sense of humor to boot. Accurizer 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support the big wanker. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Partly to offset the really weird oppose votes. Good luck, Adam. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - meets my standards -- Tawker 08:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Ok candidate. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Solid answers, solid track record, solid edit count. Solid support. Themindset 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support: Good user, record against vandalism demonstrates need for the tools. (But guys, seriously, can't we drop the "big wang" stuff?) Heimstern Läufer 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Ofcourse, a great contributor. Hopefully school won't take up all of your time if you end up studying abroad. I'm still in tears over the first oppose vote. Stubbleboy 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Merovingian - Talk 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support I can trust Adam with the tools. He is an excellent editor. Yanksox 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support per nom. John254 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support per nom, answers, comments. Can be trusted with tools. The concerns stated under Oppose range from ill-founded to outright frivolous. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support good Wikipedian. --Dweller 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support I trust Adam to use the tools well. Gwernol 11:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. su[p[prt (My eyes wouldn't open because I was crying with laughter over SPUI's oppose)  Jorcoga  11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support I have trust in "Adam's big wang" (thanks for the chortle, SPUI). Soulresin 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support good editor. Anger22 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support per JohnnyBGood. The fact that he has a life (other than Wikipedia) shows a lot of good things about him. If you feel that Wikipedia admins should have no other jobs, you should seriously reconsider your thinking. Alphachimp 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support... he seems like he'll do well with the mop, and put it to good use. --Storkk 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Let his mighty wang wield the extra inch of adminship, and spewi forth his glorious munificence. Good editor; clean nose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support (changed from weak oppose below) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Good user. Could become a good admin --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. Unnecessary support. Looks great to me. Grandmasterka 03:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. We Adams are supposed to support each other ;). - Darwinek 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  58. Major support, seen him around on AFD more than a few times, definitely looks like a trustworthy user. Great editor, would be a good admin. --Coredesat (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Good, all-round editor; involved in a lot of extra-editorial work (such as your example of Portal:Poetry) which is improtant for an admin. Good Luck! Anthony 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Talk to Me)
  60. Support great editor...his username is not a convincing reason to oppose the nomination, especially because of the good work that he has done. his username should not negate everything he has done for the project. Wikipediarules2221 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipediarules, I'd like to first start off by saying thank you for your support; I really appreciate it. But all of us (not just you) need to realize that MY NAME IS ADAM BISWANGER. It is has no connection to the euphemism for penis, "Wang" or it's variant, "wanger". I had my fair-share of ridicule for this in middle school, and its rearing its ugly head once again here on Wikipedia. To prove that this is a legitimate last name, here is a website of a book written by my father [1]. As you can see, it's my last name. Thanks everybody, AdamBiswanger1 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, Adam, but I think all those penis vandals have had an effect on us. ;) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support: I disagree with the concerns I've seen voiced, below, and appreciate the work with the portal. Geogre 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Strong on encylopedia building, useful portal. Espresso Addict 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support— Williamborg (Bill) 06:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support devoted specialt-admin and besides most of Oppose votes do not look well founded abakharev 07:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. G.He 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  66. I support this user. DS 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strong support I thought him to be qualified on August 1, when I offered to nominate him, and nothing has transpired in the interim to make me question my support. I am altogether confident that Adam will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and am quite certain that his being an admin will be quite propitious as regards the project (as set out in my RfA guidelines, the nature of the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin—to the extent I might reasonably ascertain such nature—determines what I think the appropriate disposition of an RfA to be; here, to be sure, the net effect will be, one may say emphatically, positive). Joe 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support looks like another good addition to the admin crew -- Samir धर्म 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support solid contributor who I trust absolutely. --Guinnog 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I don't trust anyone whose name looks like "Adam's big wang". --SPUI (T - C) 06:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    You're jokin', right? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I sure hope so... (SPUI: I'm guessing it's his real name) —Khoikhoi 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just gonna let this user's block record save me the work of poisoning the well for him. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I thought the exact same thing, Omicron. -- Kicking222 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    And by the way, great username. -- Kicking222 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Haha awesome oppose. By the way, my last name is derived from a small town in Germany named Bieswang. AdamBiswanger1 15:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    oh my... Can we please just erase that oppose vote. (yeah yeah, it's not a vote but we all know that's not entirely true). Pascal.Tesson 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fine by me ; ) Usually things like this are moved to the talk page, struck out, or completely removed. AdamBiswanger1 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I've struck it as a bad faith opposition. Even if the user hasn't been repeatedly blocked, opposing someone based on his/her username (without asking him/her to change it) isn't a valid !vote. If this is out of line, feel free to overturn it. -- Merope Talk 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, that is innapropriate, please don't strike out votes unless they are confirmed sockpuppets or banned users. Leave the rest for bureaucrats or just comment. In this case, the vote's appropriateness has been commented on and the closing bureaucrat can take that into account. For the record SPUI, please consider your reasoning for supporting or opposing more carefully considering what is best for the project. - Taxman Talk 21:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Could've at least asked Adam about it..--Andeh 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's ok-- it's tempting to strike that figuring how juvenile it is. One might even say that the snowball clause applies, though I wouldn't argue it too passionately. AdamBiswanger1 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that nobody doesn't trust you because yor name looks like "spew".  Jorcoga  11:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So that's a SPUI.
So that's a SPUI.
  1. SPUI stands for "Single Point Urban Interchange". We should absolutely not be setting a precedent of overruling votes that aren't popular. Adam, it's in poor taste to be commenting on whether a vote should be removed from your AfD, and (more troubling) is inaccurate to say that WP:SNOW would justify the removal of SPUI's vote. WP:SNOW doesn't simply mean "go with the mob." JDoorjam Talk 04:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sigh. Doorjam, I didn't call for this vote to be stricken. Others did, but I simply added my assent to another's request for it to be stricken. This shouldn't be an issue. I suggested at one point that WP:SNOW might apply, but after I said it I did nothing but back off and stress that I wasn't firm about this belief. I played it down as much as I could. Why did I do this? Because I had a feeling that someone would jump on to this and accuse me of wanting to break the rules. It bothers me to have my comments misinterpreted like this, and to be accused of wishing to circumvent the rules. Also, doorjam, SPUI has an extensive block record and his vote was clearly in bad-faith. So if you want to defend it, feel free to do so, but it accomplishes nothing for the better. AdamBiswanger1 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Like Nae'blis, I'm still curious what exactly you meant by referencing WP:SNOW; that question is above. It disappoints me that you characterized my comment as "nasty"; there was nothing nasty whatsoever in my comment. An administrator often plays the role of diplomat, and using such totally unnecessary attack language is never appropriate. I was recommending to you that you not get involved with discussions on whether or not to remove a vote from your AfD. As the candidate, it's in better taste to address any questions you're asked or misperceptions about your actions that you see, but to stay out of this sort of debate. I never, ever, ever said you were trying to "break the rules." Ever. My first sentence was a general comment for everyone involved in the discussion, not just you, to avoid setting a precedent of undoing votes. This is why my second sentence addressed you directly. Whether SPUI has been blocked before has nothing whatsoever to do with the merit of his argument, which while obviously flimsy, is rooted in User name policy, so I now have two questions for you: do you believe that, when weighing the merits of someone's arguments, their block record has a bearing on whether their argument is logical, thought through, and relevant? While obviously related to your invoking SPUI's block record, I ask this in the general sense. My second question is a reiteration of Nae'blis's, above. JDoorja

m Talk 05:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. I do not think the vote should be stricken, nor do I think that WP:SNOW applies. AdamBiswanger1 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Doorjam, I pointed out that his name looks like spew, not that it is meant to. Biswanger is derived from a town in Germany, NOT the fact that he has a big wang. His oppose was in extraordinarily bad fath, and SPUI has had heaps of blocks.  Jorcoga  03:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The possible college overload concerns me. Admins need to be wholly dedicated to the task. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry but I find this sort of comment hard to swallow. Why should admin status force people to spend half of their life working as an admin? Everyone contributing to wikipedia is a volunteer that devotes the kind of time he can and wants to. Sometimes that means a lot of time and sometimes life takes over and that's ok. Becoming an admin is not joining a cult. If you don't think that granting him admin status has a risk of being detrimental to the project then you should not oppose. Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    As Pascal noted, JohnnyBGood is mistaken in this case. Adminship is not, and should not be limited to those without jobs, without school, and without external responsibilities. Should Jimbo be demoted because he has so few edits? ShouldPhaedriel be stripped of her duties because she is pregnant? Of course not, because that would be cruel and absurd. I generally disagree with the ever-present sentiment that "even though X has not been here for a long time, X won't abuse the tools"; almost every support vote for a new user undergoing RfA includes this. But I have been here for months and months, and I have donated hours and hours to making this a better encyclopedia, and I have shown that I can be trusted. I don't think anyone doubts that. And even though my editing has slowed down, it is far from falling off the map. I check my watchlist every day, and I have something like 5-15 edits per day during the busiest of days. So, while I may not spend 7pm-2am on Wiki as I did in the summer, I am certainly active, and I am certainly available to help anyone who needs it. AdamBiswanger1 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    While I respect both or your positions I do feel that being an admin and not being dedicated enough to the project could be detrimental to it. I feel we have an over abundance of admins on the project as it stands right now and granting the status to one more users no matter who good of a user is a waste of the position if he will be using the tools minimally. That said I have no ill will toward Adambiswanger as he does seem to be a good honest editor. I just don't think admin tools are needed or warranted at this time. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    I suppose this is not really the place to have this debate but, sorry, this reply irks me. Restricting adminship to a small group of full-time devotees is the best way to increase the sentiment that admins constitute a small exclusive club out of touch with most editors' reality. Pascal.Tesson 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    Admins IMO (which I'm entitlted to by the way. I'm shocked at how every oppose vote is being raked over the coals when we're more then entitled to it) should be an exclusive group. Not a club, but the elite of the elite editors who know Wikipolicy inside and out and are an even tempered but active bunch. I'm sorry but I don't see that with this user at this time, which is fine. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion but it is also ok for others to point out that your definition of an admin does not match the Wikipedia definition of an admin. I'm not contesting that particular vote and I have no particular link to this candidate but it's really important for the community to point out that this type of argument goes against accepted consensus and contributes to the perception that admins like to feel special. Pascal.Tesson 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    From the very page you point out, "Administrators, or sysops, are active and regular Wikipedians who have access to technical features that help with maintenance. Administrators are expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy as they are known and trusted members of the community." I'm sorry but I don't see that here just yet. End of story. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    Admins aren't allowed to have lives now? I didn't know that..--Andeh 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    <sarcasm> Why of course not. That would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Admins should be slaves to the project.</sarcasm> Pascal.Tesson 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Wow with friends like this I'm really starting to feel good about my opposition to this RFA. You guys hounding any opposition isn't improving your situation any and frankly is just childish. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Very Weak Oppose - falls just short of my 9 month minimum, and has had problems with images --T-rex 04:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. (cue obnoxious and speculative threaded dialogue). —freak(talk) 04:50, Oct. 3, 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, shall we just consider it a null and void vote and strike it then :) -- Tawker 08:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    Not unless you have reasons to believe that Freak is acting in bad faith for some reason. Zocky | picture popups 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    Can everyone please stop questioning and pestering these oppose voters? O.K, so, the first one was weird and not a little laughable but everyone else has voted in good faith and, quite frankly, with a 37/4 count (i.e a stroll in the park) that kind of semi-harassment is completely unnecessary. Moreschi 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose. Certainly a good and dedicated editor, but like Medtopic below I'm a tad uncomfortable with what I see as a rather too tolerant stance against NOR violations in AfD debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to support after discussion in private. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps if I explain myself my views will seem less distasteful to you. Let me start off by saying that I've voted against dozens of articles for being OR, and I've even nominated some for deletion. I can assure that I understand this policy and I take it very seriously. But when an article asserts something that is clearly true to everyone who reads it, despite the fact that finding sources is difficult or impossible, OR should not apply. Instances like these are not original research, but things that are clearly so despite lack of referencing. Now I would never use my administrative powers to enforce this interpretation of OR, mind you. So, I think what we have here is a slight discrepancy in our respective tolerances of uncited material. Let me also note that in the cited AfD, I and another editor agreed to clean these up and purify them of OR. We did not state that they should be allowed to exist as they are; they contained much original research, and I acknowledged this and offered to help. Again, I must stress that I abhor original research, and I won't support it in any way shape or form. With respect to you and respect to your opinion, when it comes down to a mere disagreement as such, I think an oppose is quite harsh. AdamBiswanger1 17:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Pepsidrinka 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I am only familiar with AdamBiswanger1 from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920. I found his comments there to be arrogant and disrespectful in that he asserted an understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines while suggesting that others editors gave only a cursory examination of the text, voted "reflexively", or were not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Based on this encounter, I would not feel comfortable turning to him for assistance. From comments on his user page (e.g. "AfD is for deleting wacko theories, things made up in school one day, and non-notable companies. This is an encyclopedia. Therefore, I support fully any article of an academic nature, no matter how obscure (barring absurdity)."), I have additional concerns that he still may not fully understand WP:OR and WP:V. With that said, I am otherwise unfamiliar with his contributions to Wikipedia to know whether or not he would be a good admin. Medtopic 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have been in just about 1000 contentious AfDs like this, and I suppose it would be best for my candidacy if I made nice and didn't engage in heated debates. However this is not in my nature, and I still believe in what what I said. If you read through that AfD, you won't find any instances of incivility or rudeness-- just an earnest disagreement between two editors who want the best for Wikipedia. AdamBiswanger1 11:55, 3 October 2006 (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.