Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adambro

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] Adambro

Ended 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Adam. I first starting editing Wikipedia August 2004, between then and December 2006 I made a small number of contributions where I found articles I was reading that I could contribute to. From December 2006 onwards, I've taken a much more active role in Wikipedia and have found many different ways in which I can contribute when not writing article content. In particular, I enjoy fighting vandalism and find it very satisfying to know that my efforts are helping to protect the great work of my fellow contributors.

I do however, have a much wider experience than just vandal fighting. I partake in XFD discussions, monitor new pages, search for free images, and of course write content whenever I can. I feel the diverse range of activities I get involved in has given me a good understand of policy.

Whilst I'm slightly apprehensive about putting myself forward for adminship, I look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors, and I'm sure whatever the outcome, I'll have some useful feedback to improve my contributions further. Adambro 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I've spent a fair amount of my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism and patrolling new pages and so these are certainly areas which I'm familar and would feel in a position to use the administrative tasks. I've also got my eye on the administrative backlog and would try to help with this where I could.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hopefully, I can be pleased of all of my contributions, but I do accept it is possible that I have made some mistakes and in those situations I've appreciated the assistance of other editors in highlighting appropriate guidelines or better approaches to problems.
I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Grayrigg derailment. This article was a major news item at the time it was created and it was important to ensure that despite the rapidly changing circumstances that the article quality was maintained as additions were made. I've made a large number of edits to the article and feel that the addition of the photograph of the crash and my drawing showing the location are both of significant value. I spent time searching for an appropriate photograph and seeking permission from the photographer.
I nominated the article for Good Article and it was successfully promoted. I'm proud of the contributions I've made and feel that they have aided its progression to GA status.
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: I think it is important to recognise on Wikipedia that what makes the project great is the diverse backgrounds of our contributors. We all have something different which we can add and topics which we are more familar with. This does of course mean that there are also many different opinions and so it is inevitable that disagreements will occur.
It is important when differences of opinions turn into disputes to look to the guidelines for assistance. They are of great importance to Wikipedia but I do of course appreciate that they shouldn't be considered as being set in stone and I shouldn't allow them to prevent me from making positive contributions.
Whilst I have always regretted seeing discussions turn into arguments, often a case where editors try to get their point across by shouting the loudest, I do feel that attempting to resolve such arguments has helped develop my understanding of the guidelines and policies and how these work in practice.
Ultimately, Wikipedia would suffer if I allowed myself to get stressed out about the project and so if I felt the quality of my contributions is suffering then I would take a break from editing or find different tasks to work on.
4. You suddenly went from a very small number of edits to a rather high editing rate on December 16th. On that day you made as many edits as you did the entirely prior year, and before that day you'd made under 115 total edits. Your editing pattern also changed to include a lot more bulk/semi-/automated editing. What caused this change in the level and character of your contributions? Also, have you ever met any other Wikipedian's in person? --Gmaxwell 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: That is a good question, but not one I can answer completely I'm afraid. I'm not sure what prompted my sudden increase in activity, I suppose some of it could be credited to me being on Christmas break and so having more time available to spend familiarising myself with Wikipedia. This lead me to find other ways to contribute to the project when not adding content to articles. The larger edit count can be attributed to tasks including fighting vandalism and repairing links to disambiguation pages with the help of AWB.
In response to the second part of the question, no I haven't met any other editors in person. I would have to carefully consider the implications of such a meeting. It would be important to ensure that any real life relationships with other editors don't get in the way of work on Wikipedia, whilst of course recognising the possible benefits of a better understanding of other Wikipedians.
Optional question from coelacan
5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: That's certainly an interesting question. One instance where the closing of an XfD was not how I would have expected would be the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Turney which was closed as a redirect decision. My vote was:

Keep - Her involvement in such a significant event makes her notable, as per the primary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". This is most certainly true. She has also been singled out by both the Iranians and the media as being the only women in the group.

Glancing through the other comments seems to suggest that Keep was the general feeling. However, to properly consider how I would have closed the AfD I would have to read through the whole discussion and that will take me a while to ensure I properly understand all the points raised. Would it be helpful if I do that, in addition to what I have said here, coelacan?
I do note that following the closing of the AfD, the decision was taken to Deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6) which would support my questioning of how the AfD was closed. I do of course respect the closing admins judgement, however I do feel the circumstances were quite difficult as her involvement in the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel was still very much ongoing. The page Faye Turney, has since been reinstated and the discussion continued on the article talk page.
If my RfA were to be successful, I would certainly steer clear of complex discussions like this AfD until I had a greater experience of closing XfDs which a more obvious outcome.
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I believe that is an extremely important issue, WP:BLP is a key policy in maintaining the reputation of Wikipedia. I feel that it is better for an article to say nothing than something that is unsourced and could potential be seen as libel. Even just last Monday's Signpost provided an example of the consequences of unsourced material and highlights the importance of the policy.
If I found such material in an article, I would remove it and bring our policies to the attention of the user, I would however, attempt to find references first. I did this when an editor added such material to Glen Johnson (footballer). If an editor ignored requests to comply with policy, I would not hesitate to apply a block for continued disruption of the project. In some circumstances page protection may be appropriate.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Adambro before commenting.

Discussion

  • Consensus not numbers: He's been around a while and he's acted in a trustworthy, creditable manner. I hope he'll get over the Wikidefcon nonsense and whatnot. I propose that we give Adambro sysop privileges. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - Has been very active in the last 5 months and with over 6700 Edits, he has good mainspace and user talk Edits...--Cometstyles 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Experienced user w/ a clean block log. A vandal fighter indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support A good candidate, no problems... Majorly (hot!) 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Edit-conflict Support Just browsed through your recent contributions and I see good things. You have done some great article work and have a fair understanding of the policies. Would've only liked to see a higher project-space count, though. —Anas talk? 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Good guy, level headed, trustworthy enough to know how to use the mop. -- Jreferee 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - a good editor and participates well in admin area's. Best of luck! My only concern is that you haven't got a wiki-project endorsement, but I suppose I can overlook that! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per sufficient experience and no concerns. Addhoc 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - probably not insane, and I like the response to Kelly's concern even though I really hate those userboxes too - David Gerard 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Why not? I see no reason to believe this user will abuse or misuse the tools. Vassyana 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Looks good to me. I see nothing wrong with promoting someone who wants to be promoted. --Selket Talk 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Good answers to the candidate questions and a solid answer to the question about the userboxes. Johntex\talk 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Adminship is no big deal. I don't see any problems. YechielMan 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I'm satisfied.-- danntm T C 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Looks good. An all around editor. Jmlk17 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Looks good. Appreciated the answers to questions. I understand you were relatively inactive until December, but your edits suggest experience more reflecting your first edit date. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. I like how he has handled the Kelly Martin ordeal. Shows that he is a true gentleman through his responses, and how he kindly counters Ms. Martin's criticism. --wpktsfs 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. I admire this user's candidness and courage to step forth and ask for more responsibility in a venue that historically has burnt users at the stake for being so bold. Based upon his contribs and conduct on his talk page, I think we can trust him with the tools. The Transhumanist 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. And I like your userboxes (weak reason, I know, but hey...) Adambro appears trustworthy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support PeaceNT 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I've had only the briefest of interaction with Adambro, in a situation with another (rather acerbic) editor, but his demeanor and response to that situation was very reasonable and measured, and I was impressed by it. If he can keep that cool when dealing with the daily grind of the mop and bucket I think he will do just fine. His edits and answers look good as well.--Isotope23 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support in order to cancel out Kelly Martin's vote. Walton Need some help? 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Adambro has handled difficult situations admirably, and does his fair share of chores (particularly with anti-vandalism and AfD), so should become a good admin. --RFBailey 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Great user! -Mschel 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support: Don't see any problems with the user and looks like this user has plenty of experience. Should be a good administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support: No reason to believe Adambro is untrustworthy. Plus I am mentioned below, so I had to come here. Hi mom! As far as that situation goes, I believe your replies are well written and informative, as well as logical to me. Prodego talk 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per my comments in the section below and also: great editor, no obvious problems, excellent handling of the single oppose, good responses to the questions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support John254 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support We disagreed re the UK/Caledonia debate but your civility and common sense suggests to me you will make a fine Admin. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) PS Great userboxes btw.
  32. Support per David Gerard, and my experience of this user involving disagreements where other parties tend to to get quite upset. Usually keen to use calm down the situation - perhaps too optimistic in that regard, but that's probably not a bad thing! JPD (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I have been impressed by his calm and rational approach to helping calm down and re-focus disagreements that are quickly becoming squabbles and out of control. I think he would be a good admin, and I would have no hesitation in approaching him if I found myself in need of an independent, calm, and rational view about anything.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A.Z. 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support No reason not to, will not abuse the tools. Davewild 08:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, looks good.--Wizardman 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Tentative support. I dislike the userbox, and defcon paramilitary nonsense, but sound on BLP.--Docg 14:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support: a dedicated, experienced editor with a knack for keeping cool and resolving disputes. Will undoubtedly wield the mop with skill. Krimpet (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. I have no reason not to support this good candidate.--VS talk 07:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. --dario vet (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support because of calm behaviour, although, like Y and Xoloz, I'd have liked to see more experience in project space. ElinorD (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. More projectspace contribs would have helped me make up my mind sooner, but candidate seems reasonably experienced and looks trustworthy. WjBscribe 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And that means that the user obviously going to be a crazy admin who would 100% abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      This is so patently absurd. I suppose you are also actively campaigning for de-sysoping of (random selection) AzaToth (talk · contribs), Beland (talk · contribs), Prodego (talk · contribs), Xaosflux (talk · contribs), Coredesat (talk · contribs) who hall have that innocuous defcon template on their talkpage. Clearly, these guys are patently unfit to be administrators... Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Are you advocating that this vote should be discounted for being absurd? --Durin 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      I sure am although I'm not sure I should be admitting that to you! :-) Pascal.Tesson 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Durin, this opinion is absurd by my standards (and yours and Pascal.Tesson's). However, I oppose the notion that it should be disregarded. Ms. Martin has her personal standards for judging RfAs and she is free to express them. At RfA, we only ignore comments by sockpuppets and disruptive trolls. If you want to argue that Ms. Martin falls into one of those two categories, you may do so, but I doubt your argument would gain much traction. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      I think you meant to address that to Pascal. I wasn't advocating anything. --Durin 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Right, Durin is only thinking that it should be ignored, but I'm advocating it. Not because Kelly Martin is a troll or a sockpuppet but because we just can't continue to oppose candidates on the grounds of a behavior that's perfectly acceptable to an overwhelming majority of established Wikipedians. RfA is byzantine enough as it is. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Pascal! Don't you see what's happening? You're being assimilated! :) Sorry, Durin, apparently I got the comments mixed up. So then, how about this for a compromise: we respect Kelly Martin's right to oppose for reasons that we may find to be eccentric (a better term than absurd), and I'll support this user to counter-balance this single "oppose". I wsa going to support anyway as I could find no non-eccentric reason to oppose. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      I'm sorry that Kelly Martin feels those two userboxes in particular aren't appropriate. However, I feel they are useful. The WikiDefCon userbox allows me to get a basic idea of the current level of vandalism allowing me to judge whether I should focus my attention on fighting vandalism. With regard to the "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday" userbox, I'd hope that would encourage other editors to approach me with any concerns so I can improve my contributions to the standard required for adminship. Adambro 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      An odd question perhaps... but do you actually look at your own userpage? I ask because I've never had much cause to look at mine.--Gmaxwell 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      I find it useful sometimes to know where I can find links to various pages so I do look at it occasionally. It's also an easy place to keep tabs on the various pages I'm working on in my own userspace. Adambro 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Kelly, I'm sure there would be users who don't like your userboxes as well. How about we stop using userboxes as a Wikipolitical wedge? They indicate approximately nothing about someone's suitability as an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Respectfully, I disagree. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      I appreciate the point Kelly is making, a persons userpage does say something about them. Hopefully she can understand the reasons that I have set out in response to her concerns. Adambro 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      Firstly, the offending userbox does not say "I wanna be an admin." It says "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday." I, myself, proudly sport one not because I think it would "be cool" to be an admin, but because I think sometime in the future I could help Wikipedia by becoming an admin. I don't see anything sinister by having this userbox. Gutworth 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Insufficient projectspace experience to formulate opinion on user's policy knowledge. -- Y not? 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Y. A little more experience will do wonders here. Xoloz 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral. Some very good contributions, including good article-building. However, only really active on Wikipedia for five months, I would like to see another month of active editing before I could support (but I won't oppose, knowing that he was "here" but not active long before that.) -- Pastordavid 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    What do you believe will change in a month? How is five months different from six in your opinion, especially given that he was "here" (your words) before that? I submit that your reliance on hard numbers may be harming this candidate's chances to succeed in helping Wikipedia through obtaining the sysop tools/bit. -- nae'blis 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that in a month the nominee will have a month's more interaction with the project and a month's more experience editing. Also, my vote is neutral - not oppose; if others don't see this as an issue then I haven't harmed anyone's chance's of anything. Finally, the nominees comment (a nominee with only a few weeks less experience of active editing) on another RfA would indicate that he thinks that the experience that comes with time is a factor in becoming an admin. -- Pastordavid 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. Neutrals are sometimes taken into account in cases of 'close' RFAs (which this one isn't trending toward, you're right on that) so I just wanted to see a little more of your thought process. No further questions yerhonor. :) -- nae'blis 17:07, 24 April 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.