Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ais523

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] ais523

Final (64/0/1); Ended Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:13:42 (UTC)

ais523 (talk · contribs) - I've been on Wikipedia since 7 June 2006 (over 8 months now), and editing other MediaWiki wikis as far back as 30 April 2006 [1]. I believe I have the technical knowledge to use the tools (I'm an admin on a private wiki, as well as on the non-Wikimedia Esolang, where I made my first wiki edit), as well as the policy knowledge, and I believe I also have a need. With respect to Wikipedia, I have been here for a while and spend much time in technical, policy, and assistance areas. I used to do much new page patrol, although I do less of that nowadays (nowadays I'm more careful to warn users and avoid placing speedy-delete tags on things lightning-fast, though, so I'm a better NP patroller nowadays when I do do the patrol); I also infrequently do recent changes patrol, usually when WikiDefCon indicates a problem that non-admins can deal with and I'm not concentrating on other things, but I've only made 4 reports to AIV in my last 2000 edits as a result, so it's not really a recent occurence. (I have had good experience with warning templates; often users will stop and sometimes even apologise after a few warnings.) Much of my recent contributions (over 14% of the last 2000 edits) have been helping users at the Help Desk; I also help users in other areas of Wikipedia, such as the technical village pump, the new contributor's help page, and {{helpme}} anywhere, and have written several user scripts to help streamline Wikipedia for me and for other editors (I'm a WikiProject User scripts member). I also participate in discussions about policy (particularly new proposals and on Wikipedia talk:-space pages) and in several Wikipedia processes (AfD, TfD, MfD, RfD, DRv, other user's RfAs (as well as my own, now), BRFA (although I'm not a BAG member), and CAT:PER, having helped with the development of some processes (for instance, speedy-delete templates; I helped sort out the fallout from the TfD of {{delete}} by making {{db-reason}} into a redirect target that worked with 0 parameters, and created {{db-blankcsd}}, {{db-emptyportal}}, {{db-disambig}} and {{db-authora}} for situations within the speedy-delete criteria that didn't have explicit templates (and I've had occasion to use all of them)). I also do a lot of admin-type work that non-admins are allowed to do already; I have had occasion to comment on the administrative noticeboard and incident noticeboard on several occasions, and I've been known to perform non-admin closes to deletion debates and to sort out malformed debates (I use {{db-g6}} more often than most users, I suspect.) Although admin tools would be somewhat useful for all of this (I'll elaborate in the answer to Q1), the main reason I'm requesting adminship is for technical work. There have been several situations in which I've made changes to templates, high-risk-protected processes (I wrote the original process for categorising AfDs; although it wasn't perfect to start with, it was quickly improved in a way that shows the power of a wiki to improve things quickly), and even interface messages; in many of these cases, I've had to request admin assistance to make changes I didn't have the permissions for to make changes myself. I've also requested protection of high-risk pages that could cause problems if vandalised (although mostly people are good at noticing these, so this doesn't come up all that often). As for edit count: although edit counts can be misleading (for instance, my User:-space edit count has been inflated), just before filing this RfA I had 5996 non-deleted edits on the ais523 account, as well as 7 edits assisting my bot via its account (and it's gone on to decategorise 1637 AfDs so far); see the Talk page of this RfA for more details about my edit count. One last thing I'd like to point out: my article-space participation is much lower than that of many other users who have been here as long as I have. I agree that creating an encyclopedia is what we're here for, but in response to the question I suspect is likely to come up, I think that support and admin-type activities (what I've been doing) and admin-tool-requiring-activities are there to help maintain an environment in which the encyclopedia can reasonably be expanded; I appreciate the people who can help add knowledge and information (preferably sourced, of course) to Wikipedia, but the subjects in which I'm most proficient either have enough information already that I'd have difficulty expanding them, or are fields in which nearly all research is original and sources are few and far between (and so are inappropriate on Wikipedia; I have many information-adding article-space contributions on Esolang, for instance, which has different policies). --ais523 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nomination. --ais523 17:09, 23 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Mostly, I'm requesting adminship for the ability to edit technical protected pages and interface messages. Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests' contents are on my watchlist (thanks to a category-watchlisting script I wrote), and that category often ends up severly backlogged (I've had to resort to posting on the admin's noticeboard to clear a chronic backlog on occasion); many requests in that category are of a technical nature (I have made several like that), which presumably don't get fulfilled quickly due to a shortage of technically-minded administrators who feel competent to make the edits (which is reasonable; I wouldn't do admin actions I feel that I would mess up or be unable to do, and I wouldn't expect other admins to do that either). I'd also like to help redundancy in TfD-closing (sometimes it seems as though there are only just enough admins there to prevent the backlog lengthen indefinitely; of course, more admins would close debates there if a problem really did develop, but it's better not to create the situation in the first place), and I suspect I'd be likely to close other deletion debates as well (especially the malformed ones that my bot points out to me). I also expect to work in technical page protections and unprotections, and I will probably speedily-delete pages (as long as I'm still allowed to use db-tags if I want a second admin's opinion!). I don't expect to spend much time blocking and unblocking users; this is likely to stay at a similar very low rate to my AIV postings at the moment. I would also like the tools so I don't have to waste admin time requesting temporary undeletions when I want to comment at DRv, to do history-merges when I notice them rather than having to use {{db-histmerge}} (they often come up on Help Desk-like pages or helpme requests, as do requests to reverse redirects with history) and there have been a few other freak situations where admin tools would have been useful (in one case I was unable to use Wikipedia for about half an hour due to messing up a user script on a browser on which I couldn't disable JavaScript; I fixed it in the end using a combination of an archaic browser and the secure server, but the ability to delete and recreate my monobook.js would have fixed it in about ten seconds (as would rollback if it weren't for the fact that you can't rollback a page with only one editor; for obvious reasons, I couldn't use scripts).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As I said in my nomination, I'm not particularly pleased with my article-space contributions; I created one article in my early contributions, DeathStation 9000, but I don't feel it's particularly good (and wouldn't be too surprised if it were deleted, although I don't think it's worthy of deletion at the moment), and I've helped contribute to INTERCAL. I am somewhat pleased with my work with scripts (for instance, my edit counter, which I used on the talk page of this RfA, has over 100 users), and when I accomplish some difficult technical changes (such as the AfD categorisation system, probably the most major change I've made); I'm pleased whenever I can help other users and the encyclopedia benefits as a result; I'm pleased whenever I see whatever process or policy I've been discussing being improved upon gradually and turning into something better.
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: There have been a few cases where I've personally been involved in conflicts; I don't believe I've ever been in a conflict over an article, but things have flared up slightly in newpage patrol and in general discussions on occasion. I was reported to AN/I once during my early time here after an AIV report against me was rejected, but I still think that was the result of a misunderstanding over CSD A7 by the user reporting it (and by me to a lesser extent), rather than any sort of malice. I've been accidentally incivil on occasion, but have apologised when I noticed [2]; and I've been known to make mistakes (I am mildly involved in the current situation over BetacommandBot, which was deflagged in part due to a request of mine based on incomplete evidence (I missed some approvals it had been given in the old system); and on an unrelated note, this was doubly embarassing (messing up the system I created and being corrected by my own bot)). There have been a few cases where I've disagreed with someone over wording in an article or policy, but in such cases either a consensus between the other editor and me developed quickly after a sequence of compromise edits (this is a recent example), or if it's very minor I've simply ignored the matter rather than get into a lame edit war.
General comments
  • See ais523's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I've already counted my edits, generated diffs, and confirmed my recent 100%/100% edit summary; they're on the talk page, but I suspect Mathbot will repeat this anyway as soon as the RfA is listed. --ais523 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I often can't get access to the Internet over weekends, so I might not be able to answer additional questions until Monday. --ais523 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support. Dedicated candidate who appears to have an excellent knowledge of policy. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I've seen this user around. Seems like a very productive editor. Any editor that spends enough time around WP:HD and WP:VP learns a wide range of policy very quickly. I'm happy to support.↔NMajdan•talk 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Can't believe this is a self-nomination Support More article work would be preferable, but your good work in other areas outweighs that. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - Helpful, knows policy, does lots of good work! — Lost(talk) 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Has a lot of experience in areas where admins frequently roam. I can see nothing that leads me to believe the tools would be abused, and I can see plenty that leads me to believe they would be used effectively, correctly, and often. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Tizio 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. S. Support as per above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. SupportCould've sworn you already were. John Reaves (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support This always happens lol, I consider nominating a user and they are edither nominated by someone else or do a self nomination lol. Anyway I've seen this user around at XFD and helping users via CAT:HELP and at the help desk. Definitely could be trusted with the tools, strong knowledge of policy - best of luck! Tellyaddict 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Seen you around. Thought you were one. – Chacor 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per good work at helpdesk --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Michael 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per Nihonjoe. Has always seemed like admin-material to me. I thought, like with <redacted>, <deleted>, and <inaudible>, this RFA would never be opened. I have every confidence in ais523. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Got experience. Should make a great admin. - Anas talk? 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support This candidate is more than ready for the tools. Agent 86 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Your username is a welcome presence whenever I find myself answering a few CAT:PERs. Knows the project, helps out, and comes across as being pretty level-headed. I haven't yet seen anything that would lead me to expect any abuse of the tools. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support A great presence on the help desk, ais523 knows the stuff. Xiner (talk, email) 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support' —dgiestc 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Wow! What a great nom and answers!!!!! Captain panda In vino veritas 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support: Useful around various help channels. Always seems to keep a cool head - considering ais is "ice" in Malay, I wouldn't be surprised. x42bn6 Talk 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Nothing but positive experiences (for e.g. proved invaluable in getting the technical side of WP:AFDC off the ground). Strong support. El_C 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Weak Support Lack of article writing is a bit of a concern, but I've seen the candidate around the 'pedia quite a bit and his good-natured demeanour makes him well-suited for becoming an admin. Also, I can see no reason why he'd ever intentionally misuse the buttons gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support a strong candidate who will benefit from the extra tools. Good luck, Gwernol 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Clearly a well-qualified candidate with a wide range of experience and community confidence. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support clearly good choice.-- danntm T C 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Trustworthy with plenty of relevant experience. WjBscribe 02:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. I've been waiting for this for a while now :) Daniel Bryant 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oh hell yeah. Can't believe this is a self-nom.... – Riana ঋ 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support S. Miyano 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support seems like a good choice, across the board. - Denny 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support —Ruud 12:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Excellent candidate; cliche moment. Xoloz 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Yeah okay. -Lapinmies 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, usual cliches apply. --kingboyk 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support This user will be a good admin, no doubt about it. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support, for obvious reasons. Inkbottle 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Woah! Great and detailed nom (and the fact that you are a great user). Cbrown1023 talk 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support John254 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 00:54Z
  43. Support I'm not thrilled about it, but if you can do admin work that other people can't or won't do, by all means go ahead. YechielMan 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Great answers, not afraid or unwilling to admit mistakes, willing to learn. IMHO great qualities in an admin. Wikidenizen 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I can't tell you helpful this guy has been in my short time on here. He really goes out of his way to be helpful. Aaron Bowen 17:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. SupportHe is a wonderful Wikipedian. I totally trust him as an admin. --Meno25 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, my observations of him have been overwhelmingly positive, and he has a strong understanding of policy. --tjstrf talk 19:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Strong support I've seen this user around and I am impressed by the edits. As this is a self-nomination, and Ais523 obviously put a lot of work into this nomination, I am even more impressed. Acalamari 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strong Support He is a great editor. I have full trust that he will not abuse his tools. he also has a need for them:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support good user, great administrator potential. gidonb 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Very helpful editor. Example: the helpful coding provided at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext, provided just when needed. There's no red flags with ais523, and a need for the tools. — coelacan — 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. Level-headed editor who would use the tools well. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Per nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - Good self-assessment, strong desire to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, experienced, and trustworthy. Ais523, I am happy to support your RfA. -- Jreferee 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Ais523 most definitely gets my support. James086Talk | Email 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support You've been around since I can remember; I'm not surprised if you've helped me once or twice at the Help Desk (and very un-bitishly I might add). :-) · AO Talk 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Very helpful & knowledgeable editor, must admit I assumed was an admin already. EliminatorJR Talk 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Why not?--Wizardman 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Seems a very competent and valuable member of the project. A slightly low mainspace count does not matter; there is more than enough there to show that he knows how to do it.--Anthony.bradbury 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support This user appears competant. My only concerns are that the user does not have weekend internet access and that the number of articles contributed is low.Atlas87 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) — Atlas87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  64. Support. I share concerns that the candidate's contributions to the mainspace are a bit on the low side, however, my observations have all been positive and so I am happy to support. Sarah 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support per Sarah's points, I think the actual number of edits isn't a concern especially in this case. Anynobody 06:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Mainspace edits are low, but everything else seems good.--$UIT 23:58, 27 March 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.