Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambush Commander

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] Ambush Commander

Final (59/1/0) ended 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambush Commander (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor on Wikipedia since August 15, 2004, and over this period of time, I have jumped from aspect to aspect in Wikipedia. In the past, I have created a few new articles (some of which I am more proud of than others), developed various technical tools for Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia related projects), worked on resolving a dispute on Time Cube, acted as an amateur photographer, done anonymous user RC patrol, fixed page moves gone wrong, helped out newcomers, rewritten leading sections, cleaned up after mass vandals, and participated in a contested (read meatpuppet-infested) AfD discussion. You could call me a "Jack of all Trades" but king of none. I have not participated in any really controversial disputes, I have never been a participant in an Arbitration case, I have not made major contributions to a featured article. and, a bit to my chagrin, I have not yet voted on the ArbCom elections (ah me...)

So then why the request for adminship? Beyond the extremely powerful tools of user blocking and page locking (hey, that rhymes), sysops have what amounts to a "mop": a useful rollback tool, the ability to police pages in the MediaWiki namespace against well-meaning fellow admins who don't know what they're doing and the ability to resolve botched page moves. Adminship, after all, is no big deal, and I don't expect to make regular use of any of these tools (well, maybe rollback, but only in cases of clear vandalism). But the ability to do these things means that I can serve the community much better when it is necessary.

A final note regarding edit counts and summaries. I have almost 3000 edits, but they were mostly made over an extended period of time at a much slower rate then many others. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination, so it goes without saying. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. gift vote-WearingSunglasses 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User blocked as suspected sockpuppet until reply is received. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 23:53
  2. Support, all interactions with this user have been positive, and I trust he'll use the admin tools judiciously. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. I like this user's attitude and edit sprawl. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I like him! -- Phædriel *whistle* 05:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Positive contributor, like the attitude, overpolite-to-newbies == good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, I like how he's nice to noobies. Swatjester 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 12:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 12:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support--Duk 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. King of All the Franks 17:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. --Mihai -talk 17:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Silensor 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks fine.--MONGO 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - Liberatore(T) 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks a well balanced user --pgk(talk) 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I frequently see intelligent comments followed by his signature. Martin 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - good, trustworthy user. Johntex\talk 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --NaconKantari 01:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support -- Sharpdust 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support good editor --rogerd 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support: --Bhadani 07:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support certainly  Grue  08:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 12:48Z
  32. Support, been around long enough to know what needs to be done, works on articles, has a toolserver account, and isn't one already?!?! Alphax τεχ 14:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - Bobet 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Sango123 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support DaGizzaChat (c) 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - Kafziel 04:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support no userboxes --Doc ask? 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support sounds good, good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Great work and good luck! Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Looks like a very good candidate. Thanks for respondign to my question. If you engage new users that well, you will do well indeed. DES (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support John Reid 14:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Everything looks good here. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support ~MDD4696 23:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support; everything looks good. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Thunderbrand 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Edit history looks good. No reason not to support.--Dakota ~ ε 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Jonathunder 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Izehar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Thryduulf 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support great contributor.cj | talk 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support definately...and I love your Wikipedia Status page too ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. It takes some chutzpah to self nominate. And I respect that. —A 05:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. Seems like a slam dunk. -Colin Kimbrell 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support I have no idea who you are, thus have no reason to oppose you--Piedras grandes 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support thought you were one! --Wikiacc 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sure we've already taken notice of this. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 84% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Ambush_Commander's edit count with Interiot's tool.

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. Given enough time, I am likely to try most of everything an admin can possibly do. Closing AfDs, investigating disruptive anons, handling speedys, resolving botched page moves, as well as participating more actively on the noticeboard (I engineered the great conversation purge of '05, but removed it from my Watchlist after seeing the page grow out of control... again.) Editing articles, of course, is the most important, but doing repetitive tasks can be soothing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I will leave it up to readers who thumb through my edit history and brief listing of stuff-I've-done to form their own opinions. Personally, I think the little things add up.
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. My sympathetic approach to anon/new editors has been slightly annoying to others at times. I restarted discussion in Time Cube in order to try to form consensus with a lone editor who had been warring over the article for the longest time. In this AfD, I played a very sympathetic role to those voting Keep, and help Keithlaw resolve disputes with the anon editors. I got into a minor scuffle when I was bold and moved Quantum Mechanics Basics to Basic quantum mechanics Basic Quantum Mechanics to Quantum mechanics (basic), but after some brief discussion, we decided to move it to Basics of quantum mechanics. I have popped, occasionally, into hugely disputed articles, and given my opinion, but I cannot say I was very emotionally attached or a significant contributor to the debate. I won't blame you for concluding I do not have very much experience dealing with controversy. I like to think that's because I keep a very neutral outlook during debates.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I only recently found out about the blatant vandal (and other hundred plus user warning) templates, so I have mostly been using test. I suppose blatant vandal would be if the user blanked the page and inserted a profane statement (or something like that). If it's an anon's first edit, I am most likely to simply give 'em the test template.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I have informally bound myself to the one revert rule, and I generally regard even two reverts extremely unproductive. However, because I wouldn't be able to block them due to the word of the 3RR, I would have to see if they were being disruptive (i.e. excessively unreasonable). So no, I wouldn't claim that they were violating the "spirit of the three revert rule", I would say "they are being disruptive."
6. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I haven't been on AfD enough to have gotten fed up with poorly written "nn" articles. When in doubt, nominate for deletion. I remember once I nominated something for deletion when it could have been speedied, and in the end, it was.
7. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. First, I try to determine whether or not the sockpuppet is actually a meatpuppet (This is important, because meatpuppets can become valued contributors). If there doesn't seem to be any way external users could be commenting en masse, I investigate the contributions of the user. Usually, I'd mark it user's first edit and leave it at that. This allows closing admins to take the user's history into account. This is about as far as I've ever gone. I don't like to call people sockpuppets, because it's better to let ten sockpuppets go than to call one valid user a sockpuppet. Let the facts speak for themselves.
8. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. It's more of a state of mind, a sort of habit. For me, it seems to come naturally when writing about stuff you have no interest in, but I find that you have to be a lot more judicious when you're closer to the topic. Get external help in that case.
9. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A. Is this an attempt to get more people to read the essay? ;-) Anyway... it doesn't seem like I previously had an opinion on "Ignore all Rules", but most of the time, I try not to ignore all rules (expecially in places like AfD). I can't really pass judgment on the essay yet because I haven't thought about it yet. My actions seem to say, however, that I am in agreement.
Response. In part it is, but msotly it is that I think the principles outlined in that essay are particularly important for those who are entrusted with admin powers. I would be uncomfortable supporting someone who totally disagreed with them, and supported unlimited and frequent application of IAR instead. Probably such a person is a straw man. But I really think that that candidates' reaction to this essay says something valuable about their qualification for adminship or at least that it may well do so. I plan to ask it of most candidates in future. DES (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. I have a question for you then: what's the difference between being bold and ignoring implied rules (consensus that has not been turned into a policy page)? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Partly a question of degree. IMO "Being bold" means acting when no consensus has been established, but does not mean acting when there is a reasonably clear consensus. Thus editing agaisnt consensus (say one developed on a talk page) is not being bold, it is being disruptive, or it may be. Also, I tend to restrict my approving use of "being bold" to editign contexts, not administrative ones. Other editors may disagree with this -- I do not clam that it is policy, althogh I think it has some support in WP:BOLD. DES (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I was fairly satisfied by your response, but I want to play devil's advocate a bit more. Does consensus "weaken" over extended periods of time without discussion? After all, things change, and what was agreed on six months ago may not be applicable now. I remember reading once on a userpage where the admin said: "Act with common sense first and let consensus catch up." Of course you shouldn't go off an move an article again when the previous title was decided only two days ago, but if the title has been that for a year, and the discussion was a year ago, is this being bold/ignoring rules in a good way? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Meh, you should be the one asking questions, not me. I believe in being bold, following freshly established consensus, and attempting to revive consensus before acting drastically against older, more ancient consensus. Consensus is not old/ancient if the tenets that come out of them are regularly cited or used in real life. If you feel like you can't get anyone to discuss the issue (have gone through all the usual ports like talk pages and village pump), act unilaterally but take responsibility for your boldness. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:09, 13 January 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.