Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrwsc

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] Andrwsc

Final (43/7/1); Ended Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:11:06 UTC

Andrwsc (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Andrwsc for adminship. I met him at the flag templates and we have been working together over the last weeks. Andrew communicates very well and precise over complicated things and is able to handle "hotter" situations with great respect for the participants and for the details of the matter (example). I believe Andrwsc has a good on-board antenna for gauging consensus and can be trusted to do the right thing. He is calm and level-headed. I would expect Andrwsc to help with the admin side of stuff like the flag templates (protecting high use templates, editing protected templates, deletes etc). But I believe he is also good at defusing complicated situations for example in the area of sports related articles, which he has a considerable experience with. Dear Wikipedians, please take a closer look at Andrwsc and tell us what you think. Thanks in advance for your participation in this discussion and thanks to Andrwsc for accepting to go through his first RfA. --Ligulem 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept Ligulem's nomination.
I have been a Wikipedia editor for just over a year, and have spent the majority of my time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics related articles, mostly because the subject matter appeals to me, but also because I see a massive project that needs a lot of help to improve the overall quality of those articles. At heart, I am somewhat of a perfectionist and I have a keen attention to detail, and I think that both of these qualities are good for Wikipedia. I have also spent a lot of time working on various templates, as I see a lot of places where more elegant solutions ought to be considered relative to current practices. Andrwsc 21:24, 21 February 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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I intend to spend most of my time with "cleanup" chores, especially things like speedy deletions and template work. I have already been doing a lot of these tasks, but only so far as a non-admin can do. I especially like the whole WP:PROD concept, and would probably spend a lot of time there, deleting proposed pages I also strongly agree with. I already often revert vandalism on pages on my watchlist, and I usually follow the trail of other pages vandalized by those same users and revert those, so I would hope that I would be more efficient with admin tools to help me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As I've mentioned, I have spent a lot of time on Olympic-related articles, so my biggest contributions are certainly in that area. I changed the internal working of the {{flagIOC}} template and created {{flagIOCathlete}} etc. to help with the consistent formatting of Olympic results articles. I created the {{Infobox Country Olympics}} template to put a consistent infobox on about 3000 articles such as Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I have created many articles for past Games (e.g. Canoeing at the 1972 Summer Olympics) so that there now exists a complete set of articles for each Games. I got the ball rolling with articles in the Lists of Olympic medalists series, which are now almost complete and possibly ready for featured list 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 have been involved in edit conflicts several times this past year, but have always tried to be civil and respectful. I think the most notable instances were on the Olympic sports and Ice hockey at the Olympic Games articles, as both times were with a noted vandal, Roitr. In each instance (as you can see from the respective talk pages), I tried my best to appeal to rational sense and find some consensus, even after some other editors had given up dealing with Roitr. I believe in the power of consensus on Wikipedia, and would always try to reach it in any editing disputes I was involved in.
Optional 4. What will you do with PRODded articles where you don't "strongly agree"? What should be the reviewing administrator's standard in reviewing PRODs? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A. PROD is used for uncontroversial deletions, and if I don't "strongly agree", that means that I have some reservation about whether I think it could be controversial. I would either leave it alone (if less than five days have elapsed), or apply an appropriate tag if I felt it was salvageable. Moving from PROD to AFD is another option, mostly to get some more recorded opinions. A reviewing editor needs to apply all the same criteria as if it were on AFD, but since he/she has the ability to immediately delete the article, he/she needs to be certain that consensus on a hypothetical AFD would have been to delete the article. Andrwsc 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional 5. Suppose there's an article about a convicted rapist which cites one or two news articles in the local papers - every convicted rapist gets media coverage. Someone PRODs it, saying, "I know he technically meets WP:BIO, but I really don't think it's good for us to glorify this run of the mill rapist with publicity". It's been five days and nobody has objected. You're reviewing the PRODs that day. What do you do? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A. To be honest, I don't think that situation actually meets biographic notability. Wikipedia is not a news archive, so unless the rapist otherwise meets encylopedic notability, and not just newsworthy status, I would agree with the PROD. I would especially agree if nobody objected within five days, including the article's original creator (assuming he/she was notified of the PROD notice). Andrwsc 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5.1. What exactly do you mean, Wikipedia is not a news archive? If multiple newspapers cover someone, doesn't that person become "notable"? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A I agree with a statement in Wikipedia:Notability (news): A major crime, sensational event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify an appearance in the news, but may not be of encyclopedic importance. Andrwsc 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5.2. Would you delete PRODs where the author was not notified? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A Maybe. Some of the articles in PROD should probably have been tagged as speedy deletes instead, and I would have no problem deleting those ones despite the creator not having been informed. Andrwsc 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support. --Ligulem 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Looks like a good user. Probably will use the tools wisely.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Whenever I've met this wikipedian, I've been favourably impressed by his civility and dedication to the project.--Aldux 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per sensible answers to questions. Awyong J. M. Salleh 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Great answers, good user. Though this user only has 133 project edits, they already demonstrate an understanding of the processes. bibliomaniac15 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I've never believed that low Wikipedia namespace edits means infamiliarity woth process. I can understand the US Constitution, although I was a few hundred years too late to "edit" it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    The key difference is that the US Constitution is not a wiki; a wiki must be understood by doing, as well as reading. Xoloz 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    I know you feel that is a key difference, I however, do not. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Riding a bike is learning by doing (more so than a wiki), yet if you want to know whether someone can ride, you don't count up how many hours they've been practicing. The number of edits required to "understand" varies so tremendously from person to person that it is an utterly terrible metric by which to judge any particular candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. I've worked extensively with Andrewsc on many Olympic pages and find him to be very pleasant to work with. He's done a great job in standardizing a large set of pages, and he's also very good at building consensus. --Sue Anne 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Chensiyuan 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Excellent answers to questions and fine record of contributions. Unconvincing arguments from oppose voters. A Train take the 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Weak support good record of contributions. Quite low project space contributions but adminship isn't a big deal and that doesn't mean you don't have a grip of the policies. Not likely to abuse the tools. - Anas Talk? 14:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Edit history looks clean. Opposition presents no compelling rationale; the candidate's record indicates satisfactory familiarity with Wikipedia policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Polite, not likely to abuse the tools. If an editor can accumulate 14,000 edits on a variety of projects without raising any significant ruckus, then that editor probably has enough good sense not to do something dumb with the buttons. If, in that many edits, there isn't any evidence of a lack of familiarity with policy, I'd say that calling for a jump through the you-must-have-x-thousand-Wikipedia-space-edits hoop is unnecessary. I trust that this editor will bring the same care and attention to detail to adminship that he has so far employed in his extensive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per TenOfAllTrades. --Fang Aili talk 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. TenOfAllTrades is right. If this guy can accumulate 14,000 edits without making Wikipedia explode, I think he can handle a few extra buttons without making Wikipedia explode. I'm all for it. ♠PMC♠ 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I have interacted with Andrwsc as he tried to overhaul the Olympic project to make it more uniform. Talk about a thankless job, having to interact with many users who have different views. I was one of those that disagreed. He was patient and discussed my issues using logic. We very easily found a compromise solution. While this user may not be familiar will the exact WP policies he is not the kind of user who will use admin powers to bludgeon his opposition. In my experience he is very willing to learn. Given the prominience of the Olympic project it will be very useful to have admins active in this area. I trust this user not only to use the tools wisely but also to familairise himself with policies as the necessity arises. In my view, adminship is much more about maturity and wisdom; this user has plenty of that. David D. (Talk) 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. No evidence here that Andrwsc can't be trusted with the buttons. If he wants to delve into policy, he can learn it as necessary. -- SCZenz 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - excellent user, strong familiarity with policy, good answers to questions. All of the oppose votes are ridiculous and pedantic - this user has over 14,000 edits overall and has demonstrated very strong familiarity with deletion policy and other relevant areas. Support, with reprimand to everyone who voted Oppose. Walton monarchist89 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Olympic support! I've edited with this user and been in collaboration for a long time and if there's one person who deserves adminship, it's Andrwsc. The user has devoted much time into bettering the Olympic-related articles, etc. └Jared┘┌talk┐  19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. (side note to candidate ... people usually get stroppy when you respond to all the opposes, just leave them be wrong). Yes, I think they are wrong to oppose. Proto ► 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. BuickCenturyDriver supports you. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. I trust this user to make good use of the extra buttons. Prolog 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I think you know Wikipedia policy, and I think you will be a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - great work on Olympic content. He's also very measured in his work so I don't think he'll do anythign adventurous. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support The reasons in the nomination, the answers, and a look at the nominee's record have me convinced. Agent 86 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support good record, good answers.-- danntm T C 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - why not? --BigDT 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Looks like a good editor who should be a good admin. Plus, there is NOTHING in the oppose votes that even remotely suggests that this editor might misuse the admin bit. BlankVerse 12:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I see nothing bad. Thin perhaps in some areas but I have confidence in the editor's good faith and abilities. PigmanTalk to me 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Good editor. Garion96 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. "Weak Support' Per above ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs) 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. He's been here long enough that he should know what not to do with the tools. More projectspace experience is nice, but in this case it's not essential. BryanG(talk) 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per Nomination and BryanG. While the number of project space edits is small, they all demonstrate a good understanding of policy and common sense. JoshuaZ 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support; TenOfAllTrades and BlankVerse put it well. Unlikely to misuse tools. Picaroon 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. An excellent record, good answers, plenty of persuasive supporting arguments, and, conversely, no coherent reason not to give Andrwsc sysop rights. That's easy enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support (changed from Oppose) I had concerns, but the responses to my concerns below allow me to feel comfortable that the candidate will use care before using the tools outside of the template space. --After Midnight 0001 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. PeaceNT 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I think some of the oppose/neutral commenters raise reasonable concerns but I find Ligulem's articulate comments persuasive, particularly since this candidate has other plans for adminship than closing XfDs initially. I'm confident Andrwsc will be a good admin. --A. B. (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Level headed and won't abuse the tools. Dragomiloff 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. 133 projectspace contributions, incl. many to Wikiprojects, is a solid indication that user is unfamiliar with process. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure I understand how you drew that conclusion. Do you think 133 is too high or too low? Most of my edits to Wikipedia namespace are for contributions to TFD or AFD discussions, and the vast majority of Wikipedia_talk edits are for discussion around various work proposals for the respective collaborative teams. In either instance, I fail to see how I have demonstrated any unfamiliarity with Wikipedia process. Have I nominated too many or too few templates for deletion? Please clarify your objection. Thanks, Andrwsc 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per his post in response to the first oppose. Anyone who asks the questions 'did I vote on too many AfDs' is not ready for adminship. KazakhPol 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It was a rhetorical question. I'm trying to understand why Tragic Baboon has placed some significance on my 133 projectspace edits. Clearly I don't subscribe to "editcountitis" — in any namespace. Andrwsc 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Apologies for adding noise here, but I would just like to point out that Andrwsc's edits are of high precision (see for example this huge perfect one-shot edit). I for one would need two to five edits for the same result (ok, I know, I'm at the other end of that scale :-). --Ligulem 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Tragic Baboon. At certain very low levels, "editcountitis", normally a pejorative, becomes synonymous with "good common sense." 133 project-space edits presents such a case. I will be happy to support once the record demonstrates candidate is well-versed in wiki-process. Xoloz 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have never been an active browser of WP:AFD, offering my opinions on articles that I would have otherwise not cared about. When I do participate in those discussions, I usually offer a reasonably constructive comment, such as in this edit. I have proposed templates and articles for deletion several times (such as some here and here), which I think demonstrates my understanding of process better than a simple count of how many edits I have in Wikipedia namespace. It seems as though I would have a more impressive "resume" if I had a few hundred "delete per nom" edits. Andrwsc 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    A 14,000 count editor not being familiar with Wikpedia policy seems like an odd thing to try and prove. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    With automated edits now proliferating, big numbers aren't so impressive. If a candidate wants to work PROD -- as here -- he needs to know AfD well. Deletion standards are a subtle thing, and one can only fully learn about them by seeing AfDs at work. The candidate's answer to the "Notability (news)" question isn't very thorough, and is exactly what I would expect from someone who hasn't seen the arguments at AfD, which appear all the time. Xoloz 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Changed to Support You seem to be a highly prolific editor, but I see no body of work at either XFD or AIV. If you are reverting vandalism, I should expect to see some posting at AIV or at least some warnings being issued by you on User talk pages, which I don't. Additionally, I'm not sure that I really see a need for the tools from your answer to the first question, excepting for possible edits to protected templates. --After Midnight 0001 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    I see the need for the tools in the area of templates alone, that's why I proposed Andrwsc for adminship. Please dive into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, with deep links for example to category:country data templates. There we have hundreds of templates some of which are used on thousands of articles (and thus protected). Andrwsc has a very good understanding of these templates and I have deleted/protected/edited a lot per his suggestions. Take a look at my admin log to get some idea what's going on there with the admin bits. Some help over there *alone* would definitely be good for the project. Adminship doesn't deal with XFD or AIV alone. Such a huge project can benefit from some specialist admins. However, do not assume I want to attack or discredit your oppose. If it is needed I will nominate Andrwsc in six months or so again (if we are both still active then). --Ligulem 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    After Midnight, as per your request below, I'll add my response here too. First, this is obviously my first attempt at adminship, and I have never spent much time reviewing other RfA pages, so I was unaware of any hidden "protocol" with respect to my responses - or lack of them - on this page. It never occured to me that I would "off-put" anybody; I thought that additional clarification and/or comments would be helpful. Second, to address your specific opposition comments, I should have been a bit clearer in my response to question 1. I was swayed by the suggestion to look at administrator's backlog for tasks to do. To be honest, I've never spent much time browsing XfD proposals, nor been seriously active fighting vandalism (other than speedily reverting obvious vandalism on the pages on my watchlist), nor do I really intend to start doing that if I had admin tools. I think I would occasionally browse the prod list and speedy list and quickly delete stuff that looks totally uncontroversial, so I included that in my response. What I should have emphasized more was my desire to be more efficient at the work that I am already doing. That means that having extra tools to enable me to deal with protected templates, to speedy delete stuff left over after uncontroversial page renames, etc. I can alleviate the burden of existing admins by doing those things myself instead of merely tagging articles or posting requests. Finally, I should comment that I believe the RfA process is really answering the question "do we trust this user with the extra power?" I would think that the quality of my work, plus the way in which I have dealt with conflict and tried to reach consensus, more than adequately demonstrate to my peers that I have a lot of energy and passion for this project and the maturity to be trusted. Andrwsc 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all of the above. Dionyseus 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not enough experience esp with process in addtion to off color comments per KazakhPol. NeoFreak 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    In response to the latter point: Since this is not a vote, a response and a discourse about the key oppose concerns are needed in order to work towards consensus. This is in no way meant to disparage opposes in any way. Strong early opposes during the RfA do have a considerable influence on the RfA as a whole. If RfA were a mere voting, then this wouldn't be possible. --Ligulem 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm aware RfA is note a vote. I was stating my opinion as a member of the community in agreeing, in part, with another editors statements. How is this not working toward establishing a consensus? NeoFreak 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't say you do not intend to build consensus and I sure respect every contribution here. But I just disagree with the concept, that candidates who reply in their RfA to an oppose shall be inappropriate for adminship (a part of your oppose). However, I do respect the community here, and if it is that what the community feels is needed about adminship (enough edits in namespace X) then that will be it. The outcome of this is that some suitable candidates are delayed and that their on-wiki-time is shortened, because most people don't stay forever here on this wiki. Andrwsc will sure pass in 6 months or so (when he has enough edits in namespace X and Y and his is still here). I just fail to see how that will make him more wiki-mature. It will just shorten his Wiki-lifetime as an admin (most people leave Wikipedia at some point in time, some of them spend their final few months as an admin). --Ligulem 09:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    It can be somewhat off-putting (at least to me) if the candidate replies to every oppose, especially because sometimes you can see the opposers attacked for voicing a potentially negative opinion (which did not happen in this case). In this case, I would actually like a response to the concerns that I expressed (either on this page or on my talk page). --After Midnight 0001 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. I wrote a response at your oppose post above. --Ligulem 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Spend some time in the Wikipedia space for a while. Spend a couple of months there to make sure you have a strong grasp of policy. --- RockMFR 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Xoloz. Admins who plan to delete need to have the requisite experience in deletion forums. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I can't support someone with that few projectspace edits, but you seem to be a very good contributor so I'm not going to oppose.--Wizardman 19:04, 28 February 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.