Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Awolf002

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] Awolf002

Final (27/4/1) ended 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 (talk · contribs) – I am a member since February 2004, and contribute regularly. I decided to request adminship since I am currently the main contributor to Current science and technology events and I now need adminship to archive it monthly. Awolf002 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination. Awolf002 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support unless someone makes a bot to perform the archival. — David Remahl 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support, user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons for opposition are weak at best. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Excellent response to my question. If a Ph.D. wants admin privileges to do some specific tidying, it's fine by me. Xoloz 08:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, unlikely to abuse admin privileges. Let him do his job. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good editor. If he doesn't want to use the admin privileges it is his choice. Tintin 13:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support seems a valid reason. Izehar 13:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. We are an encyclopedia first, a community 2nd. Wikipedia namespace edits are not necessary to make the encyclopedia great. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:49
  8. Support Users don't have to be uber-active, in my mind, to warrant having the tools necessary to complete the jobs that they see themselves doing. I believe that every user has a niche that they fit into, and if this user has found their niche, then more power to them! --Martin Osterman 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The candidate may not expect to use admin powers often, but is clearly a good contributor and can be trusted with them.-gadfium 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. See my comments below. -- DS1953 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yes, please - the objections below are mild and some would say not particularly meaningful, as DS1953 says. Lupin|talk|popups 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support as per DS1953's comments, and my own expansion upon them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (edited 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
  13. Support Candidate has shown to be trustworthy, any small amount of admin duties this candidate does will be less that another admin will have to do --Rogerd 02:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support experts should be welcomed here.--MONGO 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. I really don't see the problem with people who focus on articles and plan to use their admin privileges very infrequently. Restraint is, after all, something quite a few of our existing admins could improve upon. --Michael Snow 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. The user explained perfectly clearly his lack of project edits--he is only requesting admin privileges for one specific function. He's obviously trustworthy, and he does indeed need to be an admin to perform the current events archiving, so I don't see the problem here. Chick Bowen 05:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Easy call. Trustworthy editor who needs the tools. Rx StrangeLove 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 06:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. --Aranda 56) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support This is a good editor, and not every administrator needs to be perfectly well rounded. –Joke137 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, clearly a "trusted user" who could make a more effective contribution with the admin tools. DS1953 sums it up well. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support per DS1953's comment regarding tools below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support per DS1953. WikiFanatic 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. He has made a good case that admin tools will help him to build a better encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Seems like a good editor who can be trusted. Also, I agree with Palmiro's and DS1953's arguments below- this isn't meant to be a "big deal". --G Rutter 15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support per DS1953's comments below. the wub "?!" 19:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose Good science editor but I dont like his responces especially number 1 and I also dont see this user very active in Wikipedia namespace which is a must for me --Jaranda(watz sup) 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

#Oppose per Aranda56. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 20:12, 1 December 2005 (CST)

#Weak Oppose as above, you have less than 25 Wikipedia-space edits in the last six months or so, that's quite poor. If you just ramp it up slightly, I think many of the opposers would gladly defect to support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per above. Quentin Pierce 02:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Only chore listed would be a once a month duty, not a heavy contributor. xaosflux T/C 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose per the above, sorry. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC) changed my vote per 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose- as above Astrotrain 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as above Olorin28 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages. If you want to become an admin for a once-a-month duty, I seriously advise that you reconsider.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to neutral.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: is there a set of requirements for what an admin must do? Do admins have a quota of tasks to perform? There is no limit to the number of admins, so why shouldn't someone who is trusted by the community (and crucially, nobody has suggested that this candidate isn't) have the tools if he can help the community with them, even in a restricted field? After all, it's meant to be "no big deal". Palmiro | Talk 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. The power to block users and delete articles is by definition a big deal, and we don't need more admins. As others have noted, Awolf isn't even offering to handle admin jobs. 202.58.85.8 07:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why do you need to be an admin to archive Current events pages?-gadfium 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
When trying to archive the Current event page to its respective month the "move" operation tries to overwrite the exisiting page, which is a redirect. This is no longer allowed for non-admin users. Awolf002 04:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You should be able to move a page over the top of a page which only redirects to the page being moved and which has no edit history. December 2005 is a redirect to Current events with no edit history. November 2005 in science does have a history, but it's all your work, so presumably such redirects in future will not.-gadfium 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, if practice makes perfect I should not need to edit this page before the "move". Still, each time I mess up I will come running to an admin, again... Awolf002 12:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • New question posted below. Xoloz 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We often refer to the admin tools as a "mop and bucket." I think a better analogy is a Swiss Army knife. Here we have a good, valuable and long-time editor coming to us and saying that he needs a pair of pliers and a Phillips screwdriver. We tell him that we have the tools he needs but that they are combined with other tools and that he doesn't really need an ice pick, pocket knife, tweezers or fish scaler (and consequently he may not have shown that he knows how to use those other tools, even though he has shown very good judgment in other matters). Therefore, despite the fact that we have a bottomless supply of Swiss Army knives, he should keep struggling to do his job without the two tools he needs. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me. -- DS1953 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As stated above I concur with this comment, and I find it dismaying that so many people are still opposing. The way I see it, giving him admin tools will have a positive effect on the project. Maybe only slightly positive, but who cares? Denying him admin tools means he will continue to have to ask the help of another admin to do this task which he is perfectly capable of and trustworthy to do (is anyone disputing this? I don't see it if so), time they could have spent doing those tasks that he does not have interest in doing. There is absolutely no requirement that admins engage in every task they are capable of, nor should there be. There is no quota, and so promoting him does not deny a place that could have been taken by someone who will more efficiently use the tools; I see no reason to not promote. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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.
As indicated I plan to help with archiving Current events pages in a monthly basis. I may consider other chores, if asked or they come to my attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased with helping to bring biographies of important scientists to WP. I also learned a lot during this (ongoing) work.
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 few 'spats' here and there. I try to focus on the issues regarding the article in question and to ignore attacks or grandstanding. I also do feel fine when voted down or persuaded by a good argument.
4. As of now, your responses to the above questions are a bit brief. Please consider expanding them, if possible. Please share your view on WP:IAR, for one thing, to help us understand exactly how much you plan on doing with admin powers?
Alright, I see that I might be an "unorthodox" candidate, since I do not seek "power" or "status" with my adminship. All I like to do is keep on working and improving WP, which I did with no problem up to now without adminship. However, with the latest restrictions on "move" operations I decided to request this privilege, so I can keep on serving the community. Serving is what I thought a candidate for adminship is striving for and that is my intention.
When you check my contributions you will find that I regularly revert vandalism on the pages I watch, trying to be nice to newbies at the same time. This can be done with no special powers and so (as many others do) I have served in this work and will do this in the future, whatever the outcome of this request. My first answer was meant to show my openness to new "chores" that would require special powers, of which I might be unaware.
Regarding "rules" in WP, my philosophy is to follow them as "precedent" as long as the outcome does not interfere with the goal to improve and expand WP. I approach these precedents with the assumption that somebody thought about them and that there are good reasons for them. If they clearly interfere with obvious progress, I would first try to find consensus for changing them, and most likely not just charge ahead. Being bold is good for article text and lively prose, but not necessarily for making or breaking rules.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.