Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IanManka

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] IanManka

Final (54/6/1) ended 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

IanManka (talk · contribs) – Ian's been on Wikipedia since June 2005, and has over 3,600 edits, among which include 1330 mainspace edits. He's helped on one featured article – FIFA World Cup (Incidentally, the 2006 FIFA World Cup starts today), and one featured list – 2006 NFL draft. He meets my very stringent requirements, and I don't believe he'll misuse the tools. NSLE (T+C) at 08:58 UTC (2006-06-09)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. IanManka 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support -- Looks like a good user. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Naconkantari 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support despite misspelling "graciously" in the acceptance ;) --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. NSLE (T+C) at 15:20 UTC (2006-06-09)
  5. Support pretty much whoever NSLE nominates. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Much experience, looks good to me. hackmiester 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Very good editor with more than enough experience; all around excellent fellow. Also, has an impressive block log.--Sean Black 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. 2 FA speak for themselves. --Tone 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support ForestH2
  10. Support 2FA! zOMG! Computerjoe's talk 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support civil and patient editor. Aguerriero (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support A pleasure to work with. Oldelpaso 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Pleasently surprised by the answer. Yanksox 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support - actions speak for themselves -- Tawker 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - an excellent editor who has done some really good work on the FIFA World Cup article, the answers given below are also very good. Rje 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support An exceptional editor. 2 FAs contribution is an outstanding achievement. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. More-FAs-Than-I'll-Ever-Achieve Support :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 20:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per nom. I had not seen or heard of this editor before, but on reading this nomination and checking him out, I was pleasantly pleased and think this person will do a fine job. Agent 86 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support--digital_me(t/c) 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, no reason to view him as untrustworthy. Republishing such trivial logs is a silly thing to hold against him. (Really, is it likely that Rob Church and I would have been willing to answer someone's question on IRC, but not answer the exact same question on the wiki?) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Definitely. DarthVader 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, per nomination. --Mhking 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, Per nominations above. '''*Daniel*''' 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good collaborator, decent all round contribs. 2 FAs are impressive. Can't find any reason to oppose, so its a thumbs up for a fine editor. Rockpocket
  29. Support --Terence Ong 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, meets my criteria. Kalani [talk] 08:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Ian is another one of the Good Guys. Just zis Guy you know? 14:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy (roger that) 16:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Don't jinx it! Kilo-Lima|(talk)
  33. Support - Good user. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Merovingian {T C @} 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support looks good. Trustworthy. Agree with nom and the many positive comments to date. -- Samir धर्म 04:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Seems a good user has made many good contributions to Wikipedia and seems to have a level head. -- Adamcobb T 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Seems like a perfectly good user. Kind, good contributions. Sergeant Snopake 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions and loads of good edits and civil chat. Also, a big fat Endorse to what you say about the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal - keep up the good work, Mr RobChurch. Happy birthday, and, since we're talking about football, Eng-er-land! --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - Kingjeff 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. I know from working with this user outside Wikipedia that he possesses all the qualities he needs to be a good admin, plus I've seen his great work on the various football-related articles - he's a betterment to the encyclopedia and perfectly worthy of the mop. —Pedriana 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support — The King of Kings 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support The prohibition against IRC logs is a wrongheaded policy meant to defend people who use IRC wrongfully. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, have worked with him. Conscious 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Don't know that well; left birthday message a day ago. However, great contribs to Wikipedia as already stated, and appreciative as well. Thistheman 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, I have briefly interacted with Ian before, and have only good things to tell from my experience. Phædriel >♥ tell me - 13:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Joe I 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support: Given his edit history on a football-related featured article, I asked User:IanManka for his views on an External Link dispute. His reply was thoughtful, prompt and referenced to the appropriate Wikipolicy. No hesitation whatsoever in adding my support. - Stevecov 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Good contributor. With 3,500 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin. Jordy 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support--Jusjih 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support: not only on account of 1FA but for various other reasons too. Strangely, some of our friends opposing nominations of others for not meeting 1FA standard have failed to turn up to support this nomination. Do some of us are using 1FA and/or any other such standard to justify their oppose, whereas the real reasons and rationale may be known to them only. Strange are the ways of we the wikipedians! --Bhadani 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. An admin should be able to follow instructions when they're as obvious as "Reminder that publishing of logs will be met with a permanent ban from all Wikimedia-associated IRC channels." in the topic of the channel. Low number of real projectspace edits compounds this. --Rory096 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, for god's sake. IRC is not Wikipedia, the users concerned don't give a toss that their log fragment was posted (at least, Simetrical has stated he doesn't care, and I am quite happy to allow that fragment to be used as evidence that the user's blankings were accidental). Why the hell must you crawl all over him for a mistake made in good faith? robchurch | talk 21:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    In this instance, he did get permission, though after he did it. Still, the topic clearly said not to post logs; it's like someone opposing because somebody didn't read the "put new nominations on top." Admins should be able to follow directions. --Rory096 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Can anyone explain me what does "publishing of logs" mean? And what's the problem with that? I don't understand this issue. Sorry if I seem too stupid, I just want to understand this. Afonso Silva 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    IanManka posted logs of the #wikipedia IRC channel earlier, while the topic of the channel said "Reminder that publishing of logs will be met with a permanent ban from all Wikimedia-associated IRC channels." --Rory096 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'll make myself very clear - do not disrupt Wikipedia. NSLE (T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-06-010)
    Not quite sure how Rory is disrupting Wikipedia. Also, Rory, could you provide more information on this incident you speak of, as in where he posted it, and why he posted logs? Pepsidrinka 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, found it through the page history. Pepsidrinka 03:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Wait a second, what? How am I disrupting Wikipedia? --Rory096 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Why can't we be friends? Rory was just trying to make a point (NOT this kind), and he was just outlining his reasons. No matter how much one agrees or disagrees with it. That is no reason to say that he is disrupting Wikipedia. That's what this guy is for. Yanksox 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Users are reminded that others are entitled to their opinions, and to express them as support or opposition for any candidate, without being subjected to intense questioning and threats. There is nothing inappropriate about Rory's comments, he is entitled to his opinion and to express it here in peace; how to count it is a matter for the closing bureaucrat to decide. Long threads challenging oppose voters are in the vast majority of cases equally if not more disruptive than the comments they challenge. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well put Essjay.--Andeh 07:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reluctant Oppose. Seems like an quality editor and good person. I am, however, troubled by the few project space edits outside of Hangman and would also like to see more edits on Talk pages. Eluchil404 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Pepsidrinka 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. No offense, seems like a nice person. However, admins often come into conflict with people. The solution to this is to be polite and respect to opinions of your opponents when in conflict, not to walk away, depriving Wikipedia of your opinion and reducing consensus. Can you simply walk away every time someone opposes an administrative decision you make? I don't think that would work very well. I do not mean to say you should stick to one side and refuse to change your mind or compromise, merely that you should try to work it out. I also do not mean to say I think conflict on Wikipedia is necessarily good, however, as long as guidelines such as WP:ASG, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are followed, conflicts can help build consensus. I do not mean to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with "walking away", as it does at least avoid the negative aspects as conflict, merely that it is impractical for a Admin. Please do not take offense, you seem like a nice person. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 03:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all above. Roy A.A. 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per others. SushiGeek 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral concerned at his block log, looks like the user was blocked accidently. Anyone have an explanation for this?--Andeh 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'd say it was Curps' bot, while Curps was offline, making a mistake. NSLE (T+C) at 16:29 UTC (2006-06-09)
    Striked out per explanation from NSLE. Still investigating users edits :-).--Andeh 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sticking with neutral as a lot of his edits past and present appear to be playing wiki hangman game. He is great editor and contributor but an admin that is playing hangman seems a bit odd to me.--Andeh 16:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't know stress-relievers were illegal for admins. NSLE (T+C) at 16:55 UTC (2006-06-09)
    Why does having fun on Wikipedia seem weird? I don't think playing Hangman games has any negative impact on be becoming an admin. In fact, it only encourages me to be a consistent contributor to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge. Am I missing something here? If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well if all admins played hangman it'd be a bit silly. I was just a little concerned how many hangman edits contributed to your edit count. My vote is subject to change in the future.--Andeh 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't, but when at least half of your projectspace contribs are hangman.... --Rory096 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Curpsbot didn't make a mistake BTW, IanManka did. --Rory096 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    The minor mistake is unavoidable.--Andeh 21:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    According to User:Robchurch, there is a bug when Mozilla Firefox, Google Toolbar, and Microsoft Windows mix. The bug cuts off large text boxes (such as those found in Wikipedia) at approximately 4096 characters. I fixed the problem by uninstalling Google Toolbar, per Robchurch's suggestion. Boxes have stopped cutting off since. A copy of the log of the Wikipedia IRC channel is listed below. If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have already disregarded this as mistakes are unavoidable anyway, even if they weren't caused by the user.--Andeh 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. Very few projectspace edits. --Rory096 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Changing to oppose. --Rory096 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's contributions.Voice-of-All 04:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user IanManka (over the 3652 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 337 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 10, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 8, June, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 98.72% Minor edits: 99.88%
Average edits per day: 28.2 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 297 edits) : Major article edits: 98.7% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3652 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.33% (12)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 7.42% (271)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 16.46% (601)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1453 | Average edits per page: 2.51 | Edits on top: 16.37%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 11.5% (420 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 68.04% (2485 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.95% (327 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 11.5% (420 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 36.5% (1333) | Article talk: 4.93% (180)
User: 8.43% (308) | User talk: 25.27% (923)
Wikipedia: 18.73% (684) | Wikipedia talk: 1.51% (55)
Image: 0.14% (5)
Template: 3.29% (120)
Category: 0.3% (11)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.9% (33)
  • I can confirm that the accidental blanking was probably due to a currently unsolved bug whereby the Google toolbar for Firefox causes cut-offs in text boxes with MediaWiki. robchurch | talk 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See IanManka's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Tool2 count as of 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC):
Username IanManka
Total edits 3627
Distinct pages edited 1501
Average edits/page 2.416
First edit 11:51, June 8, 2005
 
(main) 1330
Talk 179
User 304
User talk 921
Image 5
Template 120
Template talk 33
Category 11
Wikipedia 669
Wikipedia talk 55

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: WP:AIAV, of course. I would also assist with closing _fD pages. WP:RM is another area I'd work on: I have been frustrated to learn that moves could take a long while. Also, if any Football/FIFA World Cup-related articles needed some sort of administrator help, I would be more than willing to help. I would also assist any user who needed administrator assistance. This is by no means a comprehensive list. I will attempt to use admin duties to the best of my ability to wherever help is needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As NSLE mentioned in my nomination, I have helped one article (FIFA World Cup, main page on June 9, 2006) and (2006 NFL Draft) get to featured status. I am also pleased with FIFA World Cup hosts, an article that I built from the ground up. I also created {{User:One/Userboxes/User independent}}, which has 214 users using the box. For a full list of contributions and whatnot, you can go to my user page.
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: The only true edit conflict/dispute I have had was with User:Ace Class Shadow regarding an internal link of Spider-Man 3. I had changed a link from New York, NY to New York City (diff - my computer had accidentally logged me out). I was then told that there was No need to avoid a redirect, and pointless edits are bad example to others. Plus, this sort of editting is not NPOV by Ace Class Shadow. I took a short Wikibreak and left a note on Ace Class Shadow's talk page (conversation archived here and here). However, I did not remove the page off of my watchlist for some odd reason. I noticed a link that had a redirect on said page, and changed it so that it would avoid a redirect (Cleveland to Cleveland, Ohio, diff). Ace Class Shadow reverted again, stating You didn't "fix" anything. There's nothing wrong with redirects. Now knock it off. This IS merely your POV rather than an attempt at improving the article. User:TheKoG reverted the revert, stating Revert, there's nothing POV about User:IanManka's edits. Avoiding redirects is always a good idea. Ace Class Shadow reverted User:TheKoG's edit, saying Changing the link this way is not only POV but selecive misinformation (lying). Changing it back. Learn to admit when you're wrong, you'll be better for it. A flurry of debate ensued (found here). When the debate began on the article's talk page, I did the smartest thing I could do: I just ignored it, and went away from the article.
Since this was my first edit conflict, I did a lot of things that probably weren't recommended, such as hanging around the article and restarting the edit war, both of which I regret. However, I did do one good thing in this conflict: I contacted the user on his talk page, and I attempted to resolve the situation -- something I have done in the past and continue to do today. In retrospect, I am thankful for this mini-edit war because it taught me some good approaches for Wiki-conflict. I know now to just (1) walk away and (2) don't inflame the situation worse!

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What do you think is the biggest burden facing Wikipedia? Specifically, how could you as an admin fix it? Yanksox 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe that not allowing established, registered editors to edit from blocked IPs is the biggest burden facing Wikipedia. I sometimes edit from an IP that has been blocked 13 or 14 times, and the IP is currently under a block until August. I feel that the frustration registered users face when their IP address is blocked is a big let-down. It could possibly deter potential contributors (250-750 edits) from editing becuase of some nameless person vandalizing Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal is going in the right direction with proposing semi-blocks. I feel that established users (250+ edits, a few months of experience) should be able to edit from blocked IP addresses. As for "how can I fix it," I really don't have a valid response. I think that developing semi-blocks would be great for the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

5. Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It would depend on the situation. I think that the said admin should at least be contacted regarding whatever situation arises, and then the admin can respond with his/her thoughts, reasons, etc. of why he/she deleted/blocked a page/user. If the explanation is acceptable (or at least reasonable), the admin shouldn't be held accountable. However, if the explanation is unacceptable, or the block/deletion unreasonable, the admin should get a warning of some sort. If the same admin does the same action again, and offers an unacceptable explanation, then their admin powers should be put into question. I'm not entirely sure if I answered your question to your satisfaction, but if I haven't, let me know. If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:30, 9 June 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.