Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ilmari Karonen 2

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] Ilmari Karonen

Final (31/0/2) ending 11:50 January 30, 2006 (UTC)

Ilmari Karonen (talk · contribs) – I originally nominated User:Ilmari Karonen for adminship two months ago, and he declined it saying he wasn't ready, although I thought he was. Now I'm nominating him again. Ilmari Karonen is a really great Wikipedia editor and has a great deal of knowledge about Finland-related topics. He has even corrected many mistakes I have made in Finland-related articles. JIP | Talk 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

OK, I'll accept this time. I'm not quite sure what those Finland-related articles are that JIP is referring to, but if he says I've corrected his mistakes, who am I to argue? In any case, I feel I've now been here long enough that I might try my hand with the mop without having to worry too much about knocking things over with it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. JIP | Talk 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - great also on user scripting. jnothman talk 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, on Mathbot's behalf. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, appears to have a fair distribution of edits over several months. --pgk(talk) 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Terence Ong 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I'll never forget the time Ilmari Karonen helped me out when he went out of his way to make Image:Mass-Spring-Damper.png for the article nondimensionalization. One of the first Wikipedians to help me out like that, and I've been here for some time now :-) I'm not familiar with all his contributions, but the ones that I notice are usually on the technical pages I frequent. His article additions are very well thought out, hence, I'm not concerned about the lack of namespace edits. Seems to be a character that's well mannered and mellow. --HappyCamper 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. — FireFox • T • 18:55, 23 January 2006
  9. Support seems good.  Grue  21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Latinus 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per nominater. -- Eddie 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, good choice! – Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Astrotrain 10:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Thorri 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Has fixed my semi-literate javascript. More than once. —Cryptic (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, no reason not to vote. IK has a demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies & procedures, and shows a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Mihai -talk 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support — a useful person to be equipped with the mop. --Gareth Hughes 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. King of All the Franks 01:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, --J. Nguyen 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support good editor --rogerd 04:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support--Bling-chav 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. A little light on the article edits, but not detrimentally so. Has demonstrated willingness to participate as someone we can trust in the community. enochlau (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support — Valuable Wikipedian. Will do great as admin.deeptrivia (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support: --Bhadani 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I particularly liked a couple of the answers to the questions. -- DS1953 talk 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral for the time being. The candidate's input in the main space is negligible: 671 edits [1]. That the candidate is "great on user scripts" is hardly an evidence of his fitness for admin chores. --Ghirla | talk 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral That makes me wonder too...I see a lot of activity on afd but there is more to life than deletion. Pschemp | Talk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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. Well, from time to time I've been doing new pages patrol, where a quick delete button could be handy for the most obvious cases ("mY TEACHER MISS JONES IS A POOPYHAED!!1!"). As an admin, I could also work the other end of the line, monitoring CAT:CSD. I've closed some AfD's that were speedied or otherwise prematurely concluded without proper closure, and could take a more active role in that process as well. Being able to edit the MediaWiki namespace could also be useful, since it would let me help more with things like moving hardcoded styles from templates to MediaWiki:Common.css.
More to the point, I'm always happy to do whatever odd jobs I happen upon and to respond to requests for assistance. I can't promise to be a hardworking admin; I edit Wikipedia because it's fun and because I feel I'm doing something useful, but I reserve most of my daily quota of hard work to those who pay me hard cash. But I can and do promise to be a helpful and cautious admin who will never wield his mop in anger and will always try to do that which needs doing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have some of these listed on my user page, so I'm just going to link there as an answer. In general, I feel most pleased when I can help someone solve a problem, answer a question or resolve a conflict. That's why I spend so much time on the reference and help desks and the village pump.
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 serious conflict I've got myself caught up in is the current "level 5" Babel box controversy ([2], [3], [4], [5] etc.), to resolve which I've recently started a policy proposal on meta. In fact, "caught up in" is exactly the right phrase here, since I had no prior involvement or interest in the issue whatsoever. This has, in some ways, been a good thing, since it has let me stay calm by taking a step back and telling myself: "It's just a userbox. It's not worth getting into a shouting match about." I'm a bit nervous with the proposal, since I've never set up a formal policy proposal before, but I hope the issue will eventually be resolved in a productive way. But even if it fails disastrously, I know Wikipedia will get along just fine anyway. That, I believe, is an important thing to keep in mind.
In general, I tend to stay out of heated conflicts. That doesn't mean I don't follow them, but I generally don't like to add to a heated debate unless I can be sure that my contribution will add more signal than noise, and help resolve the underlying issue. I've seen enough flamewars during my time on Usenet, and I've learned that there are situations where the smartest thing one can possible say is nothing at all. Watching the arguments, however, does occasionally provide useful insight into the minds of the participants, and sometimes, rarely, an outside observer may even find a way to reconcile the opposing viewpoints. The worst arguments usually, deep down, result from a fundamental misunderstanding of some sort, and sometimes that misunderstanding is one that can be observed and explained, at least once tempers have calmed down sufficiently. I haven't really had such luck on Wikipedia yet, but I've managed it a few times on Usenet. That's something that I'm truly proud of.

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 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Quoting from Template talk:Blatantvandal, {{bv}} "is intended for use where vandalism is extreme or obscene and not for newby tests and general silliness." I would only use it in cases where the vandalism has been extensive and where there is no possibility of it being anything other than deliberate. Plastering giant pictures of genitalia over a dozen pages might qualify.
A reasonable response. However, I'm asking this question mainly to see when (and why) you would use {{bv}} instead of {{test4}}. --Deathphoenix 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From looking at the template and its talk page, it looks to me as if {{bv}} isn't meant to replace {{test4}} so much as {{test1}}–{{test3}}. Still quoting the talk page, "It may be followed either by a block or by test4, depending on the level of subsequent vandalism." So, answering your question literally, I'd use bv instead of test4 in cases where the user had already been warned with bv and continued making blatant vandalism as described above. In such a case I'd consider the bv to have been sufficient warning, and block without using test4 first.
I notice that, in asking this question of other nominees, you've specified {{test1}} instead of {{test4}}. Is this intentional?
Yeah, it was intentional. test1 was too easy a question. test4 makes more sense. --Deathphoenix 12:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
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. The same as I would do if they'd sone it a few minutes earlier. Which, at least for a while, will probably involve contacting another admin and asking for guidance. I expect it'll take me a while to get used to the ability to block users, and I'm not planning on being too trigger happy with it. (Of course, blatant vandalism is a different matter; see above.)
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I'm not planning on deleting anything under CSD A7, however obvious, unless it's been tagged by another editor; two people are less likely to miss some relevant detail than just one. If I encounter a vanity biography on new pages patrol, I'll just tag it as usual and let another admin deal with it. If I spot what looks like an assertion of notability in an article tagged as A7, I'll send it to AfD instead. For borderline cases, the "speedy via AfD" route is to me perfectly reasonable, and ensures that more that two people get a look at it.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. With great care, and with an explanation on the talk page, if it's anything more than removing a gratuitous superlative. Actually, I'm somewhat puzzled by what this has to do with adminship, unless it's about the fact that I won't be using my admin powers in content disputes I'm involved in, however tempting it might feel.
NPOV is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Knowledge of this principle is a pretty good indicator of how suitable a candidate is for adminship. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. Slow servers. Really. It's not so bad now, but I remember a few months ago when it took me a minute or two just to add a speedy tag to an article. The endless arguments can be frustrating too, if one is personally involved, but when it gets too hot, I feel that the smart thing to do is to pull your head out of the fireplace, lay back and watch the flames from a safe and comfortable distance.


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.