Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ioeth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Ioeth

Final (40/1/3); Ended 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ioeth (talk · contribs) - I first encountered Ioeth on New Page Patrol, finding that he was doing a very thorough job of tagging articles and, more importantly, notifying the creators. Further examination revealed a diligent and conscientious editor who is civil, never bites the newbies, and cares a great deal about improving the project. To that end, he's created a set of JavaScripts (WP:FRIENDLY) to enable other users to more easily welcome new users -- something Wikipedia definitely needs. He's been a consistently active editor since May of this year, and despite his working on some of the most thankless tasks (e.g., new page patrol, recent change patrol), his enthusiasm hasn't diminished. Ioeth is a polite, dedicated, and responsible editor who will only continue to benefit the project if given the admin tools. -- Merope 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, with Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal in mind. Thank you for the nomination and the kind words (and convincing me to accept), Merope! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I suppose that most of my experience on Wikipedia is dealing with vandalism (and inappropriate content) in its various forms, so I can say with certainty that I intend to participate in speedy deletions, proposed deletions, articles for deletion and categories for discussion. Having seen users become large problems in a very short period of time, I can say with certainty that I also intend on participating in vandalism intervention, inappropriate usernames, sockpuppets and page protection.
Although I think the areas I previously mentioned account for the bulk of what admins do, I would also like to participate in more collaboration oriented areas where administrative experience is key, such as DYK factoids, the help desk, new contributor help, and the village pump.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think that my best contribution is Friendly, but that might just be because I'm a software engineer in real life! Seriously though, being a long-time user of Twinkle, I began to notice that some of the other tasks I was performing on Wikipedia didn't seem to have any tools to make them easier or more efficient. Friendly initially started out as a Twinkle inspired tool for welcoming new users, which is why I chose the name, and then grew into a general maintenance tool. Eventually, I'd like to develop it into a comprehensive (or as comprehensive as possible) tool for Wikipedia's more friendly, collaboration oriented tasks.
Beyond Friendly, I certainly think that my anti-vandalism and anti-spam contributions are valuable to the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. In working against vandalism and spam, I come across new contributors frequently, and try to help them in any way possible, whether it be understanding policies or simply tips on how to improve their articles.
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: Yes, and two instances in particular come to mind.
The first is with the (at the time) new contributor User:Airshipman. Based on the user's initial efforts, I had identified them as a possible spammer, and began reviewing their contributions. Finding that the majority of their contributions pertained to Airship Management Services (AMS) related entries, I was pretty well convinced that it was a spam account that violated section 4 of the inappropriate usernames policy and was only here to promote AMS. I tagged the majority of the user's contributions (and confirmation that the user was affiliated with AMS) with CSDs or AFD/IFDs and submitted a report to UAA. It became clear after a short period of time, and some intervention by AKRadecki, that, although it did appear to be a single-purpose account, the user did not cross the line from good contributions to spam and that the user did an excellent job of minimizing their conflict of interest. Realizing this, I withdrew all of my deletion nominations with haste, and issued an apology/barnstar, which was graciously accepted, to User:Airshipman encouraging them to continue contributing (the user's uploaded photographs, in particular, were outstanding). At the end of the day, the situation ended with all parties happy and friendly with each other, and AKRadecki saw it fit to award me a barnstar for my anti-spam efforts and having the good sense to realize and recover from mistakes.
This whole experience taught me a great deal about fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. First, I learned that sometimes, the best thing to do is to slow down, take a step back, and really put a lot of consideration in before acting, especially on that large of a scale. I feel like I have a much better eye, now, for identifying spam and conflicts of interest and being able to tell them apart from quality contributions. The second thing the experience taught me is that being friendly and having an open mind can go a long way. The situation could have degenerated extraordinarily, but with a little bit of thought and an olive branch, it became one of the most positive experiences I have ever had on Wikipedia.
The second instance was in dealing with User:MagicMons, who had submitted a bogus article called Conference Theory (AFD). The user seemed to take great personal offense to my nominating their article for deletion. Through the course of the interaction, personal attacks, insults, and threats were thrown my way, breaching nearly every Wikipedia conduct guideline and policy that I know of. At every turn, I tried to be a positive influence on the situation, even suggesting mediation or arbitration so that the user could more formally voice their grievances against me. The user was having none of it, though, and the situation finally escalated to such a point that an administrator (User:FisherQueen, who also complemented me on my handling of the situation) took notice and the user was indefinitely blocked for their behavior.
In handling this situation, I think I drew greatly on my experience with User:Airshipman, constantly trying to extinguish the fire and assume good faith. At the end of this one, though, it was abundantly clear that this was just not going to happen. I learned that keeping my head on straight and maintaining civility at all times is simply indispensable, though sometimes somebody just needs to get out the banhammer.
In summary (or if you just don't want to read all of that), my experiences have taught me a great deal about handling conflicts. Civility and friendliness as well as a willingness to admit when you're wrong are qualities that I will continue to bring to conflicts in the future, whether or not this RFA is approved.
4. User A and User B are having a dispute. The dispute is currently confined to the talk pages of the two users. User B tells User A not to post on his talk page anymore. User A posts another message to User B's talk page. User B approaches you (as an admin) asking you to block User A. What is your response? K. Scott Bailey 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)--Alternate question added.
A: I don't think that leaving one message when a dispute is going on constitutes necessity for a block, so I would first try to step in and defuse the situation, leaving both users a message on their talk page asking them to stay cool and maintain civility and to not escalate the situation any more (as long as there was no unacceptable behavior going on, which would immediately constitute a block). In the messages, I would suggest to User A that dropping the issue might be the easiest course of action, and I would also remind User B that on their user talk page they may remove the comments left by others if they choose. If the dispute continued in a civil manner, but to the general displeasure of both parties, I would recommend seeking mediation to assist in resolving it. However, if User A's behavior continued and their actions devolved into harassment towards User B, I would issue a warning to User A that unless it stopped, they would likely be blocked. If it came to that, I would issue a block from 1 to 6 hours, depending on the severity of the harassment. To me, blocking is a last resort; there are many different ways to approach resolving a dispute, and I think a block is only necessary in this type of situation when behavior guidelines are repeatedly breached. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you dedicate to exclusively administrator related duties compared to editing encyclopedic content? -Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A: That's hard for me to say for sure. I spend about 25% of my time now working on Friendly, which I develop in TextPad, and I certainly have plenty to do with that project, so I don't see that changing much. Of the remaining time I am, as a normal user, usually split between recent changes and new page patrol and doing article cleanup. Depending on current administrative load, I can see myself spending 25%-50% of my total time working on administrative duties leaving 50%-25% of my time for the tasks that I already have an interest and demonstrated skill in (cleanup, patrol, article additions). Thanks for the question! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
6 Optional question from User:SJP I have a hypothetical question for you. Lets say one day you are editing wikipedia and a new user comes to your talk pages and asks "What is the meaning of the policy ignore all rules?" How would you answer this user? Thanks for your time:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Good question! Here's my answer (which I hope is equally as good):
In short, if there is a change that you want to make is against the rules, but if made would improve Wikipedia, then make the change and don't let the rules get in your way.
For instance, pretend you work for an auto manufacturer, say Subaru, in the marketing department, and you have the first real picture of the new 2008 Impreza WRX STI. After reading WP:SPAM and WP:COI you might think "Wow, it is a really bad idea for me to upload this photo!" After all, you do work for Subaru, in advertising; clearly its a conflict of interest and could easily be considered advertising. But WP:IAR says that, you know what, it would be fantastic for Wikipedia to have that picture, and that trumps WP:SPAM and WP:COI...upload the photo!
So you see, it's really not a free pass to make any change you feel like, but rather it gives you the permission to maintain or improve Wikipedia even if doing so involves bending or breaking the rules.
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
7. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Following the unblocking policy, my first step would be to contact the blocking administrator and express my concerns about the block to them. If the blocking admin and I could not reach a consensus either way, and I were adamantly disagreeing with the block, I would take start a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard to review the block. The last thing I would ever want to do in that situation would be to start a wheel war, which doesn't do anyone any good. I feel that the procedure for dealing with disagreements over blocks is well written, so I can say with certainty that, with the exception of some sort of extraordinary circumstances (even beyond my imagination at this point), I would absolutely adhere to the policy. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ioeth before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. I've often encountered User:Ioeth while on new page patrol, and have seen him working as a diligent and fair patroller. I see him making good judgements and warning new users politely. I know that he's also an active participant in AfD discussions and reports vandals frequently and appropriately at AI/V. I think he'd find the admin tools useful in those tasks, and I haven't seen anything that would lead me to fear that he would abuse the tools. Friendly is a heck of a useful bit of script that I've been using regularly, and I think his tech-savvitude would be useful to the admin team as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support This user has not been active for a long period of time but what he has done shows he can be trusted with adminship, this trust is by far the most important thing. GDonato (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support Experience is something that is very, very valuable. This user lacks in experience, that is what is making my support of him weak. I am still supporting though per the above supports. Good luck!--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support 5,000 edits over a year meets my standards.` I assume from your conversation with Iridesent that you will not be hasty in dealing with speedy delete requests. Sometimes it's better to PROD or send to AFD to avoid undo haste. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I absolutely agree with you about using PROD and AFD, and if I were an admin, I would certainly use either one if there were any doubt in my mind about speedy deleting an article. As a normal user, though, I will admit I have to be a bit more convinced to PROD or AFD rather than tag for speedy. It may not be the best practice, but I don't think it's caused me to make too much trouble. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oh, sure - as you're aware, I think you can be a bit trigger happy with tagging, but while I disagree with your interpretation sometimes I've no doubt you know what you're doing. I also really like what you're doing with Friendly (horribly misnamed IMO - what exactly is "friendly" about plastering a n00b's first contribution with {{cleanup}} tags?) — iridescent 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Since I live in a cave, I first came across Ioeth a week or so ago. I had a sneak through Ioeth's contribs, especially the deleted ones, and thought to myself "here's someone who would make an administrator". I was going to leave a note with one or other of the serial nominators at RFA, but as usual I'm a day late and a dollar short, and here's Merope has already done the right thing. A fine candidate with more than enough experience I think, and the right attitude if we're going to be delivering up hordes of hapless new editors to the wonderful Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for writing... experience. Better {{cleanup}} than zapped. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - a good vandal-fighter, with a good edit count, but a bit of a deletionist for my tastes, but no big deal. Bearian 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    GASP! I've never deleted anything from Wikipedia before! :-) As I replied to User:Dlohcierekim, though, I think I would be less of a deletionist than I seem. With great power comes great responsibility, after all. Okay, maybe that last statement was little too grandiose, but you get what I mean. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, need more deletionist admins. Neil ☎ 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, I guess.  ;) -- Merope 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Although this user lacks experience, he is a good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - trustworthy candidate. Addhoc 14:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per Siva. NHRHS2010 talk 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Tentative Support, per answer to my optional question. Short time as a regular editor is cause for a bit of concern, but you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, as well as a decent grasp of what a block is meant to accomplish. K. Scott Bailey 17:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per Siva, would be a great admin.-MBK004 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, a very valuable editor. With the re-enabling of IP page creation we're going to need a lot of admins with interest in new page patrol! Tim Vickers 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Rudget 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Jmlk17 05:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Phgao 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support--MONGO 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Have seen this user around, seems to know CSD policy, good vandal fighter, will not abuse tools. Tiptoety 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I often encounter ioeth on new page patrol. Would make a solid admin. Toddst1 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Good Vandal Fighter. (Not to mention Friendly). Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support ALready thought he was an admin, encountered him while working with FRIENDLY, was very welcoming and helped me with my concerns. Seems like he understands the policies and will do good work with the mop! Good luck.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Thanks for answering my question! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support John254 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support We need to form a resistance to prevent the fall of the Wiki. Marlith T/C 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support My experience with this scrupulous editor on new page patrol tells me that he will be a credit to Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Per my puppetmaster Accounting4Taste - are view of deleted edits shows strong policy knowledge there, and I have no reason to doubt this user will make fine use of the tools. Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support good vandal fighter. Carlossuarez46 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support the oppose reason is ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support — Save_Us_229 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - will surely make good use of the tools. → AA (talk) — 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Nice amount of experience, and great work with Friendly! Tiddly-Tom 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Has a very good track particurly in patroling and has been great during the last 2 months.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support By judging the answer of questions (especially question 4) he will be good admin. Good luck--NAHID 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Nah. Wiki has loads of admins already, including the variety which DO NOT give warnings for nominating Wiki-violating articles for speedy deletion. DlaeThe Freudian Slip 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Some context: User:Dlae tagged Spyda-Man, which already had a {db-bio} tag, with {db|very gay}. This warning met this response. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - I feel that Dlae's opposition should be striked and not counted as it has no solid reason as to why he is not supporting this user other than he engaged in vandalism and was warned by loeth and did not like it. This is obviously an attempt to get back at loeth for rightfully warning this user for vandalism. Tiptoety 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Another Comment - I more than agree. I believe this oppose should be striken from the record in the name of fairness. --businessman332211 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment through I have supported this RFA and do not agree with the oppose's comments.It should stay as the user is not indef blocked .Any wikipedia user has a right to comment through one may not agree with his/her comments.Pharaoh of the Wizards 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Bureaucrat note: If it had been close I would have ignored when deciding whether to promote, but I feel better not striking it out as an actual vote as it was a vote, albeit a stupid one. Secretlondon 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral, for now. Ioeth has only been editing regularly since September. While the contribs have been good (and numerous), 2-3 months is simply not enough time for me to get a good feel for how the editor would wield the tools. An additional area of concern is the VERY narrow focus of the editors contribs. I could better justify supporting this candidate with another solid 3-4 months of varied contributions. K. Scott Bailey 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Switch to support, per answer to my optional question.
  1. Neutral per question 3 (part 1). Made a mistake, and learned from it, which is a good thing. However, this was less than a month ago, and it might be a good idea to take a little more time to see if there is any more rise on the learning curve. Would absolutely support in a couple of months. CitiCat ♫ 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    I absolutely understand where you and K. Scott Bailey are coming from; after all, I think that experience is the best teacher. I can assure you that, if this RFA passes, "primum non nocere" will remain in the forefront of my thoughts. Thank you both for voicing your opinions; I do genuinely appreciate the input! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. The candidate's answers to RfA questions are solid. However, I'm concerned with the recent disputes, lack of article-writing and relatively short tenure of regular edit activity. Additional experience would help. Majoreditor 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - relatively little article writing experience and the bulk of this user's edits have been in the past two or three months. I think a little more time is needed yet, although we are definately heading in the right direction. Answers to questions are good though. Just a little more time to get as much experience as possible, and maybe show what he/she can do with articles. Lradrama 10:02, 12 November 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.