Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ishikawa Minoru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Ishikawa Minoru

Ended (17/13/12); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ishikawa Minoru (talk · contribs) - I first found Wikipedia in September 2004, but only registered and started participating in the project in July 2006. Since then I've spent most of my time reverting vandalism, looking for typos and translating some articles from Japanese into English. Pretty much everything interests me, but most of the articles I actively edited in the past are related to Japan. I am a perfectionist and as such strife to create the perfect encyclopaedia with perfect articles. As one can expect this isn't an easy task. Nevertheless, I happen to think it's worth trying. That's why I want to become an administrator. Making use of that power I want to improve the quality of all entries, by preventing vandals from causing disturbance , either through blocking or page protection. Ishikawa Minoru 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My goal is to fight vandalism in the most effective manner possible. Though this could well be accomplished with a regular account, I believe having the power to effectively carry out blocks and protecting pages speeds up the process and allows for an increase in the quality of user contributions. As such, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and page protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I consider the Lake Biwa Canal and the Children Who Don't Know War articles to be my most valuable contributions.Both pages were first translated from the Japanese wikipedia and then expanded with information I found out myself.I've never been to Lake Biwa before, but I took a liking to the place and decided to investigate. At first I almost gave up writing the article because I though I couldn't possibly translate it, but in the end I think it turned out alright. It hasn't been assessed yet, but I'm almost sure it's past the 'start' level.As for Children Who Don't Know War, it's a song I heard on a Japanese song and decided to look into. I think the article flows well and am proud of my work.
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: Though it's nothing serious, I once went over the top and reverted an entry, identified as vandalism, on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article and wrote "I suggest you hang yourself" on the edit summary. In hindsight, I regret doing so. It was unprofessional, but rest assured that will never happen again.Thought I'd bring it up, because I'm not trying to hide anything. From this point on I'll most certainly abide by Wikipedia police and never feed the trolls.Other than that, everyone has been most kind to me here and I assume I've never been rude to anyone either.
4. Optional Question from Trusilver: In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban? In what situations do you feel a block would be appropriate? In what situations do you feel a ban would be appropriate?
My understanding of the term leads me to believe blocking refers to the technical mechanisms used to prevent actions such as vandalism. Banning, on the other hand can also be enforced via the above outlined way, but usually takes place in matters dealing with content disputes.
In the light of the above, a ban would take place when none of the administrators is willing to unblock the user, when administrative entities like Jimbo Wales and the Wiki Foundation decide to do so and when the Arbitration Committee see so fit. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Optional Question from User:Ck lostsword: In your opinion, what is the value of discussion with other editors on their talk pages? In what situations should user talk pages be used?
Generally speaking I prefer discussing issues on the article's talk page. This is useful because it allows other users to acess a given conversation and might help avoiding repeating certain discussions. This doesn't mean, however, I think User Talk Pages shouldn't be used. That's not the case. When the issue your addressing pertains exclusively to or at least a great deal to an individual editor (someone who wrote most of the text himself, who created x template, or even someone who you think deserves to be complimented for his work) then User Talk Pages are the way to go. That's my take on the subject. -- Ishikawa Minoru 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Optional Question from User:Ck lostsword: Under what circumstances should a user be reported to WP:AIV to be blocked?
One good way to put it would be to say 'repeated offenders' should be reported to the AIV. Also, people who slander others should be immediately reported.
In the first case, this is to avoid getting rid of someone who might only be experimenting or who is just trying to see how fast vandalism can be reverted on Wikipedia. Back when I was in High School I dealt with a couple of people using the school's computers to see how fast we could revert vandalism. Personally speaking, I find such endeavours meaningless, but you never know how productive such users can turn out to be, in the long run.
It is therefore advisable you check their talk pages for vandalism warnings. If they have the 'It's your final warning' or 'This is your only warning' (providing the latter is justified) then I think they should be reported. -- Ishikawa Minoru 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Optional question from User:Jhfireboy: Is good faith an ideal every editor should believe in, and assume with every edit, or is it something that hinders vandal fighting?
Assuming good faith serves a very important purpose which is preventing Wikipedia from becoming a place where everyone suspects everyone and is completely paranoid about double entendres and possible vandalism. Nevertheless, we must also be realistic and realize not everyone is kind hearted. When a user replaces the contents of a given article with curse words or just plain nonsense, it's only rational to assume he did so on purpose. If he does that repeatedly, then that proves it beyond all reasonable doubt. -- Ishikawa Minoru 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ishikawa Minoru before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • So 300 vandalism reverts are not enough, but 3000 is too many? You do realise these things are getting close to actually being impossible to pass, now? – Gurch 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the intention. The current admins don't want Muggles to be able to play in their sandpit. Needless to say, the entire process is insipid in the extreme, and I have nothing but contempt for the buraucratic structure as it exists today. --Agamemnon2 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 300 reverts but only 77(max) warnings? Giggy UCP 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not everyone warns on every last revert. Does seem to be an odd ratio, however. --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your theory is interesting, but I don't think it holds up. The people who post the silliest reasons tend not to be admins. I don't think I've seen many examples of admins with editcountitis recently. My counter-theory is that some non-admins set very rigid criteria and try to get others to use them too, so that they know exactly what they need to do to pass RfA themselves. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support this may be more of a moral support, but I think your on the right path. As giggy noted, you need to file more reports at WP:AIV if you want to nominate yourself on the grounds of becoming a "vandal-fighter". And please, try to follow Hiroshat's advice and be more active on Wikipedia. New England 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Enough experience. RuneWiki777 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I would like to see some more project-space edits, however i'm sure they will go way up as you become an administrator. Apart from that, I have no other concerns. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moral Support 1) Kudos on the self nom. 2) Valued conmtributions so far. However per Giggy I too have nothing really with which to judge your potential ability as an admin. Keep up the good work, and don't be discouraged. Pedro |  Chat  07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Good article-writer. Edits to project-space may be sparse, but are sufficient to show that this candidate understands policy on vandal-fighting and blocking (it really isn't all that hard to understand). Answers to the questions are fine, and I can't see anything substantially wrong with this candidate. WaltonOne 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support on the account that too few good writers end up as admins. I strongly support this editor's nomination on the grounds that it adds diversity to the administration team.--Bswiki 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. support 1000 edits is more than enough to judge admin capability (that was the level when i joined wikipedia, and I'm sticking to it). A very diligent vandal fighter who will clearly make good use of the tools. Borisblue 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. support- I'm supporting this person. Sufficient edits, good experience. Should do fine. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support good self-nomination. Acalamari 17:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - although there is little (numerical) evidence of knowledge of policy and experience, and I am slightly concerned about the lack of user talk/project namespace contributions, the answers to the questions imply that the user has sufficient knowledge of policy. ck lostsword•T•C 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Moral support - No sense in spiking the ball. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Seems to be a person that wants the admin tools to combat vandalism more effectivly - a worthwhile goal. He deserves the mop. Jhfireboy Talk 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Looks good to me, nothing really concerning about this editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - no reason to oppose. ugen64 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. I very rarely vote on RFAs anymore because I feel like people have to jump through a million hoops to receive the tools. With that said, your work is very good and I find it a rather absurd reason for opposition just because you don't do the work as often as people would like. One, we're all volunteers here, we aren't getting any paychecks from anyone. Two, if Ishikawa here just happens to have a *wait for it* real life that is a bit more pressing than Wikipedia, I simply fail to see why he isn't allowed the tools to work on vandalism at his convenience. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Looks good to me, I don't honestly think the user would abuse the tools. Also, I see nothing wrong with self-noms... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 15 edits to the project space? Sorry, I just have nothing to judge your ability on. You say you wish to vandalfight and help out at AIV, but you've only made 5 reports. Give it more time, and more work, and you should get through at some stage in the future. Giggy UCP 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Fighting vandals doesn't mean just reporting them. I'm sure you noticed but I have reverted a considerable amount of edits considered to have been vandalism. I've also left warning messages in many of those peoples' talk pages. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You've made 77 user talk edits. Even if all of that was vandal reporting (which is unlikely), it still isn't that much really. I just can't support a candidate who wants to be an AIV admin but has done very little vandal fighting.
    On another note, could you enable the preferences option that forces edit summaries? Giggy UCP 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have a feeling your overlooking the aspects I mentioned. First of all, I use talk pages almost exclusively to work around content changes. As such, I'd assume a good portion, maybe 35 or 40 warnings were placed there. Should I improve in that regard? Sure. But you're forgeting the edits behind all this. Every once in a while I check the Recent IP changes page and revert all edits which I see are vandalism. I've been doing this since at least December 2006. Just today I'm sure I reverted around 10 edits. That's one of the most important aspects, right? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it is important, but I can't judge your experience when you've done very little of it. That's my point, and that's the reason for my opposition. Unless you have other arguments, that's probably all I'm going to say. Thanks, Giggy UCP 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sorry, Ishikawa, but how can I possibly judge how well a user will be able to handle the tools, interact with other editors, grasp policy, and make difficult decisions when they have made so few WP-space, WP-talk-space, and user-talk edits? You look like a great editor otherwise, and I certainly encourage you to continue to keep editing, but I simply don't think you're ready yet. I'm not one for editcountitis, but at this point, I simply don't have enough to go on. -- Kicking222 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Judging by the vandalism I reverted in the past, I have come to believe I can tell vandalism from constructive contributions. As such, the only thing I though I had to do was rummage through the WP:AIV page, see if the users in question were indeed being disruptive and proceed to prevent them from causing further damage. Either that or when I received word someone was doing such from a distressed user via my talk page. I do understand your concerns though. After all you aren't me, so it's hard to assess how I'd handle it. -- Ishikawa Minoru 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    ...And you do a great job at reverting vandalism. But even if that's the only admin task you intend to do, no admin will ever end up doing just one job. You'll have to help resolve disputes and block people (which relates to vandalism, but not vandalism alone) and delete articles, and with so few talk and WP-space edits, I can't tell how you'll deal with the other things. This is not an oppose of discouragement; it is one in which I am trying to say, "You're doing a great job, so keep at it." -- Kicking222 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your point and apreciate your apreciation of my efforts as an editor. I admit I disregarded WP-space and focused instead on producing content and cleaning articles. Nevertheless, I can compromise and have had a rather pleasent interaction with fellow members, so I don't think handling disputes will be a problem. I'm also impartial because I tend to obesess about factual accuracy and style, so that won't be a problem either. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are three reasons why I'm opposing. 1) The edit count is way too low. You have been here a year, and averge 100 edits a month. 2) is bascially per G1ggy, and 3), I don't like how you've done too little vandal fighting. If you can proove you have been staunch, I may change to weak support. Politics rule 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I went over some of my edits and I can count at least 300 vandalism reverts. I'm sure there are plenty of people who work harder, but not everyone is willing to do that 300 times. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    2) It's Giggy now ;) Giggy UCP 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    First It's not enough work on articles and too much vandal fighting now the other way round? Interesting. --Chris g 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's not directed at me, is it? -- Ishikawa Minoru 03:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    No, I think it was intended as an ironic observation about RfA - lots of good candidates, such as R and Amarkov, have failed recently because they concentrate on maintenance rather than article-writing. It's ironic that you're the other way round (mainly an article-writer) but people are still complaining. WaltonOne 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think self-nominations are against Wiki policy. Furthermore, do you have objective proof I am 'power-hungry'? You cast your vote based on your prejudice towards self-nominated candidates. Are you even allowed to do so? This is the perfect 'candidates for admin' version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't have to be against policy--nothing does. It's not against policy for administrators to, to use an example above, "average 100 edits a month", and yet no one has a problem with opposes for that reason. Furthermore, I think you fail to understand the meaning of the phrase "prima facie." As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that you nominated yourself indicates, to me, that you are power hungry. Perhaps I'm wrong--I hope I am--but I'm not willing to take the risk. Kurt Weber 02:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    As it's really swell to be constructive here, using the prima facie argument alleviates you from having to provide any backing to your opinion. As convenient as that may be, and as I've seen you present this 'argument' before, perhaps you would like to take the time to explain why 'throwing one's hat in the ring' is the act of someone who is power-hungry. the_undertow talk 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I really need to get some sleep, but couldn't help see if you'd replied. The answer is quite simply:sure enough I understood the meaning of 'prima facie', but still cannot agree with someone whose opinion is based on his own prejudice and misconception. Number of edits is a completely different matter. It's been brought up several times and is based on the belief experience is a desirable trait for an admin. Excluding al self-noms is, to put the matter briefly, to fall prey to your emotions and bias. -- Ishikawa Minoru 03:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ignore this guy, he's a veteran self-nom basher. Giggy UCP 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for telling me that. Votes based on prejudice are null, I presume? As a side note, it's almost 4 a.m. where I live so, if I can't answer any questions, that's because I'm probably sleeping. My sleeping habits are rather erratic, but I assume I'll be back around 15:00 UTC, but quite possibly before.-- Ishikawa Minoru 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Null? Depends on the 'crat. But in this case they should be. It's been discussed at WT:RFA before. Anyway, good night! Giggy UCP 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sadly not. The bureaucrats are incapable of doing anything other than counting votes; they couldn't determine a consensus if it ran around naked yelling "I'm a consensus!" – Gurch 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    What do you picture a naked consensus as looking like, Gurch? Out of curiosity :P Giggy UCP 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wouldn't naked consensus be blocked for disruption? Police arrests nudists in public for disruption as well. -- Cat chi? 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Just an overall lack of all-around editing. Improve and try back in the future. Jmlk17 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong OpposeLack of good editing. Do some good editing, and come back in the future!Stillstudying 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "good editing?" The candidate has clearly done a fair amount of article writing and vandal reversion... If he doesn't know what you mean by "good" how would he know what to improve upon? Will he get the same message when he comes back in the future? Is "good" just "more"? Leebo T/C 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. You don't seem ready. J-stan Talk 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Nothing personal or anything, but I can't support someone who isn't informed on the fair use criteria on Wikipedia.[1]++aviper2k7++ 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Not enough experience overall. A brief scan makes me think that with twice the experience, I'd be willing to support (though there are some minor issues), but there just isn't enough of a track record for me to trust candidate with the tools. User:Argyriou (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose - User lacks experience and encyclopaedic contributions. Also per answer to No.3, is very weak and suggests no particular action --Bryson 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose You have only 1197 total edits, which is not a lot. More to the point, you have very, very few edits in admin-related topics, and edits here are the only means available with which to judge your potential skill with the tools. 33 wikipedia edits, and 1 wikitalk edit, are disappointingly low figures. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Good intentions, but not enough breadth of experience. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose The opposes of Politics rule and Giggy give my reasons for opposing. More experience is needed. Captain panda 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Minoru, you've been here at wikipedia for about a year, but your average edit per month is well below 100 edits. I'm not saying that you always need to be on wikipedia, but try to be more on because admins do have to do a lot of work along with their usual editing. H irohisatTalk Page 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    What? Admins don't have to do any work. They're volunteers. --Rory096 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Being on Wikipedia and editing pages are two different concepts. Practically speaking I can dedicate at least 3 or 4 hours per diem to Wikipedia.
    You must think your edits over, otherwise you're bond to make mistakes, that's why I haven't edited all that much (not that I have a small number either, in my opinion). -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - It is true that I like to see a user more active but that is not the real reason I'm !voting neutral. You have a lot of actual contributions to wikipedia in the mainspace. Not just vandal reverts, but real article writing edits. However, the fact that you don't have many edits in the project spaces shows potential lack of real understanding of policy. I'm not a editcountis freak, but I would like to see a higher participation in the project. Sorry friend, but for now neutral. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    No need to apologize. Could you please explain what you meant by "...in the project spaces shows potential lack of real understanding of policy"? You mean I should get involved in specific projects like Wikiproject Japan, Korea, etc? -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - An edit count does not make a good editor, and I feel that you have a really solid background in working in mainspace. However, you have almost no background at all working in projectspace. In fact, the majority of the project space edits you have are from this RfA. I suggest you put this RfA on the back burner for a few months. Find a job you really like doing an administrative task, like possible reviewing articles for deletion or perhaps participating in other people's requests for adminship so you can get a better background for what occurs here. Trusilver 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral with moral support - seems a good intentioned editor on the right track but there is just not enough by which to judge this user's understanding of policies. Would likely support if there were more participation in the projectspace to demonstrate familiarity with policy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Minoru, you're on the right track, and with more edits, and time, I will support you for admin. You simply need some experience.old windy bear 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well said oldwindybear. Politics rule 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Politics rule Thanks - I really believe Minoru will make a good admin, and just needs more experience. Another 3-6 months and continuing the same quality work, and i will certainly support, and believe most others will also.old windy bear 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Your welcome. Politics rule 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - I've got a good feeling about this user but I think more experience is necessary. --Chris g 03:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I feel that this candidate needs more experience. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - I dont want to become involved in what might become pile-on oppose, so I'll be neutral. I think you need more experience in the project space, among others, and I think more experience is generally needed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Normally I wouldn't oppose you but the edit summary you mentioned could be concerning especially since there is so little else to balance it against. I'm not sure of the date however so I will not oppose based on that. Plus you were upfront about it which certainly goes in your favor. May I suggest that you take the advice given seriously and come back in a few months after more work? Of course igore Kurt's silly remark which is prima facie evidence of shallow thought. JodyB talk 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. Minoru is an excellent vandal fighter. But there's more to Wikipedia than just vandal fighting. Community interactions and article writing, editing, need to be part of a well-rounded admin's repertoire. Minoru, get some more Talk page, Wikipedia: page and namespace page edits under your belt, and I will strongly support you. Corvus cornix 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Politics Rule.--†Sir James Paul† 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support A.Z. 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Considering this is technically not a vote, would you like to elaborate on that point? New England 02:26, 16 July 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.