Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProveIt

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] ProveIt

Final (65/4/4); Ended Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:06:27 UTC

ProveIt (talk · contribs) - I am nominating ProveIt for having more than 20,000 edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. -- Prove It (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been active on Wikipedia since October 2005. Before that I used it as an occasional reference, but then I clicked on a red link and from then on I was more or less hooked. Although I enjoy working on Wikipedia, I don't consider myself a particularly good writer. I'm really an engineer by trade and writing never came quickly or easily for me. However, I'm also one of those strange people who likes organizing things ... and at first I worked on things like albums and lists. I did a bunch of Jethro Tull, The Ventures discography, Los Cabos Corridor, and what eventually became the list of compact discs sold with XCP.

It was about April of 2006 when I first became interested in categories, and would often work on the Bluemoose list of uncategorized good articles. It was shortly after that when I took on what has become my main hobby, the Special:Uncategorizedcategories list. And due to my work on the uncategorized categories, I've also become a very active and frequent contributer on WP:CFD. I've been doing the daily rollover and new page templates since August 2006.

It was about that time when I was first approached about the possibility of becoming an admin, by Syrthiss. I didn't think I was really ready at the time, and I told him so. Now, it's six months later. I've been active on Wikipedia for 16 months, and currently have over 23,000 edits. The real number is probably quite a lot bigger, because I've probably done hundreds of {{db-catempty}} tags, and of course those all vanish.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The thing I think I would be best at would be cleaning out the backlog at CAT:CSD and WP:RM. I'm willing to help with WP:CFD, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close nominations that I started. I'll also continue watching over Special:Uncategorizedcategories, WP:CFD, and recent category changes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've not created many articles, but there are probably hundreds of categories. I was quite pleased over helping change WP:CFD over to the new format, see my suggestion here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_8#Time_to_complete_the_grand_renaming.3F
I also wrote a little python program to generate new page templates. Here's an example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 26. I'm very pleased with this because I can now build a months worth in half an hour or so, and I used to do it every week..
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: No, there hasn't been a lot of stress, I haven't been in any major conflicts. The closest I've come to stress had to do with a user who was creating dozens of tiny categories, and that resolved itself without any action on my part. Sometimes users are annoyed with me when I've nominated their category to be removed, but I always explain my reasons when asked. It's strange because I'm very much an inclusionist for articles, but I often find myself on the delete side for categories.
Optional question from ST47Talk
4. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: Note: although numbered 4, this is actually the tenth question I've been asked. For some reason it was added in the middle instead of at the end. I'd been using Wikipedia occasionally to look stuff up, and one day I clicked on a red link. I didn't even know what that meant, but I was curious and clicked it anyway. Of course there wasn't an article. Instead it invited me to write one. I wasn't interested in spending all afternoon composing anything elaborate, but I have the album and I knew I could at least get it out and enter some of the information. I used to do that for CDDB sometimes. And there was another "missing" article and so I did that one to. But I liked doing that, and the next day I came back and added a little more and I liked that too. It's kind of satisfying to see something I did up there for all the world to see. Anyway, I made an account. Now it's eighteen months later and yes, I'm still here. Why would I leave? I like it here. -- Prove It (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: That's a good question ... I think it largely depends on the situation, and exactly what they did. I think this article would apply. Subjects of articles are welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel. They can also do other minor tweaks ... the most famous case I can think of is when Roger Ebert added a few pictures to his own article. I think this kind of stuff is generally ok, but still it would be good to warn them of WP:COI / WP:AUTO / WP:NOR issues. However, if they are removing well referenced information or adding POV then a stronger warning is appropriate, and I might refer them to this page. Also the talk page should be tagged with {{wikipedian-bio}}. If they were creating their own page it might be appropriate to tag it as {{PotentialVanity}}. -- Prove It (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: It's almost always inappropriate, it should by considered if it is the only reasonable option left. To quote from the guideline, it should not be used As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. -- Prove It (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: see below ...

We're talking about spam articles, not just links. This is something I've been dealing with for a while now, see GFCTL and also MisterCertified. There's several red flags that would make me start to consider an article as spam.

  • The biggest red flag of all, the article is excessively promotional or enthusiastic. By it's very nature, advertising can't be neutral.
  • Normal articles rarely include adresses and phone numbers, while advertising says (Please contact us at 813-264-6460).
  • Often the user name of the created will match the company name, this is hard to believe, but I've seen it many times now. See my MisterCertified example.
  • Such articles often link to their corporate websites. Then when we look at the corporate website, we find the exact same text. I've also seen this happen more than once.
  • The article was written by an editor who writes about his company or products and nothing else. I've also seen many times where every single is either to the company article, or adding an often innapropriate link to their article.
  • The article will often not follow the usual formatting conventions, chosing instead to look as much as possible like their corporate website. -- Prove It (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Captain panda In vino veritas 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC):

8. I clicked on the link to Jethro Tull to see your work on it and it sent me to a disambiguation with two peopel by that name. One invented the seed drill, and one is the name of a rock band. Which one is it?
A: I'm sorry, I meant the band, not the inventor, I should have checked the link. There's a partial list of articles I've created and edited on my userpage ... although the list is pretty old, I stopped keeping track quite a long time ago. I think the first several articles I wrote were either Ian Anderson or Jethro Tull albums. Like I said, I'm not much of a writer. -- Prove It (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

9. Can you ever imagine yourself deciding to take a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend your time on Wikipedia simply improving it's content? -- llywrch 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: My main interest is in categorization, and I plan to continue spending most of my time here on that whether I become an admin or not. So yes, certainly I could imagine it. However I think most days I would do some of both. To some extent I've been doing that already. As I said earlier, I've been taking care of the template files and the daily CFD rollover since August of 2006. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Selket

10. Most of your recent edits and the contributions you name as being those you are most proud of are administrative in nature. Administrative experience is, of course, very important for an admin, but are there any content contributions in the main namespace that you would like to call our attention too? -- Selket Talk 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A: As I've said several times now, I don't consider myself to be a particularly good writer. Actually, what I should say is that I'm not a very fast writer. I'll eventually come up with something I like, but it always seems to take forever. So, I'm a much better editor than writer, and nearly everything I've done is albums, discographies, or lists of some sort. However, I do have a few that are a little bit different. What happened was about a year ago, I became interested in program named Google Earth, and spent many hours playing with it. During this time, I wrote Los Cabos Corridor, and worked also on Mexican Federal Highway 1. I don't expect either of these to become featured articles, but since you asked ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from WJBscribe

11. Your use of edit summaries seems quite low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
A: I promise to do much better in the future, and I just now changed my preferences. Looking back, I can see a clear pattern ... if there was some sort of default message, such as for a section edit, I'd often just leave it be. If there isn't a default I almost always say something, if only to specify cfd / cfr / cfm / cats, etc. I also tend to pay a lot more attention to main / category edits than to wikipedia or talk space. However, a great part of what I've been doing are section edits in wikipedia space, such as voting, adding a new nominations, or even the daily rollover on the WP:CFD page. -- Prove It (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Frist! >Radiant< 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Darn, just beat me. But yeah, liked your answers and your edit count speaks for itself. Ganfon 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Thrid! Proto::► 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Edit-conflict Support definitely qualified. Few users are active in CFDs, we'll need a dedicated user like him. I only hoped you had at least some article writing. - Anas Talk? 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support. Was planning to nominate him myself, does invaluable category work. the wub "?!" 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. No problem. YechielMan 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - experienced and trusted user. --BigDT 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support well established and good user.-- danntm T C 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems good for the job. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak support doesn't really state a real need for the tools, but otherwise everything is good, so support. Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I nominated this canadate for having over 20,000 edits, and I think the canadate would also help with deleting pages.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Noticed his good work already a long time ago. Garion96 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Add to Category:Supported adminstration candidates --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Prove it! Yuser31415 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - Isnt he an admin?Bakaman 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Excellent work on WP:CFD where we can always use help, especially with the speedies! — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good user. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. For me, ProveIt's work on WP:CfD and his approach are reason enough. With admin privileges, he'll also be able to delete categories after CfDs, etc – if anyone's earned the right to do so, I'd say it's ProveIt!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Seems to be everywhere at once. A discussion leader. I'm surprised that ProveIt is not already an admin! Royalbroil T : C 13:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support genuine RfA cliché #1. Weak nomination but strong answers and excellent contributions. I always thought his name was Provelt though untill I edited this page. Eluchil404 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support a true WP:CFD warrior. The Rambling Man 14:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Cue the cliches here as well, and I thought it was provelt also! --kingboyk 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - same as Eluchil and Kingboyk on both counts — Lost(talk) 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Categorical support! Conscious 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I think he's proven himself. James086Talk 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support I'd like to see more main namespace contributions, but I acknowledge that we need all types of wikipedians as admins. What ProveIt does, he does well. -Selket Talk 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Biggest cliche in the book, I know, but I really did think Proveit was one already. He certainly should be. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - Metamagician3000 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Sounds like a good guy to me. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support looks good.-- danntm T C 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Duplicate vote. Essjay (Talk) 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per above. Thought he was one... 1ne 05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per above. Shyam (T/C) 06:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:14, Friday, 16 February '07
  35. Support. Great contributor with good organization skills. Excellent CFD work. utcursch | talk 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Really thoughtful organizer. Lesnail 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Isn't likely to abuse admin powers; has done a lot of CfD work --TBCΦtalk? 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Good user. --Tone 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Everyone has their own corner of wikipedia in which they dwell. Great contirbutor who deserves the promotion.--Looper5920 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 12:43Z
  42. Support I've seen him do some decent work and keep encountering him. Simply south 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support I used to also live on the CFD pages and always found this user to be thorough and thoughtful. --After Midnight 0001 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support thoughtful & very busy editor - Johnbod 04:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support and a recommendation to keep User:Provelt as a doppelganger account :) riana_dzasta 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support not amazing answers, but I'm sure he'll do fine. ST47Talk 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Weak support. You have a good trac krecord, but you name could be mistaken for "ProveLt" though your name is "Prove it". Hendry1307 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. My only concern was low edit summary use but I am totally satisfied with the answer to my related question (Q.11). I now have no hesitation is supporting. WjBscribe 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. CfD needs more attention, and ProveIt has the experience to provide that. Please don't forget the good advice on edit summaries when you leave here. They're especially useful when opening or closing XfDs and other behind-the-curtains stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Looks Good..--Cometstyles 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support – a hard working, responsible, and trustworthy editor. And yeah, until recently I though your name had an L in it too. Please continue to work on longer and more frequent edit summaries; they really do help. Also, consider uploading all of your great free photos to Commons. ×Meegs 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - Great user, would like to see more edit summary usage. -Tropicality (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. PeaceNT 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support per Angus McLellan. —SaxTeacher (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I have been impressed with his understanding of norms and practices in regard to WP:CfD. ~ BigrTex 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. I've seen no issues with ProveIt's organisational work on categories, and I trust the user not to misuse the tools.--cjllw | TALK 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. -- answer to question 11 addresses my only concern, so I'm happy. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Long over due. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Everything looks good to me. We need more people at WP:CFD. Nishkid64 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support His yeoman work on CfD is reason enough, the more administrators we have to clear the backlog the better! --Xdamrtalk 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support ElinorD (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - BJTalk 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose He is far too free in trying to get categories deleted, which suggests a deficiency in understanding of Wikipedia norms and practices. I am all in favour of deleting unnecessary categories, but he often oversteps the mark.--Runcorn 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose As noted above, he is a CfD warrior. This seems to be a point against him.--Osidge 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose. Poor use of edit summaries (only 49% for major edits). I've no problem with deletionism over categories, though — they've been multiplying like rabbits on viagra. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Agree with Mel Etitis per edit summaries, but not over categories; while some need deleting, I feel that ProveIt shows poor judgement in which categories he targets.--Brownlee 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral While this editor shows that they have great category editing skills, they don't have many actual article edits from what I am seeing so far, most of which are just adding categories. I am also concerned about CfD, but not enough to oppose or support at this time. Darthgriz98 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Waiting for an answer to question 4 :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral a solid candidate, except for two things; slightly excessive deletionism and poor edit summary usage. They are not minor enough for a support, but not even close to being major enough for an oppose. — Deckiller 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Leaning toward oppose per oppose and neutral issues above and little encyclopedia writing and no vandal-fighting.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 04:08, 19 February 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.