Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ShadowHalo

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] ShadowHalo

Final (50/0/0); Ended 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo (talk · contribs) - Drew has been a very active contributor since October 2006 and has amassed, in that time, in excess of 5000 edits. He has shown himself to be a committed editor, working hard on articles such as No Doubt and Hollaback Girl (which have now achieved GA and FA, respectively). Since putting himself up for editor review back in January, Drew has spent time clearing the former backlog at Category:Fair use size reduction request and reviewing image copyright information. He has also sought out and uploaded countless free replacements for fair use images. Drew seems to have no hesitation in communicating with his fellow editors - having spotted mistakes I'd made in recent edits earlier today, he corrected me, showing a good understanding of the MoS and other policies, as well as the ability to enter into courteous dialogue with other users. I think he would make a fantastic admin. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. ShadowHalo 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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: I'd like to clear out a lot of the images at Category:Rescaled fairuse images. Though a lot of those are ones that I rescaled (and wouldn't want to self-review), Mecu did just about all the rest, especially GIFs, PNGs, and SVGs that I can't do in Paint, so it'd be good to be able to go through those images and help reduce that backlog. I should note that a lot of the recent policy warnings on my talk page are from resizing images that didn't have a fair use rationale or other things like that; I know better than to upload images without the critical information, but I for the most part only resized the images while going through the backlog. (To give you an idea of an image I've uploaded, I think this is the last fair use image I uploaded.) I'd probably also deal with blocks as decided at WP:RFC/NAME and other aspects of image copyright status, like unsourced images.
I should probably add to my previous statement that there has been an ongoing vandal replacing Nicole Scherzinger, No Doubt, and Hollaback Girl with the same messages (example). It'd be useful to be able to block the various IPs (example) used since the vandalism happens sporadically,so the pages often aren't suitable candidates for semi-protection, but when it happens, it's pretty ruthless. A few other users and I spend around 10-15 minutes in a cycle of reverting the three articles just now. ShadowHalo 09:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm very pleased with Hollaback Girl, which was recently promoted to FA. I hate the song so much that I decided to take on the article to improve my skills with applying NPOV. I'm also pleased with my general work with No Doubt (GA) and Gwen Stefani-related articles in general, though there's still much work to be done. I'm also currently working on Juanes, which is currently a GA nominee.
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: I think the primary one was at the U2 article regarding the picture being used. A little over two months ago I started replacing some fair use images with free images from Flickr. Some of these were concert pictures of much lower quality, and another user reverted the change. After going through another pair of reverts, I asked what should be done at WP:MCQ but didn't get an answer until the next day and I ended up accidentally breaking WP:3RR during that time. One of the two users restoring the fair use image asked me about it on my talk page, and I explained to him that I had not meant to break 3RR and upon getting a response at WP:MCQ, I tagged the image with {{rfu}} and started a discussion at the image's talk page. I agreed to do another search to see if there was a better image and found the one that's there now; one of the users agreed not to revert if the image were to be added, and the other felt that the fair use one should be used. After awhile, the image was reviewed by an admin and deleted. Since then, I've tagged other images with {{rfu}}, but there haven't been any uncivil disagreements, since (I believe) I've maintained good faith and asked another user to get involved when necessary (for example, an anon with changing IPs removed templates and reuploaded deleted images to the Ashley Parker Angel article, so I asked User:Yamla to review since he had reviewed the other). Since that experience, I've also begun helping out at WP:MCQ since I know how frustrating it can be when an image gets tagged and how the guidelines/policies about copyright can take some time to learn.
I should add that I have an account of the same name on the Commons in case anyone's confused as to why there are comparatively few images uploaded with this account. ShadowHalo 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 14:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

4. 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: It would most likely depend on the sort of edit. If the edits are removing vandalism/misinformation or other productive edits, then I would probably politely ask that the person read WP:COI/WP:AUTO and watchlist the page to make sure the edits are appropriate. If the edits were adding POV, removing well-sourced information, etc., I would ask the person to read WP:COI/WP:AUTO and refrain from making substantial edits to the article and to run substantial changes by users at the talk page first. Either way, the talk page should also be tagged with {{wikipedian-bio}}.
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: When the history of vandalism is very recent and there is no cause to believe that the article will be vandalized again in the near future.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Whether or not the content is solely promotional and does not provide any sort of encyclopedic information. If the article does have information about the business, albeit biased, it may be better to try to rewrite the article and/or take it to AfD.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle101 Need help?

7. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam.
A: Spam is naturally going to be a problem since Wikipedia is the free speech website where people can say whatever they want. Or, at least, that's how lots of people perceive it. I don't see too much spam on the articles I do edit since they're mainly music or pop culture-related, but there are lots of Youtube links or the occasional spam links to other illegal video sites, and I'm sure that spam is even worse on other articles. The purpose of external links is to give readers a place where they can find out more information about a topic, especially when the site isn't used as a reference or when the site goes into detail inappropriate for an article. MySpace, Youtube, and Blogspot links should just about only be used when they're official sites, for examples a band's MySpace or when a music video has been legally posted to Youtube (a la Dick in a Box).

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Certainly. Not on a regular basis, but I could imagine doing that. I can't see myself ever avoiding admin duties since, for example, if someone requests that I do something or I see vandalism on my watchlist, it'd simply be irresponsible not to mop up. But for example, when putting Hollaback Girl up for FA status, I simply didn't have time to participate in many RfAs or do much other work aside from the FA candidacy. Actually, that seemed to have been a good thing because when I was done, it gave me a chance to take a look at starting new tasks; if I remember correctly, it was when the major objections at the FA candidacy were met when I first began going through Category:Fair use size reduction request and resizing the images. ShadowHalo 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Great user. Good history of article contributions. Nice activity in project-space. Admins specialized in images are needed. - Anas Talk? 11:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I concur with Anas Salloum. I have checked out the contribs and they rock. Also ShadowHalo does a lot of random talk page improvements. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per question 1. I like a candidate who wants to help in overlooked but much needed areas. And everything else seems fine. Good luck! --Majorly (o rly?) 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support- having previously looked through his work as one of his reviewers at WP:ER, I can firmly say that he is trustworthy and a hard-working editor. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support seems like a good candidate. Cbrown1023 talk 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support good editor. → Icez {talk | contrib} 17:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per Majorly, and also impressed to see an editor contribute substantially to articles he's not interested in, and getting them to GA or FA. Great work. The Rambling Man 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I see no problems here. (aeropagitica) 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. This editor has made some invaluable contributions to pop culture articles, and he has consistently displayed sound judgement and a firm grasp of the key policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Machine 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support An impressive editor. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Like the old song goes "(s)he's everything I want, (s)he's everything (the project) needs"....or something like that. Seriously, I can't think of a more qualified candidate. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support for the well rounded candidate. Darthgriz98 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support -- Semperf 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Jaranda wat's sup 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'm not Mailer Diablo but I approve this message! Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:31, Sunday, 11 February '07
  20. Support. Good work on articles, deals with not-fun cleanup jobs, overall very good candidate. Jkelly 09:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Terence Ong 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. YechielMan 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Good candidate.--John Lake 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I have no reservations about ShadowHalo being an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. We need more admins getting involved with images. Titoxd(?!?) 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I appreciate the candidate's comments, article-writing and especially his/her Hollaback Girl NPOV exercise. --A. B. (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support bit new, but does good work.-- danntm T C 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Seems unobjectionable and has good contirbutions as an editor. Coemgenus 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support JoshuaZ 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per Titoxd and all above. Great candidate from what I've seen. --Coredesat 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. — CharlotteWebb 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support, please do keep up the awesome work on clearing image backlogs - the admin tools should help even more. We need more admins who know the fair use policies. Proto::► 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Garion96 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a solid candidate to me. Dionyseus 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per above and Thanks for improving the Juanes article. --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Well thought out questions, seems good to me, after all the mop is not a big deal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, looks fine. Conscious 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Another good one who hasn't had that mop yet. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support, you should be good with mops, rags, and Lysol. --Kukini 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. WjBscribe 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. <<-armon->> 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, deserves mop. Shyam (T/C) 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. PeaceNT 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per nom and honest answers given by the candidate. Seems very sensible. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. SynergeticMaggot 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, Does deserve tools. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, impressive answers to first 3 questions, especially the 3rd one. Also good response to 8th question. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support You deserve a salute from me. I salute you! Captain panda In vino veritas 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 12:37Z

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Neutral

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.