Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Visviva

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] Visviva

Final (66/1/0); Ended Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:55:47 (UTC)

Visviva (talk · contribs) – I was surprised to learn last week that Visviva wasn't already an admin. He has been around since october 2004, has put a lot of work into articles particularly on Korea-related topics, does translation work, and knows his way around process and policy. Frankly I see no reason not to mop. >Radiant< 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Visviva 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Radiant!, for this opportunity. I don't really expect to pass on the first try, but am hoping to get some useful feedback on my participation in Wikipedia. :-) -- Visviva 04:06, 4 January 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 voters:

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 anticipate focusing on the relatively non-controversial corners of the backlog, at least in the near future. Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is the sort of mop-work I would be interested in. I would definitely keep an eye on WP:RM for consensus moves, and also for opportunities to facilitate consensus when the proposal is contested. There's not a large backlog on *fD closings these days, but I would look forward to cautiously dipping my toe into that area as well. You won't find me blocking vandals or unmasking sockpuppets very much; those are important tasks, but I find my temperament is not suited to confrontational work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I'm very happy that List of mammals of Korea recently made featured list. I'm also proud of my work on Gyeongju (now FA) and on salvaging Korean name from the jaws of FAR. Beyond those, most of my editing is rather diffuse, so it's hard to point to anything specific; however, I'm happy with the work I've done with various templates (such as Template:Koreanname and Template:Infobox Indic names) to reach creative compromises on controversial issues. I'm also delighted to be among the participants in the nascent Korea WikiProject.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you believe other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: This happens from time to time; if I believe it's a serious issue, I step back and request input from other editors. This has happened in the past with conflicts over South Korea (whether the article should have references) and Old Korean (the quality of references), among others. In most of those cases, my opinion was upheld by other editors; when it hasn't been, I've been happy to take my lumps and move on. When I find that my ability to sustain good faith and civility is under threat, which isn't often, I take a short break. Occasionally I have had to take a longer break; this happened following the East Sea vote, and also after I severely overextended myself in fall 2005. But I always come back; I just can't seem to stay away. :-)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

4. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) 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? If so, how high?
A: Yes, our standards should a bit be higher than that, and they are. :-) I believe we're on the right track with WP:EL, viz. external links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Spam is a growing problem, though mostly (in my experience) limited to a relatively small subset of articles. There is also, unfortunately, a danger of well-intentioned users removing meritable, appropriate external links when they aren't familiar with the topic area. I think it would be helpful to reconsider our general approach to external links, and in particular to consider merging "External links" into "Further reading" in the standard layout; however, this would need to be hashed out on the various MOS pages.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: IAR is never enough to justify an action; it simply allows room for a case to be made for an exception to standing policy or practice. Personally, I prefer the broad reading of IAR, i.e. that "following the rules" is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify any action on the wiki. Every rule is subordinate to the broader purpose of building "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." However, I don't plan to start applying this interpretation to anyone else's actions, so don't worry about that.  :-)
I think that the snowball clause is a valid and useful extension/interpretation/whatever of IAR, but needs to be handled with extreme caution. Often, particularly in the course of deletion debates, information is introduced late in the process which dramatically changes the discussion. I have occasionally had the pleasure of introducing such information myself (substantiating, or occasionally debunking, claims to notability).-- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: Per our blocking policy, blocks are used solely "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm." When a user's behavior is destructive, a block is often called for, but that is for protective rather than punitive reasons. There might be exceptions, which would need to be judged on the merits, but at this writing I'm not aware of any. -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: "Can this article be saved? Does it impart any potentially encyclopedic information? If I remove the promotional language, is there anything of potential value left?" If the answer is a clear and unambiguous "no," that would make the article G11 material. Any deeper issues, such whether the company meets the inclusion criteria, cannot be dealt with through speedy deletion. -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Can you provide examples outside of Wikipedia where you have had to evaluate research and reliable sources? If yes, please provide examples.
A: In the course of my master's degree, and in the work I've done since then as a teacher trainer in Korea, I've had to sort through a fair bit of published research in education and applied linguistics. An issue which I have frequently encountered is the level of credence I should give to papers published in local journals, which frequently have a much weaker peer-review process than international journals. This often has to be judged case-by-case, weighing the lower standard of scholarship against the higher relevance of the information. Now, I wouldn't hold up any of my papers or columns as examples of quality scholarship, but the underlying work is quite similar in kind to source evaluation on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Iced Kola

9. Under what circumstances would you place a longterm or indefinite block on an experienced editor?
A: I plan to avoid being in any such situation for as long as humanly possible; as I've noted above, confrontations are not my strong suit. If I find myself confronted with grounds for a longterm block, I will seek advice from those with more experience in dealing with disruptive editors. That said, I have seen cases where such blocks were appropriate. There is a level of egregiously destructive behavior which no amount of good work can cancel out. -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
10. If you encounter a dispute in which users are being incivil torwards each other, how will you try to make everyone remain civil and follow the dispute resolution process?
A: I have found that calmly, respectfully, and repeatedly reminding users of the relevant policies, while engaging with the constructive points made by both sides, is frequently effective. Sadly, I've yet to find the fabled Elixir of Dialogue, a single drop of which will transform a flame war into a measured conversation. (I'm still looking.) -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. Apologies for the late replies; I'm afraid my employer is trying to work me into an early grave. Five days a week... who ever heard of such a thing?  ;-) -- Visviva 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nobody beats the nominator :) >Radiant< 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not fair, Radiant cheated to get first. -Amarkov blahedits 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Another excellent nomination. Definitely could use the tools and will use them well. Agent 86 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support for two reasons: (1) I trust the candidate, and (2) I trust the nominator. You'll be a great admin. Yuser31415 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. You're not giving yourself enough credit, you're more than qualified. --Wizardman 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Interacted with the user couple times in WikiProject Korea. Fairly well. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. <pun>VIVA!</pun> JorcogaYell! 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Not already an admin? WHAT? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, good editor. Terence Ong 06:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Khoikhoi 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Obviously qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Yes. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Per nom etc but also because anyone who can admit to "absent-mindedness" will have my support! --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - very good editor, good contributions to featured articles RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or lets have banter 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. - crz crztalk 12:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support No reason not to. ← ANAS Talk? 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - I like the modesty displayed here. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support- You have been with Wikipedia for a long time, and you have had a lot of edits, you will be very experienced and you will know how everything works. We need adims like this one.--Rasillon 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Of course. Nishkid64 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per nom and other supporters.--Eva bd 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Without any reservations; you are very able and experienced editor, and I'm sure you'll make a great admin. TSO1D 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Looks like a good applicant to me. (aeropagitica) 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks fully qualified to me.-- danntm T C 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Looks good to me.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I like the combination of strong history and proposed focus. Not too worried about the below AfD issue as compared to overall work. --Kukini 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Rettetast
  32. No-cliche-here Support! --teh tennisman 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per Radiant. -- DS1953 talk 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support per nom. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Duplicate of no. 19. feydey 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support sounds good to me. James086Talk | Contribs 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per the crowd. Just H 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Looks like a solid candidate. Yaf 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Looks great all around, no notable faults.Ganfon 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. 찬성 ☺ Wikipeditor 2007-01-05
  39. Support No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - mostly doing well. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Excellent and thoughtfull answers to my questions. I can trust the word of the nominator. I feel I can trust this editor with the blocking and deletion tools. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Pretty well ideal, by the look of it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support per good statement and responses, record of contributions. Well-qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, seems like a good candidate on the basis of what I've seen, and the discussion here. Alai 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Jaranda wat's sup 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. About time. Works hard very long in this project. Seen him many times before, and all OK. - Darwinek 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Will not abuse tools, as far as I can tell. IronDuke 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Would make a great admin. —dima/s-ko/ 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Zaxem 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support, great editor. Deizio talk 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Seems to be a solid, level-headed candidate. ATren 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support answers are complete and well thought out; solid record of diverse mainspace contributions. Opabinia regalis 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support -- Good user. I rarely vote in RFAs these days, and if I do, it means that the candidate is really deserving. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support -- I read the "oppose" comment about the MfD as well as his response and I was impressed by his attitude. Careful reading of policies and guidelines is a good thing for an admin, since they directly reflect community consensus. --A. B. (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Deserving candidate. TonyTheTiger 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Bwithh 05:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Meets all reasonable criteria.--Osidge 13:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Pile on support - Seen him do some great work on the deletion sorting project. Dont know why he left though — Lost(talk) 15:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Joe I 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support --Kusunose 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  63. Absolute Support He never loses his cool, I've never seen him engage in fiery debates, I've never seen him make POV actions, and he's an extremely vital leader among editors who are interested in Korea-related topics. He began the Korea Portal, and did a lot to make WikiProject Korea function. And until this time, he never nominated himself as a admin. This shows his interest not in power but in Wikipedia itself. He'll make a great admin! (Wikimachine 05:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
  64. Strong support - clam, does a lot of wrok, writes articles, etc, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support: Looks pretty clear. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong support It is with great infrequence that I offer pile-on supports, but I must here. My interactions with Visviva have been few, but I have always found him to be possessed of a measured, civil demeanor and an affection for rational discourse; his conduct here—most especially his answers to questions four, five, seven, and eight—serves only to make such qualities eminently plain. Joe 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Forgot to sign name to the last question in the RFA. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I would have understood if you had opposed, though. I was going to fix the signature, but then I figured it would be better to have my absent-mindedness on the record. :-) Cheers, -- Visviva 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking at even just the existing RfAs (at the moment), it's at least as common not to sign/date answers as it is to do so. It's an answer, after all - who would be it be from if not from the candidate? So I've taken the liberty of removing the HagermanBot "unsigned" text/template, because of lack of clear precedent and because the "unsigned" might be (mis)taken as a serious error by someone giving an opinion on the RfA. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:E. Brown/Hurricane Gordon rant. I'd expect an admin to know better. – Chacor 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: He was on the opposite side in a discussion about killing a user subpage, and did so very civilly. He cited three policies during the discussion, an indication that he's not just making things up. I agree with you (and the majority of those commenting, and the admin who closed the MfD) that he wasn't on the correct side in this, but there is no Wikipedia policy (fortunately) that requires admins (or admin candidates) to be right 100% of the time. John Broughton | Talk 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    Being on the wrong side of an argument doesn't make you wrong. Visviva handled himself well in that MFD. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    What I am concerned is that he did not seem to fully understand WP:NOT, and has indicated in that MFD that he is willing to allow some form of attacks on wiki, which is unacceptable. – Chacor 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    I respect the community's decision in that MfD, but I still have issues with the arguments made to support it. Many of those supporting deletion referenced WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:ATK, neither of which appeared to be applicable. It has been correctly said that WP:NOT applies to all namespaces. However, this is not the case for the soapbox clause; as written, that clause refers specifically to articles. Perhaps the clause should be rewritten, but that is another matter. Also, I believe it is important to draw a line between pages which contain some attackish language and attack pages (those which "exist solely to disparage their subject"). Attack pages should be deleted speedily; attackish language can be removed by the normal editing process. I wasn't terribly sorry to see that subpage deleted, but I'm afraid the reasoning behind that decision still does not make sense to me. -- Visviva 08:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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.