Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 2

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] Wisdom89

Final (13/13/7); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) - Hello fellow Wikipedians, user Wisdom89 re-applying for Administratorship. Since my last venture, I feel that I have versed myself strongly in some of the areas which I was so obviously lacking experience in, namely Wikipedia namespace and other bureaucratic locations. Albeit the latter is still a learning process for me, and I will be upfront with that. I am always lurking though. I consider myself a conscientious and focused editor with the discipline and necessary knowledge of policy to help the community in this more "authoritative" fashion. If you trust me and my contributions, I would be more than happy to honor the tools without abuse. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the answers to the formal questions will be more or less similar to my last self-nom, however, I will try and be more explicit this time.

[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: Straight up, I am primarily interested in fighting vandalism and contributing to its elimination. I have already "taken out the mop" and regularly patrol recent changes and various new page creations so that I can obliterate anything suspect on site. I have been approved for the use of Vandalproof and the new (and contentious) "rollback" feature to aid in these actions. Twinkle is also very user friendly and highly effective when it comes to vandalism or sockpuppetry, both of which I have zero tolerance for. I have a vested interest in promoting discussion and would be vigilant against edit warring. I will also most likely play a large role in WP:Speedy Deletion and WP:XfD cases, as I've versed myself in their operation.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, this is kind of tough to answer, I've been branching out lately. If forced, I'd have to say that my experiences with getting the Rush (band) article to featured status and maintaining it without WP:OWN is kinda what I'm known for. Additionally, I am able to contribute to science related articles due to my educational background and current status as a graduate student. My edits are a reflection of my interests and hobbies, music and popular culture for instance, however, I feel that my edits are made with minimal subjectivity, especially in anything medically or science related. My knowledge in these topics allows me to identify factual errors. I have become a member of several wikipedia projects in these areas designed to broaden information.
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: Editing inevitable gets hot, it's unavoidable. I have tried to obey the three revert rule while remaining cool. I usually try and instruct users to foster constructive contribution by taking abrasive or drastic changes of articles to the talk page. I discourage edit warring whenever possible. There is no doubt that I will continue with this philosophy to promote consensus among editors and dissuade users from using edit summaries for discussion. Of course, this isn't to say that minor conflicts do not arise - you eventually will clash with other editors, but, I believe I have always taken the proper course in steering a potentially volatile situation down the right path.

[edit] Additional Question

4. Per this report, I feel it's necessary to ask where you stand on the username policy. Specifically how you would respond to borderline cases.--172.163.37.99 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A Thanks for the question - I feel that my answer lies with the report itself - the user was blocked indefinitely for the reasons given. Before reporting, it's necessary to check to see if the apparent "random sequence" of letters is in fact a derivation of a person's name (perhaps in another language) or something else. Upon learning that it wasn't, I filed the report. So, I guess you could say that, In my eyes, it wasn't borderline. If I come across user names of the same type, I would repeat my actions. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 2 Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - has listed over 100 names at WP:UAA, so if there was only a single error, he isn't doing too badly. Agree that it's better not to leave a message starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia" on an experienced editor's page, however overall I think he's a trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support When I look at Pedro's diffs I think you responded politely to each situation, and I think responding calmly is more important than knowing everything the first time around. At least for me, the excellent encyclopedia building, particularly helping get Rush to FA status, and your academic knowledge which can be used to assess subtle vandalism in technical articles far outweighs the minor concerns below. --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support per JayHenry, weak per Pedro. Continue to refine your judgment on what is and what is not vandalism and you'll be fine next time around. User:Dorftrottel 09:19, January 22, 2008
  4. Weak Support Deserves a second chance. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Experienced and responsible editor. MSGJ (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Niyant (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support per dorftrotttel. Although I would recommend going slower on actually deleting articles, has many deleted articles tagged for for speedy. Dlohcierekim 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support How can I oppose? --Ryan • Talk • Sig Shop 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    By commenting in the oppose section, ideally with a convincing rationale... User:Dorftrottel 20:37, January 23, 2008
    Hehe, right. :P --Ryan • Talk • Sig Shop 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    I support so often that I sometimes forget how to oppose myself... User:Dorftrottel 13:28, January 24, 2008
  9. Support Goodman Wikidudeman (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support, with strong improvements in the past 3-4 months. I think he's ready now to take up the mop. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Tentative Support im sure he'll learn how to use the tools effectively. Stupid2 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Weak support per above. Λua∫Wise (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Seems like a highly capable user. I would advise him not to be so impulsive in the future though, and avoid sudden, rash decisions, like the ones Pedro has brought up. Lradrama 09:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose having supported last time, I didn't really get so far this time in my analysis. Your talk page is, well, worrying.
    (permanent link)
    Sorry and best wishes, but too much to worry me here that you will hinder more than help the admin team. I do accept all these were good faith of course. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    No worries Pedro. Yes, they absolutely were in good faith. I was just taken aback somewhat (from your vote) since they are just a small handful of miscalculations out of hundreds and even thousands of edits since my last RfA. However, that's ok. Thanks for the input as always my man. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Same concerns raised by Pedro. It seems that you have too much of an impulse to warn users when you see what you think is vandalism. When warning, reporting, or blocking an editor, it is always very important to be absolutely certain that they did commit vandalism and were trying to hurt the project. If you cannot be absolutely certain, it is best to leave a personal message explaining why what they did was wrong or asking them why they did it before jumping the gun. Timmeh! 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Same as Pedro. --Veritas (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Pedro. NHRHS2010 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    I know that it is generally frowned upon to contest every oppose - however, since every "oppose" just reiterates one editor's concerns, I just wanted to make a brief statement. There may have been a few instances (literally) where I acted impulsively, however, 1.) They were committed in good faith and 2.)We're talking literally a minute fraction (maybe 5-7 at the most) out of hundreds and hundreds of authentic warnings and genuine vandalism prevention. As per above, how many WP:AIV warnings resulted in blocks? How many User names were blocked? How many instances were my warnings completely justified? I thought that would be apparent if you checked my contribution history. Hopefully this comment does not find me on ill terms with the community, just wanted to say my piece in this matter. However, I always try and WP:AGF, I know you guys are acting as such. Cheers fellow Wikipedians. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The claim by the candidate that he has versed himself in the operation of speedy deletion isn't supported by his recent contribution record [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. As well as clearly not being eligible for speedy deletion these articles were nominated a minute (or in one case two minutes) after creation. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Linkes 1 and 2 I disagree with - For instance, take a closer look at the band and its questionable notability, which is still a subject on the talk page. The other three, perhaps - again 3 out of, well you didn't provide diffs for the 50 or so recent SD's that were successful and appropriate. Just an observation..Wisdom89 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Link 1 is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content" and link 2 claimed that the band had won a notable award. How do they fall into WP:CSD#A7? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Link 1 refers to a fund raising event which can be construed as an organization, which I felt (and still feel) is completely un-noteworthy. The band (under WP:CSD#A7) in question did not demonstrate anything notable, both as their label and official site are identical, with no references. While they weren't speedily deleted, it does not prove that my actions were inappropriate or misguided. I will most likely follow up with an AfD if no improvements are made within a few weeks, as my searches do not turn up any main coverage from secondary sources. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, but by arguing this point you are providing further evidence that you do not understand speedy deletion policy. In the case of link 1 WP:CSD#A7 says, "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on"; the article is about an "and so on", not the organisation which holds the exhibition. For link 2 the relevant statement in WP:CSD#A7 is, "this is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources"; lack of sources may lead to deletion at AfD, but it is explicitly not a reason for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, again, I don't agree. Under criteria WP:CSD#A7, it does indeed refer to web content, or articles on people and organizations. Designtide ([6]) is obviously an organization, and qualifies as "web content". The article did not establish the importance of such an event. This determination was made after visiting the external link provided by the article. As for the band, yes you are correct. However, I didn't say that it was ONLY because of a lack of sources. Most new pages lack them. What I meant was that there was nothing that made me think the trio was important - I was suspicious because of the label and the official site. Anyway, really, I don't want to belabor this point - I know that you do not agree, and I'm not going to change your mind here - it's really just for explanatory purposes. I think I have a solid grasp of what warrants a speedy deletion since 95% of my SD nominations are deleted. Wisdom89 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    50/55 = 91%, not 95%. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: This user's recent contributions include tagging images uploaded on Commons as being eligible for speedy deletion locally, which is just plain weird. It's not a big deal on it's own, but it shows me one of two things, either, this chap doesn't look and see what he's tagging for deletion (and there's a worry that spreads to actual deletions if he were to have the capability) or he simply doesn't understand about images uploaded on Commons, which, again, is no big deal, but not something I would want in an administrator as it makes me question what other areas of policy are they uncertain about. Sorry. Nick (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Nick. Sorry! Jonathan 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Per the above concerns (and I do believe they are concerns) from Pedro, and Nick. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - as Pedro. Sorry, more experience please. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Per Pedro, there are some issue that need to be addressed before your next RfA, try again in 4-5 months. Tiptoety talk 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Per above Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as per speedy deletion concerns above. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. While DesignTide is an organization, the article is obviously about the exhibition. You don't stretch the criterion to get the 'right' result. HotCha winning a Jade Solid Gold award is a clear assertion of importance. Reasoning here raises doubt on the candidate's ability to tell whether any article fits the criteria, and these are the ones that matter compared to the uncontroversial deletions of the other 95%. –Pomte 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't stretch anything to get the "right" result - I already explained my reasoning. You just basically accused me acting in bad faith, believing that I felt it more important to get the article(s) deleted than to be proper. That's a bit unfair. I'm not going to argue those two points anymore though. It's cool. But let me get this straight? Are you insinuating that one needs a perfect track record in every aspect of what they do in order to be fit for adminship? I know this wasn't said verbatim, but it can easily be inferred from your dismissal of the "95%". Wisdom89 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    50/55 = 91%, not 95%. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Heh, dude, I was being arbitrary. The percentage might even be higher if you went back far enough - Just saying. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Your reasoning is a stretch independent of your good intentions. You don't need a perfect track record, but you do need to understand when tags apply and when they don't in order to have an acceptable track record as an admin, and your reasoning about the two examples here suggest that you don't. Invalid deletions are detrimental. The other 95%+ could be trivial, I don't know. Percentages don't mean much by themselves. –Pomte 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - The CSD diffs above are worrisome to say the least. A handful of declined speedies is acceptable if you're still learning about the policy, but so the fact that you have this many this recently tells me you're not ready for the mop. On a related note, I think having a read through this (partial) essay by User:Ginkgo100 and re-examining your declined speedy deletion nominations would be highly benificial. --jonny-mt 08:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral good candidate, but concerns concern me. Dreamy § 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's why they're called concerns.</joke> Useight (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per above. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Good editor, but per Dreamafter. Jmlk17 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Pedro. See above in Oppose section. Good user, but Pedro's comments worry me. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. NeutralWhile Pedro's concerns do not seem to be indicative of this user's actions, I'd like to see more time lapse before I support. --Veritas (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Your talk page is bothersome, but could be a good admin with a few more months' experience and patience. - KrakatoaKatie 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Not confident enough to support yet, but excellent progress! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:07, 28 January 2008 (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.