Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wizardman

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] Wizardman

Final (60/4/3) Ended Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:31:10 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk · contribs) - I have been in the Wikipedia community in all areas for nine months, and have been very active over the past 3 months. Even in the months where I had a low edit count, I made sure those edits were of use to the Wikipedia community. I have attempted especially recently to be very well-rounded in m edits, and I feel that I am ready for the admin tools. Plus, I have been extremely active this month primarily to se if I can handle doing work on here for man hours at a time. I feel that I can work for a long time each day on here without a problem, and I believe I can truly help wikipedia. Wizardman 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's a self-nom, so of course I accept. --Wizardman 02:17, 22 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 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: One of the biggest thing I would love to help with is C:CSD. Often I see articles that clearly should be speedied, but sit there for 4 hours, which isn’t exactly speedy. Plus, I have been helping out at the lesser-traveled XfD’s (RfD, CfD, etc.), and would love to help close those and help out there, which I have been doing. Obviously I’d just start with ones that are pretty much unanimous one way or the other before looking to find a solution to harder ones. Of course I want to help reduce the backlog at WP:AIV, but that’s secondary as one can warn and report users there without needing admin tools. Most importantly to me would be the ability to semi-protect and unprotect pages on WP:RFPP. Often I’ll see articles there not get semi-protected when they clearly should be, and vice-versa. I didn’t add everything for admins to do up, but that doesn’t mean I’ll ignore other aspects; I will contribute to wherever I am needed as an admin. For example, I have not contributed much to WP:AN/I, but I look at the topic relatively frequently so that I would know what to do when a matter arises that needs my attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I managed to make the 2004 NFL Draft and the 2003 NFL Draft into featured lists almost single-handedlySome of what I contributed to the 2004 Draft. The 2002 NFL Draft is also hopefully going to become my third featured list. I have created many articles as well, including getting 2 under the Did You Know section, but I still consider my list-improving and vandal fighting to be my two strong points. I have been recently trying to improve a few choice articles, mainly the 2006 Cleveland Browns season and John Baldwin, which I’m trying to expand as much as I can. Lastly, I’ve been working on WP:BIGTEN, the Big Ten WikiProject in hopes that some of the other colleges in the Big Ten system can become featured articles as well.
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’ve had a couple problems that aren’t too big of a deal. I contribute to WP:3 and WP:RFC when I can, and there are some groups of users who just refuse to compromise. If I ever realize that I’m even close to having trouble following WP:CIVIL in any debate, I just pull back, re-evaluate my position, and decide if I should continue discussing my position on said article. Parma, Ohio is a good example of my attempts to resolve a debate. Parma was in a 2-sided edit war for many months over the Economy and the Police Force. I felt that the economy read as an advertisement and that the police area was pov. Neither side would give in, and after 2 semi-protections and a complete protection, I finally was able to create a compromise that both parties accepted. Since then there have been 0 problems at that article. I had a similar problem at Keeley Hazell, where there was an edit war between the wording of British or English. I just eliminated the word and no one’s put it back in, so it looks fine. But again, I will deal it with a cool head, and would rather not get involved in a dispute that I may end up hurting more than helping.
4, an optional question from Picaroon. On your userpage, I quote you saying "I tend to be more serious on warning vandals than others, so vandals, don't cross me" and "I hate vandals" (emphasis yours). Are you aware that most vandals aren't out to get us, they're just bored people surfing the internet? How can I be assured that, with this attitude, you won't take to biting newcomers?
A: I understand your concern based on that statement. When I say I hate vandals, I do mean I hate ones that not only continue to vandalize after a warning, but then start attacking my userpage and my talk page. Bored people surfing the web I have no problem with, and generally just throw a subst:test1 tag on their talk page. Basically if i ever do bite (which i may have done once or twice back in June when I just started using Vandalproof), I only do it if they have bitten first, and even then I try to be civil. Let me know if you want me to explain that further.
5, question from Ed. You say that on your userpage that you are a freshman in college. Is this step from high school to college challenging or too much of a big change for you in any way? If so, how do you balance your Wikipedia and real life activities? Also, do you let real life stress spill into Wikipedia and vice versa? Do your activities affect your overall performance as a Wikipedian?
A: Good question. I could take the easy way out and say that my edit count actually shows that I have now successfully balanced the two, but I'll explain in more detail. It was certainly a challenge, but once you hit college you are on your own in terms of time management. It took a little work at first, which is why my September and October edit counts are low. I actually have no problem balancing the two. Part of it is that I'm in a lot of lecture classes where I basically just come in, take notes on my laptop, and leave after an hour. That being said, I make sure to edit Wikipedia when I don't have a lot of work to do, but I was also given a college that, in all honesty, there's very little to do on campus. This means that I can edit Wikipedia for several hours and literally not be missing anything. I try not to be too stressed out on anything. If I ever get stressed, I'll change those meters on my userpage and just take a break from wikipedia. I can't say that my activities have changed my wikistyle though honestly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

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

6. 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.
A: The main problem with spam is that not only is it increasing, but it becomes hard to get rid of because most newer users are unaware of the spam policy. (WP:BB on welcome templates doesn't help that situation). Myspace pages should pretty much be removed. They only have any usefulness for band pages, and if someone wanted it that badly they could just look through Myspace for it. Youtube's a little harder to define, but in general if the youtube link is vital to the article's notability (i.e. lonelygirl15), then that's fine. However, a video clip of, for example, Steve Atwater's hit on Christian Okoye would not be useful at all because it's not notable, and doesn't contribute to either player. Of course, if any clips violate copyright they should be removed, that goes without saying. As for advertising, that was one of the problems in the Parma, Ohio article, as the Economy section sounded like an advertisement, and it was the one thing that I didn't back off of in the long debate. What I would also do is watch the #wikipedia-spam channel and look over external links that came through there to make sure nothing was spam. It basically comes down to warning spammers, educating new users (I plan to ake my own version of the welcome template that will add in WP:SPAM), and making sure that links in articles actualy contribute to the articles themselves. The purpose of External Links is to provide slightly more general references that would be of interest to someone who wants to learn more. Said person's not going to learn much from a 10-second Youtube video, but they will from a related site. I hope this answers your question.--Wizardman 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, you may want to have a look at {{welcomespam}}. Though improving the general welcome template can't be a bad idea. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WEll, that template could certainly come in handy. Of course that would be used for a new person who was spamming, but I think adding some of that into the general welcome template (or just knocking out the mentions in the spam template that the user did anthing wrong) and welcomign users with that would certainly help.--Wizardman 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:BigDT

7. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A: Looking through WP:CSD, the page does a very good job of outlining both what should be speedied. I can't say there would be any circumstances for deleting a page that's not covered under the CSD policy for that reason. If it appeared to be a hoax or neologism, that's what the AfD and prod tags are for (non-speedy deletion in hopes that the article can be improved) --Wizardman 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

  • Wizardman, I see that you have done quite a bit of WP:BIO work, tagging things on article talk pages. Just eyeballing it I would guess that you have done at least 1000 of these. Were these done by hand? If so I would say amazing dedication! That is something I would have done by AWB. How many more of those remain to go? Just curious more then anything :D.
Yea, 1000 sounds about right actually. And yeah, they were done by hand. There's actually over 100,000 to assess, and despite my 1000 the backlog's actually increasing every month. --Wizardman 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support basically I trust this users judgement, I have seen him around. I see no reason why not. Arjun 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Great experience, great answers, has use for the tools. I can't believe he isn't already an admin.! Ganfon 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support- Seems like he'll be a good admin--SUIT42 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support- I have good faith in this editor.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Michael 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support A fine Wikipedian who will use the mop quite well. --MECU≈talk 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support - good work, especially at FLC, has displayed good judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support I already thought you were an Admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. G.He 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per above :). Yuser31415 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Very good, I like the replies to the questions above. As the mop is no big deal, lets give this fine user the mop already! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support like Eagle 101 says. The Rambling Man 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support- Sterling work, good judgement. yandman 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - good answers, although 'speedy deletion' does not necessarily mean it should be deleted within a few minutes, but rather the admin deleting 'on sight' once it is noticed (apart from checking stuff like page histories). However, I agree that we need more admins to delete stuff there. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - a trustworthy editor, no doubt about it. PeaceNT 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support- shows judgement. Agathoclea 09:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Seen this user around, I saw no problems in contribs history. I can easily overlook the CfD when he withdrew it upon further information. James086Talk 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support a hard-working user, answers are good, and not likely to abuse the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Clearly a dedicated editor. No reason to oppose. Coemgenus 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support--Húsönd 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Tepid Support no big deal - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support: Excellent answers to all of the questions, and there's absolutly no reason not to hand out a mop at this time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Cautious support - CfD on disaster movies is a non-issue for me, anyone can make a mistake, and Wizardman fixed the mistake, so I don't think we should harp on about that; on the other hand, "it's better than it was" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall men is a somewhat worrying !vote at AfD. Wizardman is a bit new, obviously still learning the ropes in some areas, but sterling work at WP:BLP cannot be denied and in the end I invoke the "no big deal" clause. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support --Majorly (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - someone I've seen around, adminship not a huge deal. Feels as though I can trust this fellow's judgment. Moreschi Deletion! 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Dedicated user who has shown good judgement. No reason not to trust him with the tools. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per above... Addhoc 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support I have had personal dealings with this editor and he is very helpful, courteous, and knowledgable. Quadzilla99 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support I have some concerns about this nominee's apparent impatience, in that he seems to make snap decisions in an XfD (or even an RfA) that he later reverses, usually because some other editor had done his or her "homework" before !voting, something this nominee could or should have done first. That has me concerned that this nominee could rush to judgment with the new tools a little too quickly. While everyone's entitled to change their mind (especially as these processes are a discussion, not a vote), I find it a little too frequently. That all said, I have noticed the nominee improving in this regard, so it is not enough of a concern that I would oppose. I would also have preferred to see this user gain a bit more experience; pumping up the edit count in the last two months, after rather sporadic contributions, doesn't quite seem to indicate that much learning was done regarding policy and guidelines. Again, it's not enough for me to oppose, because the nominee has become active at XfDs and rarely fails to give an explanation for his !vote. This isn't supposed to be a big deal, the nominee could use the tools, and despite the foregoing I think the candidate will not misuse them. Agent 86 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Weak Support per the *fd concerns. However, I see him everywhere and he always has good ideas. I trust him. Just H 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support as Wizardman has shown a lot of enthusiasm and a willingness to learn from mistakes. He has also been very active in a large number of areas important to using the admin bit, so I think he'll do a good job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support, Questions 1 and 6, and no complaints from me. ST47Talk 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - trustworthy, won't abuse. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. I'm very impressed with the attitude this user has, as exemplified by the comments below in response. Below is reflective of Wizardman's general contribs, from my quick browsing, and I see no other reason not to give him the tools. A perfect candidate, really - one who is able to rationally respond to adversity, and show appropriate courtesy. Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. he is a dedicated contributor.--Yannismarou 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support A hard-working Wikipedian, who deserves the mop. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, but please consider what JzG and Agent86 said: we're not working to a deadline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong support per above. GCFreak2 8:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support As with above I believe this user will be a great sysop. Somitho 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support per above. --A. B. (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per nomination. S.D. ¿п? § 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, looks like a good Wikipedian. Kyriakos 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, per rational and sensible answers, reasonable temperament in evidence, policy OK, nothing to indicate potential misuse.--cjllw | TALK 07:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, have seen nothing to indicate user couldn't be trusted with the mop. Proto::► 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support from me too, surprise, surprise. feydey 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Dfrg.msc 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Terence Ong 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support per nom. VegaDark 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Despite what the oppose votes have to say, I am still confident that this user would become a fine addition to the admin staff. Helping out with CSD deletions at first could probably stifle any doubts that I had about his speedy deletion policy. Nishkid64 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support No reason to suppose user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support- Jorcoga Hi!02:25, Sunday, January 28 2007
  56. Support I trust Wizardman's judgement. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. WJBscribe 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support per nomination.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support —mikedk9109SIGN 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Strongly Oppose — Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:Disaster_movies - I have to question your lack of judgement here, the previous CfD closed like 24hrs ago! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Switched to a strong oppose per rudeness below and lack of policy knowledge. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    Good point. I was looking around to find the previous CfD and couldn't find it so I put it up. I just saw the previous CfD now so I withdrew it. I'm not a fan of quick re-additions to XfD, and mine was simply an error in judgment. My withdrawal from that CfD probabl won't change anyone's mind; I just did it because is the lack of a time gap.--Wizardman 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Needs more experience, that isn't to say that he wouldn't do good if he's handed over the tools at the moment. However, wannabe Interiot shows high level of activity only in the last three months – [1], also many of the recent edits – [2], [3], which puffed up his edit-count are wpbio assessments, where he has made edits like this – [4]. Adding stub class as a kind of assessment. Looks like mindless bot work to me. Also good amount of participation in the process works wonders with voters. Will support in 3 months. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I can see where you'd say I need more experience, I knew I'd get votes like these when I applied. Granted, I wish I could just use a bot for the wpbio assessments, but I see what you're saying in your opposition. Granted I didn't eally need to reply to this, I jus feel that I should explain myself to any opposition.--Wizardman 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    It's actually a good thing that seemingly mindless bot work is done by a competent editor. I'm not sure why one would oppose on grounds that the editor is an active, valuable gnome. Wizardman does a lot of the little things that help Wikipedia function as a whole. Pascal.Tesson 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I think you did not get what I said earlier. His activity levels have been higher since the last three months; and before that he was not *very* active. His seemingly higher edit-count is due to the assessment work he did. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Four hours is not enough notice for speedy deletions. Argyriou (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Is the point of speedy deletions not to get rid of them speedily? I mean, if there's an article and the text is "HE GOES 2 MY SCHOOL AND HE ROX!", 4 hours is more than enough time to discern notability. If there's anything that looks notable in the least, it would go under AfD or a prod tag because of a longer deadline. Surprising reason to oppose imo, but if that's how you feel then that's fine.--Wizardman 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please be slightly more civil in your approach to people who oppose you, remember: adminship is no big deal! - please also see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically the first paragraph :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any incivility in Wizardman's response. Perhaps my complaint is mainly with A7 speedy deletions, but having had to deal with an overly speedy improper deletion on Herbert Saffir, I'm wary of anyone who wants to make speedy deletions speedier. Perhaps we could just abolish A7 altogether, as it's the criterion which seems most subject to error. Argyriou (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at Herbert Saffir's speedy deletion request, I can say that I have no idea why that person marked it, no reason to at all, and if I caught that I would've removed the tag myself. Plus one lok at the edit history would've shown no valid reason for the tag anyway. I really just used 4 hours in my question since that seems to be about at most where it is now, and those are usually for borderline cases that deserve a closer non-speedy look. I can kinda see what you mean, it really ends up being the same problem that Agent and the others had above. And I'm still trying to figure out how what I said above wasn't civil, it certainly is. But yeah, bad speedies happen, that's why I want to keep an eye on them; this way if I catch an ignorant tag quicky, I can get rid of that quickly and the article will remain.--Wizardman 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I recall reading some recent Xfd opinions by this user that were a bit... odd. The one I specifically remember was an Rfd discussion in which he wanted to delete a redirect because the target "wasn't going to stay around for a while" (if a target is deleted, it should be db-redirnone'd, but not beforehand). If I recall correctly, the decision was overturned at DR and comments were made regardly the complete lack of policy-based reasoning in the opinions of everyone at the Rfd discussion. I'm not sure this user has a strong grasp of deletion policy. --- RockMFR 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey. Admins should enforce policy correctly or make an informed decision to ignore it for a good reason... that's fine. But I'm not comfortable with a candidate who would enforce an incorrect reading of policy and ignore evidence that their reading is incorrect. On second thought, opposing over one incident is a bit of a jerky thing to do.--W.marsh 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I tried to explain what I meant with my "incorrect policy reading", not sure if that changes your guys' stance.--Wizardman 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Netural per W. Marsh. Carpet 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per W. marsh --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 January 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.