Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Awiseman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Awiseman

Ended (44/0/1); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Awiseman (talk · contribs) - Awiseman is someone that I have seen occasionally contributing to Wikipedia. Looking through his contributions I was rather impressed. He had his problems early on in his Wikicareer, but he has become a better editor based on what I've seen. He's brought the Beer pong article to GA status, and he's primarily an article writer. However, he does participate all around Wikipedia, and I don't see any reason to not make him an admin. Wizardman 01:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you --AW 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: What I've mostly submitted things to are WP:AIV and WP:RFPP so I'd work there and help the backlogs. I've also worked a bit against sockpuppets and noticed there is usually a backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, so I'd definitely help out there. I've dabbled with Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:Requested moves and am interested in working on those too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It might sound corny, but I'm always happy when I ask a question about an article (a citation needed, a confusing part, etc) and it gets resolved, or I can resolve it myself. As Wizardman noted, cleaning up Beer pong was nice, and I did some work on Colonial Williamsburg, noticing in the process that a public relations company was editing the article. I've also helped with Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee and getting Wikipedia:WikiProject Piracy going. I like writing new articles and I've also welcomed probably hundreds of new users and IPs, it's great to see them become editors. Always good to have more editors!
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: Two in the past come to mind. Just finding it randomly, I thought the Ataturk article didn't have a WP:NPOV, and after some hiccups I think we got a lot of people to work together and get the article into a better form. I don't think I'll have that sort of issue again, as I learned the ins and outs of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule by experience there! The other one was with an IP user who was erasing other users' messages and in turn didn't assume good faith about me. It got me pretty stressed and I took it to Wikipedia:Third opinion which basically brought us to a consensus. That sort of issue I can easily resolve by taking a deep breath and a step back.

Optional questions from O (talk):

4. Looking over your contributions, I've noticed that not many of your edits have been marked as minor, and I've noticed some that should have been marked as such. When should you mark an edit minor?
A: You're right, I probably should be marking more as minor. Things like typos, correcting a simple error, formatting and so on I should have clicked the box. will be more diligent with that.
5. Why is marking some edits minor important? Why is this importance amplified for admins?
A: It's important because marking something as minor tells other editors that they don't need to check and see if it was a good edit or not, assuming there's an edit summary that makes sense, and for admins, who have to look at many edits to make their decisions, it would make their job easier.

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

6. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
And how are you going to know if one doesn't belong there at the exact time that Awiseman decides to look through CAT:CSD? As with the question below, this is a completely loaded question. You are clearly forgetting that adminship is no big deal. Can't you be bothered going through the candidate contributions to see if you trust them rather than providing them with a set of ridiuclous tests that will take the candidate a long time to complete simply to win your support? I'm not going to go through every single candidate that you've asked the questions to and comment, but I think you should consider this and either remove them all, or refrain from asking such questions in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Postlethwaite, I would appreciate it if you would stop following me around from RfA to RfA attacking me, in the middle of someone else's big moment, for simply having asked a slightly challenging question. This is at least the second time I've directed you to please raise your concerns with my questions at User talk:SMcCandlish#RfA questions. I hope I will not have to do it a third. Both the candidate here and the other RfA participants have better things to do that read you raising repetitive left-field complaints about something trivial and of no direct concern to you, on page after page. If you'd actually bother to read the talk page topic I've referred you to multiple times now, you'll find a very full explanation of my purposes in asking this question, as well as an explanation of why your interpretation of it is excessively literal and pessimizing (in reality it typically takes very little time to answer the question.) I hope we both have better things to do now than continue this discussion, though if we must, I hope you'll do it elsewhere than in RfA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Awiseman before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Better Wikipedian than I am. --Stlemur 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - good user. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Woo, hoo! Great work at AIV and RPP. Giggy UCP 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Had Me At Beer Pong Support the_undertow talk 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks good. (aeropagitica) 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Sorry, I was going though your contribs and got side tracked before I could comment. So - Yes, 1) Contribs 2) Civility 3) Reasoned discussion 4) Talking to others across the whole 'pedia 5) Answers to Questions are ok and show understanding and a will to work at less common areas. 6) Everything in your nomination statement and answers is backed up by contribs. 7) Run out of things now but if your favourite cheese is stilton you can have a seventh reason as well. :) Best. Pedro |  Chat  22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Great editor, can't see any problems here. ELIMINATORJR TALK 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I like what I see, and see no issues. Jmlk17 23:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support -- I still appreciate his support and encouragement when I was a new editor. Since then, I've run across him several times and he's always doing good work, both in article-writing and discussing edits on talk pages. --A. B. (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support A wise choice.--Húsönd 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. A great user, nothing bad enough to oppose or even neutral :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I like it when I can see that someone has developed over time. Also, really impressive work on Beer pong!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong support all is well here. Acalamari 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. + Good spread of edits, civil, knows policy and contributes quality edits. Unrelated to the nomination, I'd like to mention that this image contribution to the only article I've written was most useful. Keegantalk 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Like your answer to Q2 and 3 --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Would make a good admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I like your answers. J-stan Talk 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Good editor, might be of help with access to the buttons. —Anas talk? 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Support A wise candidate. —Moldymort 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Indefblocked vandal. WjBscribe 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Great job on bringing beer pong to GA. You have my support! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. WjBscribe 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong support I have worked with this user on a few articles, and he seems like a great, positive editor with adequate experience.  hmwith  talk 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support good answers to questions, no obvious problems. Not likely to abuse the tools, and has knowledge of policy and that is backed up by good contribs. (→O - RLY?) 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Everything looks good. No objects. NSR77 TC 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - lots of relevant experience - good candidate. Lradrama 08:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Awiseman once said - Y Not!!..--Cometstyles 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support —I've seen him around and he always seems to be doing things that make this a better place! —MJCdetroit 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Read through his edit history last night but never got around to posting. I like everything I see, certainly no red flags that would suggest to me that this editor will be anything but an excellent sysop. Trusilver 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - wide interests. Bearian 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - seems to be a good candidate. --Aminz 09:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support ~ Anthøny 11:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per nom. Peacent 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. @pple 10:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support- Great editor. Very impressive, good experience, edit count, no reason to believe will abuse tools. Hope it works out, seems like it will. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - one of the best I've seen on RfA yet. Well done. Onnaghar (sch-peak) 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Nat Tang ta | co | em 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Candidate appears qualified. Majoreditor 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - Trustworthy and ready for the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Good editor! Politics rule 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Full support, VERY happy with answers and I doubt he would abuse his powers. Deliciously Saucy 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support as per nom Harlowraman 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support No concerns. --Hirohisat Talk 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Comment: Nominator, "I don't see any reason to not make him an admin" is not a very strong rationale in support of sysopping this editor. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, he's a great article writer, i pointed that out, and he understands what it means to be a Wikipedian. Not sure what else I need to add. Wizardman 04:08, 28 July 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.