Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Awiseman: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:10, 23 July 2007 edit4chanpwr (talk | contribs)24 edits →Discussion: +sup← Previous edit Revision as of 20:52, 23 July 2007 edit undoErachima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,650 editsm rm stealth vandalismNext edit →
Line 62: Line 62:
#'''Support'''. I like your answers. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) #'''Support'''. I like your answers. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good editor, might be of help with access to the buttons. —] <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) #'''Support''' Good editor, might be of help with access to the buttons. —] <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A wise candidate. {{User:4chanpwr/signature}}—] 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) #'''Support''' A wise candidate. —] 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''

Revision as of 20:52, 23 July 2007

Awiseman

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Awiseman (talk · contribs) - Awiseman is someone that I have seen occasionally contributing to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets, so I'd definitely help out there. I've dabbled with Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and am interested in working on those too.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tennessee and getting Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.

General comments

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

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 UP 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Had Me At Beer Pong Support the_undertow 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 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. 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. Keegan 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. --Siva1979 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I like your answers. J-stan 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Good editor, might be of help with access to the buttons. —Anas 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support A wise candidate. —Moldymort 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral