Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Ishikawa Minoru: 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 01:58, 12 July 2007 editIshikawa Minoru (talk | contribs)2,282 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 02:08, 12 July 2007 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →Discussion: oppose, self-nomNext edit →
Line 59: Line 59:
#'''Oppose''' There are three reasons why I'm opposing. 1) The edit count is '''way''' too low. You have been here a year, and averge 100 edits a month. 2) is bascially per G1ggy, and 3), I don't like how you've done too little vandal fighting. If you can proove you have been staunch, I may change to weak support. ] 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' There are three reasons why I'm opposing. 1) The edit count is '''way''' too low. You have been here a year, and averge 100 edits a month. 2) is bascially per G1ggy, and 3), I don't like how you've done too little vandal fighting. If you can proove you have been staunch, I may change to weak support. ] 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
#:I went over some of my edits and I can count at least 300 vandalism reverts. I'm sure there are plenty of people who work harder, but not everyone is willing to do that 300 times. -- ] 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) #:I went over some of my edits and I can count at least 300 vandalism reverts. I'm sure there are plenty of people who work harder, but not everyone is willing to do that 300 times. -- ] 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger. ] 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''

Revision as of 02:08, 12 July 2007

Ishikawa Minoru

Voice your opinion (talk page) (3/2/5); Scheduled to end 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ishikawa Minoru (talk · contribs) - I first found Misplaced Pages in September 2004, but only registered and started participating in the project in July 2006. Since then I've spent most of my time reverting vandalism, looking for typos and translating some articles from Japanese into English. Pretty much everything interests me, but most of the articles I actively edited in the past are related to Japan. I am a perfectionist and as such strife to create the perfect encyclopaedia with perfect articles. As one can expect this isn't an easy task. Nevertheless, I happen to think it's worth trying. That's why I want to become an administrator. Making use of that power I want to improve the quality of all entries, by preventing vandals from causing disturbance , either through blocking or page protection. Ishikawa Minoru 21:11, 11 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: My goal is to fight vandalism in the most effective manner possible. Though this could well be accomplished with a regular account, I believe having the power to effectively carry out blocks and protecting pages speeds up the process and allows for an increase in the quality of user contributions. As such, Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism and page protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I consider the Lake Biwa Canal and the Children Who Don't Know War articles to be my most valuable contributions.Both pages were first translated from the Japanese wikipedia and then expanded with information I found out myself.I've never been to Lake Biwa before, but I took a liking to the place and decided to investigate. At first I almost gave up writing the article because I though I couldn't possibly translate it, but in the end I think it turned out alright. It hasn't been assessed yet, but I'm almost sure it's past the 'start' level.As for Children Who Don't Know War, it's a song I heard on a Japanese song and decided to look into. I think the article flows well and am proud of my work.
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: Though it's nothing serious, I once went over the top and reverted an entry, identified as vandalism, on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article and wrote "I suggest you hang yourself" on the edit summary. In hindsight, I regret doing so. It was unprofessional, but rest assured that will never happen again.Thought I'd bring it up, because I'm not trying to hide anything. From this point on I'll most certainly abide by Misplaced Pages police and never feed the trolls.Other than that, everyone has been most kind to me here and I assume I've never been rude to anyone either.
4. Optional Question from Trusilver: In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban? In what situations do you feel a block would be appropriate? In what situations do you feel a ban would be appropriate?
My understanding of the term leads me to believe blocking refers to the technical mechanisms used to prevent actions such as vandalism. Banning, on the other hand can also be enforced via the above outlined way, but usually takes place in matters dealing with content disputes.
In the light of the above, a ban would take place when none of the administrators is willing to unblock the user, when administrative entities like Jimbo Wales and the Wiki Foundation decide to do so and when the Arbitration Committee see so fit. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Support this may be more of a moral support, but I think your on the right path. As giggy noted, you need to file more reports at WP:AIV if you want to nominate yourself on the grounds of becoming a "vandal-fighter". And please, try to follow Hiroshat's advice and be more active on Misplaced Pages. New England 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Enough experience. RuneWiki 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I would like to see some more project-space edits, however i'm sure they will go way up as you become an administrator. Apart from that, I have no other concerns. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 15 edits to the project space? Sorry, I just have nothing to judge your ability on. You say you wish to vandalfight and help out at AIV, but you've only made 5 reports. Give it more time, and more work, and you should get through at some stage in the future. Giggy UP 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Fighting vandals doesn't mean just reporting them. I'm sure you noticed but I have reverted a considerable amount of edits considered to have been vandalism. I've also left warning messages in many of those peoples' talk pages. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You've made 77 user talk edits. Even if all of that was vandal reporting (which is unlikely), it still isn't that much really. I just can't support a candidate who wants to be an AIV admin but has done very little vandal fighting.
    On another note, could you enable the preferences option that forces edit summaries? Giggy UP 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have a feeling your overlooking the aspects I mentioned. First of all, I use talk pages almost exclusively to work around content changes. As such, I'd assume a good portion, maybe 35 or 40 warnings were placed there. Should I improve in that regard? Sure. But you're forgeting the edits behind all this. Every once in a while I check the Recent IP changes page and revert all edits which I see are vandalism. I've been doing this since at least December 2006. Just today I'm sure I reverted around 10 edits. That's one of the most important aspects, right? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it is important, but I can't judge your experience when you've done very little of it. That's my point, and that's the reason for my opposition. Unless you have other arguments, that's probably all I'm going to say. Thanks, Giggy UP 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sorry, Ishikawa, but how can I possibly judge how well a user will be able to handle the tools, interact with other editors, grasp policy, and make difficult decisions when they have made so few WP-space, WP-talk-space, and user-talk edits? You look like a great editor otherwise, and I certainly encourage you to continue to keep editing, but I simply don't think you're ready yet. I'm not one for editcountitis, but at this point, I simply don't have enough to go on. -- Kicking222 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Judging by the vandalism I reverted in the past, I have come to believe I can tell vandalism from constructive contributions. As such, the only thing I though I had to do was rummage through the WP:AIV page, see if the users in question were indeed being disruptive and proceed to prevent them from causing further damage. Either that or when I received word someone was doing such from a distressed user via my talk page. I do understand your concerns though. After all you aren't me, so it's hard to assess how I'd handle it. -- Ishikawa Minoru 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    ...And you do a great job at reverting vandalism. But even if that's the only admin task you intend to do, no admin will ever end up doing just one job. You'll have to help resolve disputes and block people (which relates to vandalism, but not vandalism alone) and delete articles, and with so few talk and WP-space edits, I can't tell how you'll deal with the other things. This is not an oppose of discouragement; it is one in which I am trying to say, "You're doing a great job, so keep at it." -- Kicking222 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your point and apreciate your apreciation of my efforts as an editor. I admit I disregarded WP-space and focused instead on producing content and cleaning articles. Nevertheless, I can compromise and have had a rather pleasent interaction with fellow members, so I don't think handling disputes will be a problem. I'm also impartial because I tend to obesess about factual accuracy and style, so that won't be a problem either. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are three reasons why I'm opposing. 1) The edit count is way too low. You have been here a year, and averge 100 edits a month. 2) is bascially per G1ggy, and 3), I don't like how you've done too little vandal fighting. If you can proove you have been staunch, I may change to weak support. Politics rule 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I went over some of my edits and I can count at least 300 vandalism reverts. I'm sure there are plenty of people who work harder, but not everyone is willing to do that 300 times. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Minoru, you've been here at wikipedia for about a year, but your average edit per month is well below 100 edits. I'm not saying that you always need to be on wikipedia, but try to be more on because admins do have to do a lot of work along with their usual editing. H irohisat 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    What? Admins don't have to do any work. They're volunteers. --Rory096 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Being on Misplaced Pages and editing pages are two different concepts. Practically speaking I can dedicate at least 3 or 4 hours per diem to Misplaced Pages.
    You must think your edits over, otherwise you're bond to make mistakes, that's why I haven't edited all that much (not that I have a small number either, in my opinion). -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - It is true that I like to see a user more active but that is not the real reason I'm !voting neutral. You have a lot of actual contributions to wikipedia in the mainspace. Not just vandal reverts, but real article writing edits. However, the fact that you don't have many edits in the project spaces shows potential lack of real understanding of policy. I'm not a editcountis freak, but I would like to see a higher participation in the project. Sorry friend, but for now neutral. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    No need to apologize. Could you please explain what you meant by "...in the project spaces shows potential lack of real understanding of policy"? You mean I should get involved in specific projects like Wikiproject Japan, Korea, etc? -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - An edit count does not make a good editor, and I feel that you have a really solid background in working in mainspace. However, you have almost no background at all working in projectspace. In fact, the majority of the project space edits you have are from this RfA. I suggest you put this RfA on the back burner for a few months. Find a job you really like doing an administrative task, like possible reviewing articles for deletion or perhaps participating in other people's requests for adminship so you can get a better background for what occurs here. Trusilver 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral with moral support - seems a good intentioned editor on the right track but there is just not enough by which to judge this user's understanding of policies. Would likely support if there were more participation in the projectspace to demonstrate familiarity with policy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Minoru, you're on the right track, and with more edits, and time, I will support you for admin. You simply need some experience.old windy bear 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)