mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aqwis Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aqwis

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

Aqwis

[edit]

Final: (49/3/4); ended 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Aqwis (talk · contribs) - Aqwis has been an editor of Wikipedia since October 2006. He has accumulated a fair number of edits since then, mostly in the article space. He has mostly worked on Bergen, an article which is well on its way to good article status. He has also created several other articles, on all different topic areas. He's mostly a copyeditor, and he also takes part in various project space discussions, including featured picture candidates, the help desk, articles for deletion and templates for deletion. His comments are always helpful and add to the discussion: [1] [2] [3]. He's open to differing views, and will change his mind if necessary [4], knowledgable of our policies [5], [6], and helpful to newcomers [7]. In all, I think he is a great editor and will make an excellent admin. Thank you for considering him. Majorly (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thanks Majorly. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Unlike most other adminship candidates, I do not promise to participate in XfD. Instead, I intend to assist in clearing backlogs at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Did You Know, and any other field where more administrators are required in order for Wikipedia to run more smoothly - which I see as far more important than speeding up deletion of pages that usually do not harm Wikipedia in the short term. I also intend to use my good judgement, supported by my knowledge of our policies, at AIV, 3RR and CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my article writing has taken place in articles related to Norway, due to the large number of sources available to me. However, I also regularly clean up and copyedit pages not within my sphere of interest, and occasionally add content if reliable sources are available online. I do not yet have any good articles, and certainly no featured articles - perhaps I lack strength of will, or perhaps English not being my primary language has hindered me from writing any. Nevertheless, I feel confident in my article and content contributions, and that I will take at least a few of my articles to Good or Featured status in the future. As for Bergen, which is mentioned in the nomination, I edited that article regularly during my early learning process. As such, I did several edits to the page which I would not have done today - including the addition of several references which I today would not judge as reliable enough. However, all in all I am reasonably pleased with all my content contributions, but perhaps not directly proud of any of them.
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: During my Wikipedia career, I have mostly edited uncontroversial articles - articles about Norwegian settlements tend not to receive much drama. :) My attempts at being Bold have sometimes ended in my actions being reverted - however, this has never resulted in conflict, with an agreement usually being reached quickly. I trust myself in being able to resolve conflicts and drama, due to my experience from being a moderator on several decently sized Internet discussion forums.

Optional questions from EJF

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is a way to technically prevent users from harming Wikipedia or its users. A ban is a revocation of a user's editing tools by the community, Jimbo, the Foundation, or the ArbCom. Banning a user does not always involve blocking him; for instance, if the user is partially banned from a specific topic, he is only blocked if he violates the ban by editing articles related to the topic. An indefinite block may evolve into a ban if no administrator is willing to unblock a user.
5. Let's say you found added to an article on a school by a new account with no previous contributions: i think this is the worst school in the whole world. Would you consider this vandalism and why? What action would you take?
A:Yes, I would consider it vandalism, as an intentional unconstructive edit. However, I would be reluctant to block the user, as this type of vandalism is typical of young users who should not be fully expected to understand the consequences of their actions; instead I would try contacting the user. I have faith that young users, even former vandals, can become constructive members our community: I would rather risk a user vandalizing a few pages than Wikipedia losing a valuable contributor. If the user continues to vandalize or shows signs of being a experienced vandal or sockuppet, I would warn and eventually block him.

Optional question by Nousernamesleft

6. Which of the following would you tag for speedy deletion? Which ones would you tag for AFD? Which ones would you leave alone?
A: After doing an unsuccessful search for sources for the article, I would AFD test1 as not meeting the WP:WEB criteria; only one source being available makes the article fail criteria #1, and in addition, we don't know how substantial the coverage of the subject in that source is. I would speedy test2 as having no indication of the notability of its subject. I would leave test3 alone as the topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
Comment on answer: Sorry, I meant without actually considering the topics themselves; considering only what's provided in the pages. Anyways, your answers concur with mine. The only controversial one seems to be the first; some editors I've encountered want to speedy it, some take it to AFD. Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Corvus cornix

7. What is your opinion concerning the "this admin is open to recall" controversy? Would you offer yourself up for recall if you are an admin whose actions have been questioned?
A. Although I fear that allowing the community to get rid of admins too easily could possibly lead to admins doing unpopular but necessary decisions and actions getting de-sysoped, I believe it is important to allow the community to de-sysop genuinely malicious admins or admins with exceptionally poor judgement. If this RfA succeeds, I will add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.

Optional question from Chris.B

8.What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.) Chris.B (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The 3RR policy does not entitle users to three page reverts within a 24-hour period - if a user is found to be disruptive, he may be blocked despite not actually reverting changes more than three times within a 24-hour period. In this case, I would decide whether or not to block a user mainly depending on the nature of his reverts, and partly depending on his experience. If the user is new, and not likely to know our policies, I would consider warning him on his user page and only blocking him if he continues to disrupt. If the user is heavily disrupting Wikipedia by edit warring, I would probably block him straight away.

Two part Question from Pedro

9.Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to cite itself? Would making an edit in which an editor cited Wikipedia as the source indicate they are not ready for adminship? Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: It is not acceptable for Wikipedia to cite itself, except in certain cases where Wikipedia, Wikimedia or other Wikimedia projects are the subject of the article. Instead of citing a cited Wikipedia article, the citation used in that article should be used instead. I do not think one issue, much less a single edit, should be able to prevent a user from becoming an admin, granted that he shows a wish of (re-)reading and understanding the relevant policies/guidelines. However, an editor who consistently cites Wikipedia may not find it easy to pass RfA, showing insufficient knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and I would possibly consider opposing him myself.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
The Candidate has indicated they will be answering further additional questions soon. Perhaps at that time more supports will be forthcoming. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not having answered the questions as soon as I should have. Perhaps it was a wrong decision to allow myself to be nominated for adminship now, and I absolutely understand Pedro's reason for opposing me. I should have expected that I would not have much time for Wikipedia during Christmas. I encourage everyone to ask me additional questions if you have any, and I will answer them tomorrow. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose an re-instated the question, as I appreciate User:JayHenry's point regarding the holidays. Pedro :  Chat  09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Majorly (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support John254 17:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Rt. 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Majorly said it very well. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Editcountis-based votes don't appeal to me. The only thing I would suggest is for this user to become more active in Wikipedia-administration projects, which he doesn't appear to participate in very often. I also added an optional question for you. I won't withdraw my support; I'm just curious what you would do. Temperaltalk and matrix? 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Trustworthy user, won't go insane with the tools. Qst 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Would have preferred more experience, but I think will be ok. Go slow. If uncertain, ask. First, do no harm. Dlohcierekim 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've seen Aqwis around, and I have confidence in him. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Lykke til. Nick mallory (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Aqwis is a sensible user and he has good judgement. He should make a great admin.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Looks good to me. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Sure--SJP (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I am on wikibreak, but i have to support this. Aqwis is a great user and should definitively be given the sysop tools. My interactions with Aqwis are only good. Rettetast (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't see him abusing the tools. Maser (Talk!) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 23:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - would be a good addition --n1yaNt 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, seems to be a reliable enough fellow. No reason not to support. Lankiveil (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Would like to see some more mainspace, but he knows what he's doing. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - just over 2500 edits in 14 months is really low but looking through your edits it seems you have made good edits in the past..I think he is trustworthy and I don't see any "Conflicts" this user has had..and an excellent nom :) ...--Cometstyles 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I trust him. Very nice article, good comments on FPC. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No concerns here. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - JodyB talk 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -no reason not to. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The Transhumanist 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. This is an excellent candidate with an excellent nominator, and I see absolutely no reason to oppose whatsoever: if Aqwis wants to add himself to recall then so be it; candidates often get opposed if they say they won't add themselves to recall and now it seems they get opposed if they say they will add themselves to the category: they can't win either way. I also note the "not enough deleted edits" reasons, and that surprises me too: double-editcountitis? To me, it's not the number of pages tagged, it's the quality of the tagging: if someone made 15 speedy tags, and all pages got speedy deleted, that shows more knowledge of the deletion policies that someone who made 150 speedy tags, and only 50 were speedy deleted and the rest were either declined, or the speedy was changed to AfD or PROD. I trust this user. Acalamari 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I see no reason not to AGF, as there is no differential evidence to suggest untrustworthiness. VanTucky talk 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Looking at the answers to the questions put forward, edits and other contributions show me that this user can be trusted as an admin. Sting_au Talk 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Certinally meets my standards. Mr Senseless (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as he seems committed to improving and expanding the project. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A great user use could use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Particularly for the answer to question 1. We already have more than enough admins who are happy to delete articles, so let's have some who concentrate on using the tools to improve them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak Support I would have prefered answers to more questions, but still there's no reason not to. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellent, committed to the project. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strongest possible support- great answers to questions, exactly what I was looking for! Excellent editor. EJF (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support "I do not think one issue, much less a single edit, should be able to prevent a user from becoming an admin" - yes, that would be something we could all do with remembering. Good luck, and sorry about not giving you enough time to reply to the question. Best. Pedro :  Chat  12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per candidate's contributions, and per q7. WaltonOne 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support (og ønsker deg lykke til i dette ormehullet av et sted å være administrator – jeg fatter ikke hvorfor du frivillig ønsker å bli administrator her, men du vil trenge all lykke og alt hell du kan få på veien, hvis ikke kommer folka her til å steine deg.) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Nothing indicates to me that the candidate will do worse than the average admin, despite his "failure" and individual "shortcoming" to be part of the policy-discussing in-crowd. This perhaps says more about my own opinion about the admin corps, but I also think that the candidate's temperament, combined with a sustainable edit rate (of less than a thousand per month) are a good omen that he's never going to explode or implode like others frequently do. Lykke til! Dorfklatsch 13:47, January 3, 2008
  43. Support per Jon Harald Søby.--Bedivere (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. per Majorly (talk · contribs)'s nom, and answers to questions 1, 2, and 3. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  45. Support - Trustworthy and experienced enough. Go for it. James086Talk | Email 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support but I hope the candidate's statement of "I do not think one issue, much less a single edit, should be able to prevent a user from becoming an admin..." is incorrect when it comes to extreme misconduct such as pedophilia edits, grossly irresponsible administering, etc. Support!Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support -Dureo (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Regretful oppose - I am regretfully opposing this user, for one the topic raised below by Rt. shows a lack of experience dealing with article deletion and the speedy process, I would like to see more speedy tagging, along with contributions to WP:AFD. Another thing that worries me is the lack of (or none at all) reports to AIV, does not show me that this user clearly understands the blocking policy and how to properly deal with vandals. Do i think this user will abuse the tools? No, not really. But do i think that this user has demonstrated a clear understanding of the core policies that help make educated administrative decisions, no i do not. I also feel that with only 214 edits to wikipedia related pages does not show enough experience discussing policies, reporting violations and interacting with the community. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you regret it, why oppose?--Phoenix-wiki 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because i know that this user will not abuse the tools, and is overall a good contributor to the project, but i have just not seen enough experience discussing policy and interacting with other users which is a large aspect of administrators daily tasks. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral. Tiptoety talk 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose The kind of work Aqwis does is important and necessary. However, someone with limited article-writing experience, in my view, simply does not get the "big picture" of Wikipedia enough to be an effective administrator. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Avruchtalk 05:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    wow..new tune..atlast you made sense!! :P ...--Cometstyles 13:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per answer to my question. Corvus cornixtalk 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will add himself to recall. We don't need the drama, I don't want Awqis to be an admin if he's going to do that. Maxim(talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't thought this one out properly. Although I don't agree with AOR, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Really misguided thinking by me. Apologize. Maxim(talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose You have had a more than reasonable time to answer questions, without publicly (and barely in edit summary) advising you would not be able to. Yes, this project is voluntary. However if you delete, protect or block then courtesy says you would answer questions arising from those actions in a timely manner. Evidently you can't. If you're not that bothered about your own RfA then why should I think you're bothered about the project? Sorry, but best wishes anyway as I'm sure this will pass. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a second comment on his talk page asking if he would answer questions. HOPEFULLY, he will answer them, or else I am forced to oppose per Pedro. EJF (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - questions now answered, decided to strong support[reply]
    Eugh. They are OPTIONAL. I cannot believe you're opposing for this minor detail. These kind of opposes are why this whole process sucks. Thank god bureaucrats ignore opposes like this. Majorly (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, you know I like you, and I don't normally challenge like this, but I think you should reconsider here. It was New Years Eve and New Years Day smack in the middle of the holidays. He answered the other questions within 48 hours. That's completely reasonable. I understand what you're saying about a slow response but if you can't make an exception for a global holiday I think that's pretty poor and very much against the spirit of the season. --JayHenry (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's a fair point JayHenry. However, Majorly, you're totally wrong. They are optional to the extent that if the candidate doesn't answer then he can only expect an oppose or neutral. I'm not asking the question for the good of my health you know.....Pedro :  Chat  09:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He may expect them, but he was going to answer them. But I didn't think there'd be a strong oppose, least of all from an admin. Majorly (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose in spite of my general agreement with what he says here, he has had essentially no experience discussing policy, or interacting with other users. I look forward to supporting some time in the future. DGG (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Hmmm, I did initially supports per the nomination statement and answers, but after looking at this, it shows you only have about 44 deleted edits, showing not much interaction at new page patrol, this combined with your low edit count generally, and specifically in user talk and Wikipedia namespaces, unfortunately makes me neutral. Rt. 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may also like to add that I will be considering this decision for the time to come, pending (!)votes of other users. Rt. 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has 102 deleted edits, FWIW Majorly (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out. I will support, but I think it's too early in this user's "wiki-career" to become an administrator, at least wait until s/he passed 5000 (not editcountitis) when the full beauty of their contributions can be truly realised. Rt. 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for the time being, pending on answering of all more questions. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to weak support S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Hum, I would have preferred more experience and contributions overall to the encyclopedia.--JForget 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I like the idea of more admins that understand how to deal with image issues, but I'd prefer to see at least some experience in AIV. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral- There are to many concerns raised above for me to support, maybe next time. TheSparton (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - The above user has very little contributions anywhere but here. Tiptoety talk 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, user appears very well acquainted with Wikipedia for a new account, however, given that the comment does not affect the RfA too much, I don't think there is a very large problem or some sort of fraud at work. I think we should WP:AGF. EJF (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral - Okay, i changed to neutral, just in this short RfA this user has taken the communities advice and has improved, so i do not think my oppose really is truthful anymore. Tiptoety talk 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.