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

Appraiser[edit]

Final (41/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser (talk · contribs) - This user has been on wikipedia since August 2006, has ammassed over 25,000 edits, of which over 20,000 are mainspace. He has applied his knowledge all over in wikipedia and has proved a great help for many users. I have no doubt of the amazing quality of this user and has the best ability to be an asset to the administrative team. Dreamafter ⇔ 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Elkman (talk · contribs) Is it too late for me to co-nominate after this RFA has gone live? Appraiser (talk · contribs) has been an excellent contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. He's participated in three articles that have made it to featured article status: Minnesota, History of Minnesota, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. I've worked with him fairly closely with articles at List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota. He's done a lot of good work for Wikipedia and I have no doubt he'd make a fine admin. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination, will attempt to answer any questions promptly, and will endeavor to uphold WP principles as admin if selected.--Appraiser (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (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: I expect that I will occasionally peruse articles and graphics with template:Db-reason tags and delete the ones that I agree with. Otherwise probably just respond to admin needs as they arise.--Appraiser (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Appended) I would also like admin rights to block repeat vandals, intervene in edit wars, and move pages that require admin intervention.--Appraiser (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I just passed the milestone of having created 100 new articles. About 70 of them are historic places, some of which can be found by looking at my edits at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New articles. I also put together the List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota and worked extensively on Minnesota (main page FA May 11, 2007) both of which are among the best of the 50 states for articles of their types. I think it's cool that I was the last person to edit I-35W Mississippi River bridge[1] prior to its falling into the Mississippi River, a rather mundane change—but perhaps interesting to folks who wanted to know about the bridge that filled the airwaves that night. I also work on the tedious task of verifying the 12,000 or so members of the U.S. Congress. When I find an incorrect name (such as Thomas Burke earlier today) I add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives so that it can be created. I find this hobby of mine rewarding, as much for the interaction with other editors as for the joy of being part of the information revolution that we just beginning.--Appraiser (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Appended) I am also proud of Politics of Minnesota, List of Iowa Attorneys General, and Template:Dakota County, Minnesota, which are largely my work, and Portal:Minnesota which I have dabbled with lately.--Appraiser (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes; I have had conflicts. And some have caused me stress. Three examples come to mind.
  1. I uploaded a picture of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Prairieville, Alabama) from a U.S. Government website that specifically said that the information on the page was "public domain". Another editor objected, saying that the statement didn't apply to the photo. After a few days, another photo was located, voiding the dispute. I was more concerned with the precedent than the specific photo, but the process was civil until an alternative was reached.
  2. I have recently participated in an "edit war" with another editor (User:Tmoszman) [2] over changes to the wording used in several articles (most notably Tim Pawlenty). The other editor's few edits could all be categorized as "spin" in articles about politicians. I suspect the pattern will eventually be noticed by others. For the time being, I have allowed him to have his way because I believe the truth will ultimately prevail.
  3. I have had an ongoing dispute with another fine editor, User:Markles about linking to articles such as United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota versus List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. We have come to a mutual standoff, while User:Stilltim is methodically removing the links from all of the Ordinal Congresses, nullifying the dispute. Despite our differences, we have successfully collaborated on the tasks ahead of us.

Bottom line: I vow to avoid using my admin privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute.--Appraiser (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A ban is a social system invented by the WP community to prevent edits by a counter-productive contributer. It may have a duration and scope as needed. A ban may prevent an editor from modifying his user page as well as mainspace. A block is a tool that may be used to accomplish a ban, or may be used as a very temporary measure to stop vandalism or as punishment for violating the 3R rule. A block usually does not prevent edits to one's own user pages.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. If the consensus of an AfD discussion that you want to close contradicts policy, what do you do?
The primary policies on WP include verifiability, neutral point of view, and avoiding original research. Consensus cannot trump any of these policies, however if a solid consensus, including other admins, opines that these policies were not in fact violated, I would re-evaluate my own interpretation of the violation. Ultimately if I continued to disagree with the consensus, I would step back and opt to not close the discussion.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. If another admin deletes an article or removes information due to BLP concerns, but you believe that the information does not violate BLP and should be restored - what do you do?
I think it is very important to err on the side of caution when dealing with living people. In the hypothetical posed in the question, I would contact the other admin and try to assemble some compromise language, with solid references, that would cover the topic while mitigating the concerns of the other admin.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your opinion on the category WP:Administrators open to recall?
I wasn't aware of this voluntary program before reading the question. My first reaction is that it's a great idea. My second thought is, "why isn't it mandatory and uniform?" I certainly think that powers given by a body should be recallable by that body.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Sarcasticidealist

8. You speedy-tagged a couple of articles here and here as A7s that were de-tagged by two different existing admins. Could you expand a little on your reasons for speedying them, whether you agree with the admins' decisions to de-tag them, and more generally your threshold for an A7?
Upon re-reading A7, I shouldn't have "speedied" the school. I'm glad that another admin corrected my error. As for the band, at the time I added the tag, the article didn't assert notability, and the only references were the band's own sites. The article now has external links to third-party sources; had they been present originally, I wouldn't have "speedied" it. My criteria for notability in general is, "have unaffiliated sources written about the topic?" If the creator of an article does not cite third-party sources, the article is vulnerable to A7. If sources are added later, I have no problem retracting my first impression. In general, I think two people should evaluate an article prior to deleting it. In other words, I will add speedy tags and execute articles that have been tagged, but not both on the same article.--Appraiser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. (follow-up) On what basis do you decide whether to tag an article for A7 vs. whether to tag it as being in need of reliable sources? My apology if the question seems loaded - I promise you that I'm genuinely still undecided on this RFA, and I'm hoping your answer casts some light on your thinking on what I think is the riskiest part of the mop.
I was confusing "notability" with "significance". Oddly, in the case of Snatches of Pink they seem to have attained notability (having been reviewed by independent critics) without any "importance/significance"—at least none that is mentioned in the WP article. I would only tag an article with a "speedy" if it had no claim of importance/significance AND no notability (covered by reliable 3rd-party sources), AND if I didn't see any potential for these to be added based on the material in the article. It is certainly "safer" to tag an article with an unreferenced template, which I do much more often. But I also take A7 seriously—why should x band have an encyclopedia entry? The author needs to give the reader some assertion of significance lest we produce an encyclopedia that is 90% cruft.--Appraiser (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second follow up Is there a difference between the significance or notability necessary to keep a WP article, and what is necessary to prevent tagging it for speedy? DGG (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion for speedily deleting an article is the lack of an indication of the subject's significance or importance (A7). This applies only to real people, organizations, and web content. Even if an article lacks an indication of importance, I would also not speedily delete an article about a subject that is "notable" (defined as having been written about or covered by an independent source). So, for me, an article would not be speedily deleted if the subject exhibited either notability or importance.--Appraiser (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Agreed. I was going to say I'm not sure why anyone would vote prior to answered questions, but then I remembered - oh shit, I just did that with J-stan! Still, a 'per nom' vote prior to answers is strange :-P Avruchtalk 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per co-nom added above. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed from neutral, user expanded on answer to Q1, and it looks better now. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't forsee sysop abuse from this user. Maser (Talk!) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Period. Thank you. ∂☺1♂K∫ ₪&+(_)+5 (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. the_undertow talk 06:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support The more experienced article writers who also have admin powers the better. Nick mallory (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 'n1yaNt 09:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Seen this user around, always left with a good impression. Rt. 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. per nom. Harland1 (t/c) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Great contributor to the encyclopedia, don't see anything which would cause me concern. I'm not crazy about part two to Q3 (don't just give in to the vandals!), I'm not worried. faithless (speak) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, seems trustworthy enough, no reasons as far as I can see not to give him the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support A collegial and diligent contributor. Kablammo (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SUpport. That's a lot of edits. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good, experienced editor who should have the tools. Doczilla (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per answers to questions. Before adding yourself to AOR, check out User:Lar/Accountability and look at some other folks recall guidelines. Its a tricky subject, so look into it more carefully before making a decision. Avruchtalk 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - good answers! Bearian (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Cautious support My only concerns with this candidate are that he might be overeager with WP:CSD, especially A7s, but he's allayed my concerns substantially with his answer to question six. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Cancelling out Corvus cornix' oppose, which he ironically bases on a solicited "reason". Yes, I happen to agree with AOR. And Wikipedia processes don't produce drama, people do. Everything else about the candidate seems just fine as well. Dorfklatsch 02:43, January 4, 2008
    (I wonder if I could make my point more efficiently by starting to oppose all of the RfAs per Corvus cornix. If a few other humor-gifted, engaged and concerned fellow users joined in, this would certainly generate a lot of heat, but also help drive the message home. — Naw. WP:POINT opposes are too lame and will be ignored anyway.) Dorfklatsch 02:54, January 4, 2008
    Perhaps we could just pop in on every nom that he opposes with "Support: The more drama the better!"? Gromlakh (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds way too dramatic for my taste :D Dorfklatsch 11:57, January 5, 2008
  22. Slightly Qualified Support I like what I see, but I understand the concerns raised by Nishkid64 in Neutral and Phil Bridger in Oppose. However I agree with Sarcasticidealist that Q6 indicates the candidate would be cautious. Speedy Deletion is contentious, and poorly applied speedies create stress both for admins and non-admin editors. Having said that, your other contributions indicate a civil, friendly and knowlegable contributor so I have no real concerns. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Dorftrottel and per Pedro. Concerns raised by Phil Bridger are valid, so I would have been neutral had it not been for the candidate's brave commitment to admin recall. WaltonOne 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Strong editor. Lara❤Love 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Yes. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Candidate's answers are good, does not appear to be someone who will abuse the admin tools. Gromlakh (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - As an admin, should you shoot and ask questions later? Or the other way around? The Transhumanist 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per above. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. This is a fantastic editor and one of those that when I saw his nomination, my first reaction was "What the hell? he's not an admin already!?". Trusilver (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support -Dureo (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I can support. Acalamari 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support When users of this caliber are willing to donate time to admin chores, Wikipedia will benefit no doubt. Knowledgable and helpful participant. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Having worked with this editor on numerous articles, and also having the benefit of knowing him in person I feel that he would be a superb Admin. Calm, reasonable, fair-minded and open-minded describe his personality well. Atom (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. This fine editor's judgement is trusted. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Jmlk17 10:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support My appraisal of this user is excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- I don't see how his answer to Q4 is grounds for opposing, but to each his own. And I know he will be very sensitive to collateral damage when blocking IPs. --A. B. (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A diligent and patient editor (per A.B.) who will be a valuable admin. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I couldn't find anything I didn't like, and my interactions with this editor have been positive on the rare occasion that they have occurred. --CastAStone//(talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Will do fine. Grandmasterka 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose. Sorry to be the first to oppose, but I have to on the basis of the answer to question 5, and the speedy deletions which prompted that question. WP:CSD#A7 is not about notability or sources, as is clearly stated in the policy. For an admin not to understand this will lead to articles getting incorrectly speedily deleted without general scrutiny from the community. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to withdraw my oppose vote. My daughter is on the phone now and wants to talk to me so I'll explain later!. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input; I am still learning and genuinely appreciate your criticism.--Appraiser (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per answer to Q4. The less drama, the better. Corvus cornixtalk 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but wouldn't it be better if the user was alright with being held accountable for their actions, so that they may be recalled for them? Dreamafter ⇔ 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The current "process" is no process at all. There is no "procedure" for recall, it's all spur-of-the-moment and based on arbitrary criteria. If there were a solid, criterion-based process to handle this, then I might reconsider, but right now, it's just a popularity contest and it makes it too difficult for admins to be brave without fear of somebody just arbitrarily opening a recall on them. Corvus cornixtalk 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. That I can accept. What if the user did not put his name on that list but was willing to be re-confirmed if, and only if respectable editors bring something that has relevance to adminship up. The thing that is brought up must be considered "bad" enough that the user may lose adminship over it. Dreamafter ⇔ 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still too arbitrary. I don't think admins should have this cloud hanging over their heads all the time. Corvus cornixtalk 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent)Okay. Fair enough, but will you consider just giving it a neutral if your only concern is that? Dreamafter ⇔ 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will consider it down the line. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all that I can ask, or will. Dreamafter ⇔ 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Leaning toward support, if user is willing to expand to their answer on Q1. It doesn't really show a need for the admin tools, as helping to clear one subcategory of speedy deletions plus other "admin needs" seems like a weak reason to request the admin tools. This could easily be changed to a support if the user wouldn't mind adding to that answer. 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to support, see above. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral per answer to Q5. CSD A7 can only be applied if no assertion of notability has been made. If any assertion of notability (example: xx was the first band in the state to do xx"), then the article cannot be speedy deleted per A7. I am not opposing this RfA, because I'm sure if you re-read WP:CSD, you will have a proficient understanding of our speedy deletion policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 3 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.
Category