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

Edison[edit]

Final (60/0/0); ended 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edison (talk · contribs) - Dear Community, I would like to nominate Edison for adminship. He appears to be a concerned and active editor whose edits are nicely distributed among the namespaces and is ranked at WP:WBE. He is involved in AfD discussions and reverting vandalism. He commented to me that he could use the tools, and I trust his judgment that he may have them. Gilliam 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Gilliam. Edison 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: 1. Things I would be able to accomplish if given the admin tools include blocking vandals after suitable warnings and providing semiprotection when an article is under higher than usual vandal attack. I would watch the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page and work on the Administrative backlog, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old which sometimes has 100 old AFDs in need of closing or relisting, and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which also may have a backlog of 100 articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best work so far has naturally involved things not needing the admin tools. I participate in AFD and go through all the AFDs each day, contributing to those where I have any background or where I might be able to find references. I don’t think I could be accurately called either a deletionist or an inclusionist. I have taken many poor articles, found references (often non-Google) and improved them to the point the nominators withdrew the nomination. I have dug through the AFD history and identified unsigned comments, and noted those which appear to be single purpose accounts. I have tracked down and identified copyright violations and gotten them removed. I have taken volumes of a printed encyclopedia and checked that each article in it had a corresponding Wikipedia article, and that the basic facts checked. I added a little article on a fish called American plaice which was in Grolier’s but not Wikipedia. I created articles on Frederick de Cordova, Micropower and Elizabeth Austin, and substantially improved a number of other articles, such as Nathan Stubblefield and Thomas Edison. I proposed a notability guideline WP:NOTNEWS which was ultimately rejected, but the thrust of which was that events or people can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic, a principle which was later coincidentally added in one form or another to WP:NOT#NEWS and to WP:BLP1E. I answer lots of questions on Science, Humanities and Miscellaneous on the Reference Desk. I have applied the WP:BLP principles and vandal fighting in a balanced way, regardless of where on an ideological or political spectrum the subject has been.
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: When people with different backgrounds and opinions try collaboratively to edit an online encyclopedia, there are naturally going to be conflicts. There was spirited discussion related to the proposal and rejection of the notability guidelines WP:MALL, WP:CONG and WP:NOTNEWS in early 2007, but I remained on speaking terms with those having opposing views. There were content disputes as to what classification standards apply to shopping malls in various countries. My goal when disputes occur is to try and be professional and courteous, and to base my statements on guidelines and policies and on reliable sources. I have counselled others and try to practice it myself, to avoid having to have the last word, and to just step away from the keyboard for a while and do something productive in the real world when feeling provoked. I try also to consider the issue from the other person’s viewpoint and to assume good faith. Sometimes words which might better have been left unsaid need to be deleted or stricken by the person whose temper got the better of them, and I have done that when it seemed appropriate. I feel that admins should be especially willing to seek the advice of others when a conflict arises and they are tempted to use the tools in a way which might be self serving in any way. Edison 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by DarkFalls

4. When blocking vandals and answering requests at AIV, what is the criteria for blocking?
A: I would determine that the reported postings were in fact vandalism or spam. I would check that it was not part of a good-faith edit dispute over what the article content should be, that the offender had been adequately warned, and that the offender had vandalized after a final warning. I would not punitively block a user for an old offense. There are about 20 specific grounds for blocking stated at WP:BLOCK which boil down to protecting the public and the editors of Wikipedia from attacks, legal threats, harassment and incivility, and protecting the quality of the articles from nonsense, spam, and revert wars. Edison 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'5. What is your opinion on BLP in regards to reliable sources and original research, and how strictly would you follow the policies, if at all?
A: Statements in Wikipedia about living persons must be sourced to reliable sources, especially if the information is contentious or defamatory. Original research, such as a claim that the editor grew up with the subject and he personally knows thus and such about him, or that everyone in town knows thus and such, obviously does not satisfy that requirement. Any editor can enforce WP:BLP as I have done, especially when unsourced defamatory material is found. This protects the subject written about from harm, and protects Wikipedia and its editors from libel suits. Edison 07:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Can you comment on these articles for me please: EPA Technology, Philip Anderson, Dan Morrow, Pour tea on your turkey and John Fraser Smith. Would you list them on AfD, speedy them or leave them? (Examples cheerfully taken from Riana)
A:EPA Technology appears to be a hoax. This is not grounds for speedy deletion, but certainly for AFD. In addition it contains text which is a blatant copyright infringement from a real UK company called ERA Technology [1], justifying speedy deletion on WP:COPYVIO grounds. Granted, the present article was probably created as a teaching example, so assuming for the sake of argument and illustration that the article was about a real company such as ERA Technology, it certainly has claims of notability, but it is written in a spammy and promotional tone which amounts to blatant advertising, which is one ground for speedy deletion . The tone could be made less POV by editing, and references (if the company were like the real one) could be added. If the article were about the real company, rather than simply speedily deleting it, I might stub it by removing the copyvio material and briefly stating the basic facts about the company with a couple of references which could be found at Google Book Search, such as [2], ProQuest also has several articles with substantial coverage of the real company, which could be used to build a quality article.
Philip Anderson, richly deserves speedy deletion as nonsense or as a test edit, although if it were a real article (and not a teaching example) I would check the history to see if there were a sensible and salvageable version in some previous revision.
Dan Morrow has little justification to remain in Wikipedia as it stands. Again, I would check the history to make sure there was not a better older version. Assuming the article has no earlier, better version, thhe question is whether to ((prod)) it or speedily delete it for lack of an assertion of notability under criterion A7. It makes a weak, cryptic and in my opinion inadequate claim of notability in the “off (sic) X factor fame” and an inadequate claim of notability by crystal-balling and saying the subject is “up and coming.” The musician needs to have already achieved a level of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC, not just to have promise in the view of the article creator. I might search for evidence of notability and for references, to see if the subject might satisfy WP:MUSIC, or if the presumable band mentioned, “X factor” is notable. If the band had an article, the article might be replaced by a redirect to the band article. Speedy deletion is probably justified, strictly speaking. I do not usually go after the myriad of poor and unreferenced articles which fill Wikipedia about bands and musicians of doubtful notability and whose claim to fame is to have “released a single” through some indie label, and who seem to be legends in their own minds only. A high school garage band could “release a single” or album on their own indie label. That said wholesale speedy deletion of the mass of similarly poor music articles might be seen as disruptive. Further research in some cases has found that a band or musician’s record was at some point high on recognized popular music charts in a major country, or in other ways satisfied WP:MUSIC. I would rather spend my research time and effort on articles in other areas of Wikipedia.


Pour tea on your turkey is a neologism that has not gained notability and which fails WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not for things made up at the dinner table one day. It gets one Google hit (this very teaching article appearing in Wikipedia), but nothing on ProQuest, Google News or its archive, and nothing on Google Scholar. Few phrases are this non-notable, or so completely fail Wikipedia:Verifiability . Although the article is enjoyable to read, and however well written or expressing eternal truths it may be, I believe it would deserve a PROD, and then an AFD if someone removed the PROD template from the article.
John Fraser Smith lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject, and as it stands probably fails WP:BIO and certainly fails verifiability . It has one vague reference with no title, publisher, or year, which cannot therefore be readily checked to see if it has material about the subject of the article. It might be just a privately published family genealogy, and would not by itself justify keeping the article in AFD. There are several claims which make enough of a case for notability that the article deserves at least AFD rather than a PROD. GCB is the highest order of the Order of the Bath, just as GBE is a high order in the British honors system. AFD results in 2007 have not generally found such honors to convey inherent notability on the recipients. The article claims he was a member of the “Supreme Court” without specifying what supreme court in what country. "Supreme Court" is a term that has been applied to initial trial courts in some U.S. locations besides the top federal court, and to high judicial bodies in the U.K., and New Zealand. Claiming the subject served on the “supreme court” rules out speedy deletion for lack of assertion of notability. The other speedy criteria do not appear to apply. This could go to AFD. Edison 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent answers, although I disagree slightly with the analysis on John Fraser Smith. Admittingly, the article will probably fail on verifiability but the article has a definite assertion of notability. The rank of lieutenant general is generally associated with the Chief of Army or as a commander of some sort, which should guarantee notability... Anyway, I'm supporting... --DarkFalls talk 09:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but an unsourced claim of holding a given rank in the military without specifying the country leaves us not knowing whether it was the implied country of his birth New Zealand or someplace like the Principality of Sealand, and besides still fails on verifiability. Edison 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. A lot of edits, and I think he will be a good admin! I also beat the nom!!! Politics rule 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Strong Project space edits, and I believe this user won't abuse the mop. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Candidate has a lot of experience with AfD, and seems to generally give solidly well-thought-out rationales while remaining civil. — TKD::Talk 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I doubt this user will abuse the buttons, nothing too flashy in the contribs, nothing out of the ordinary either. --Ben hello! 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)#\[reply]
  5. Support as nominator. - Gilliam 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Sure. Jmlk17 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good answers to the questions. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good solid editor, works hard, and fair minded. I'm sure I disagreed with him about something, but I couldn't tell you what it was, so it must not have left me with a negative impression. - Crockspot 01:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Takes WP:A seriously and, I agree with TKD, contributes thoughtfully to AfD's. Also a tremendous help at the reference desks. Sound ideas, good judgment, mature editor, not a friend of wiki-drama. As long as he doesn't promise us a fortune, I trust him with the tools. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Excellent research at AfD. Espresso Addict 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, I've seen nothing but good from this editor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I thought he already was, and see no reason for him not to be. I do agree with Miranda that he might not be willing to ban someone who is disrupting or harming the encyclopedia, or has just plain exhausted the community's patience, but I also don't think that he will get in the way of those that are --lucid 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support; absolutely. Veteran editor, fair, sane, trustworthy. Nothing but good here. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. A great editor that I highly doubt will misuse the tools provided for administrators. AR Argon 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support good edit history, the candidate will make a good admin --rogerd 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - great editor with solid edits; always does very good work at AFD, and seems trustworthy. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This user is a great editor. It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--MONGO 04:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have always been impressed with the candidate's thoughtful comments in AfD discussions. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Well experienced, good all-round contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. This editor seems to be a prime choice for the mop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Useful fella, come across him a voice of sanity on deletion stuff. Should do well, and I'm not fussed about the Qst comment. If he has inexhaustible patience, good on him. He'll likely make a far better admin than me, who does not possess such calm! Moreschi Talk 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Lightbulb support. >Radiant< 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! It took my brain about a minute to understand that. Am I slow or what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. To me, the strongest candidate on RFA at the moment, and probably for a while. No concerns whatsoever. Neil ム 09:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Well, OK. Seems to have his heart in the right place and a good head on his shoulders. Not honestly particularly ticked off at the comment at the Qst ban, if it was just a general thing and not directed towards that immediate conversation. I do hope that you realise people, by and large, treat CSN as the penultimate resort before ArbCom. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - What I see here is a very strong candidate indeed. Bucket-fulls of experience in all the correct areas. This user should have been an admin a while ago. Lradrama 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great editing track ,civil and with experience.Harlowraman 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. —AldeBaer 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. -Support - fine editor. Onnaghar tl ! co 13:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Been on the project for a good while. I've seen him around here and there and he seems sensible to me. Friday (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Edison has lots of edits, good work on help-boards and AfD (although we don't always agree), and has been very helpful throughout WP. Will make a great Admin, with all the experience gained through past efforts. Bearian 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Looks good, excellent answers to questions (especially Q3). No reason to oppose, sound editor. Melsaran (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. He is a civil, reasonable, intelligent, and informed editor, and I have no doubts that he will be an excellent admin. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. A dedicated editor, who has helped out all around WP. Has consistently brought intelligent, well-thought-out perspectives to debates, and his excellent judgment will be an asset in administrative tasks. --Krimpet 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Noticed him as an excellant contributor to AFD, believe will make a good admin. Davewild 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Like Davewild and others I've seen Edison's good work at AfD. Good judgment and I think will be a good admin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Long overdue, didn't I ask to nominate you before. Jaranda wat's sup 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Friday's comments below sum my feelings up perfectly. Being calm, levelheaded, stingy with the troll food and slow with the banhammer are all good things. IronGargoyle 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support there is nothing wrong with this user. Acalamari 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I'm impressed by most of what I see, but Miranda has a point. However, I will support. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --DarkFalls talk 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support A calm and level headed editor, whose contributions (and discussion below in Neutral) lead me to believe he will pause before acting and reflect and review actions that are made. To whit, trustworthy with the buttons. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  10:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I've seen you around, you'll do a good job :) CattleGirl talk 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I trust that this editor won't misuse the mop. Xiner (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Slade (TheJoker) 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No qualms. James086Talk | Email 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per nom. Trustworthy editor. PeaceNT 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Candidate is a good member of the community and understands policy. Edison appears to have all the makings of a solid admin. Majoreditor 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support This user would make a great admin, I am pleased by his responses regarding the sample articles. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I know I've seen you somewhere... ;-) · AndonicO Talk 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support more than meets my standards. Experienced user, patient and helpful with others. No evidence of incivility or acting out in anger. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weakish Support Will not abuse the tools, IMO, so support. I should have liked more mainspace and usertalk edits recently... but then it is a question of trust, and this editor has mine. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support have seen in AFD's and while we don't always agree, he is always civil and presents his position coherently. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support From his answers to the questions, he seems to have a good understanding of deletion policy. (Stuff you would need to know to do speedies without making mistakes, not just AfD policy). An all around good record. EdJohnston 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Good, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 05:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good editors, good admins make. In my experience he has always calm, helpful and considerate. Rockpocket 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Impressed by his answers to Q. 6. --A. B. (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Good answers to questions. Trustworthy and ready for the tools. Welcome to WP:60. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Abstaining I am worried that this user doesn't know how to tell if a user is disrupting the encyclopedia. Miranda 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying - The diff. that I provided is an example of how this user can or cannot tell if a user is disrupting the encyclopedia. If this candidate were to be on, let's say, WP:AIV patrol, and sees a user who is clearly vandalizing the encyclopedia, he may choose to ignore it while another administrator blocks the vandalizing user, in which in this case the user may or may not have stopped. Miranda 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here-- users that have exhausted the community's patience and vandals are very different things. Still, even if they are the same, how is this any more harmful than him using the mop in another area? --lucid 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot pretend that I found Edison's comment about 'finding other online activities' more than slightly disruptive in itself - I myself have vast reserves of both patience and that AGF stuff, but the actions of Qst were inexcusable. I found myself wondering whether Edison had actually read the reams of evidence and diffs provided in the discussion. Nevertheless, CSN is not Votes for Banning, and I shall not oppose him just because he had a contrary opinion to me. I cannot support, though. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he responds to the reasons of what in his opinion of a user being considered disruptive or not, I may change my vote. However, responding to Lucid, this kind of relates to other areas, such as AFD where a user can create socks or bring meatpuppets in order to sway the opinion of the discussion. And, this candidate, by using the above logic of the statement, by using the theory of, "If X can disrupt the encyclopedia, then I really don't see a problem here with X. If you do, then you can find other activities to do like reading a book." However, I disagree with Lucid. Vandals can exhaust the community's patience. See ban. Miranda 03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) I never said vandals can't exhaust the community's patience, I'm saying that users that do and blatant vandals are very different beings. I do agree with Riana's comments about it being slightly insulting, but I wasn't involved in the situation, so I don't know what the subject had done to judge that. I still find that you're comparing apples to oranges though, Miranda --lucid 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the case for yourself. However, if/when the candidate explains himself with the dif, then I may/may not change my vote. Miranda 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that dispute resolution processes will not work for all editors, so that some who are disruptive, who lack civility, or who engage in sockpuppetry need to be banned, and that the community sanction noticeboard is a valid forum for discussing and implementing such bans. I did not defend the actions of Qst and his/her several incarnations in the subject case, so much as I chimed in to object to the term of art "exhaustion of the communities patience" which makes Wikipedians sound like a short attention span group. I agree that the discussion page of Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard would have been a more appropriate forum to make the comment and to suggest alternative language than in the particular discussion. Edison 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that exhausting the community's patience is a bad reason to show someone the door, but I understand Edison's criticism here. He can have a different opinion from most of us on this issue, and that's OK. If I thought he was likely to run around unblocking disruptive editors who'd been blocked for this reason, I certainly could not support, but I don't at all see that he's suggesting he would do such a thing. We need admins who are generally reluctant to block - it helps keep the rest of us in check. Friday (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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