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

Ashibaka

final (71/1/0) ending 20:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka ( talk · contribs) – I've decided to self-nom because I'd like to have a bigger hand in helping out. I've been writing for Wikipedia since 2002, but I didn't fully realize the possibilities of the project until 2004, at which point I promptly jumped into the inclusionism debate by founding the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist, which for some reason is the largest Wikipedian association excepting the Counter Vandalism Unit and Esperanza. As for the rest of my edits, you are to be the judge. Ashibaka tock 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I reluctantly accept. Ashibaka tock 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Cliché support, I can't believe I got to be first. Thanks for posting your responses to the optional questions before I even had a chance to ask (for some reason, I had a feeling you would). Of course, Ashibaka has been on here for quite a long time, and because you are the founder of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist, I must vote support. That and the fact that I have no doubts that you'll take on admin and maintenance tasks with gusto! -- D e ath phoenix 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support, an astonishingly good candidate. The contribs list is extensive and varied, and has (more recently) good edit summary usage. There is excellent argumentation in AfD debates and the like (I particularly liked this diff) and the talk page shows friendliness and civility. Then, there's the answers to the questions. I feel I should move to blank them, for fear they will be used as model answers by those too lazy to work them out for themselves. They capture the essence of good understanding of policy, guideline and practise as well as demonstrating the flexibility of approach that is so important. I laughed out loud (actually) at the answer to Q4, which should be framed somewhere. A damn fine admin-in-waiting. - Splash ^talk 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support obviously.  Grue  21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. I've seen you around and like your style. Still, given how you seem to HAFFLATAHTR (Have a fondness for long acronyms that are hard to remember), I wasn't sure what to think, but this sold me. If I may be so bold, consider using the magic .js stuff to force you to put in edit summaries, and work on making them a bit more explanatory, and I bet you won't get a single oppose vote. OK maybe not, but support anyway. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Lord ViD 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support -- NaconKantari ( 話)|( 郵便) 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support because You're long overdue. -- Eddie 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support Latinus 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. lawdy... support! Grutness... wha? 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support, excellent candidate, no doubt. – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support edits look good.-- MONGO 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Strong Support best self-nom canditate in a while -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support They've changed the questions, haven't they? -- Wikiacc ( talk) 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support - a worthy user -- Francs 2000 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. jnothman ^talk 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support, looks good. — Kirill Lok s hin 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Sango 123 (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. Thunderbrand 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- Ugur Basak 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support Trustworthy editor, brims with new ideas. Xoloz 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support looks good abakharev 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support good contributor on Japan-related articles -- Confuzion 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-24 04:38 Z
27. Support. No objections. Pschemp | Talk 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Grace Note 05:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support, looks great! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support; superb. Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support, I can't find any reason to oppose. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support -- Tantalum T e lluride 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 09:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 09:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support the mighty and awesome AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD overlord. Proto  t  c 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support, looks good. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Standard "WTF, you're not an admin?" comment. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support - Bobet 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Clearly qualified for the position. - Colin Kimbrell 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. YES INDEED. Level-headed plus sense of humour equals big win. --  grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support enthusiastic, level-headed and not a deletion fanatic Cynical 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support, no need to accept your self-nomination reluctantly. We're all human. I think. Hall Monitor 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support, now I've had a chance to review your contributions I can finally add my support :) -- Petros471 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support. Mihai - ^talk 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. No reason to expect any misuse of the extra buttons. Zocky | picture popups 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support. Why would I vote against a very trustworthy Wikipedian deserving adminship? SYCTHOS ^talk 00:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support I was under the impression that this user was already an administrator. There's no reason why a promotion would be a problem that I can see. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support especially for his answer to q.1 on "Requested Moves." On my RfA, I answered that I would work on RM but due to various reasons I couldn't. Hence, this vote, so that the RM cat is lean and mean. -- Gurubrahma 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. support is a good contributor Yuckfoo 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. support experienced and seems unlikely to abuse admin status _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support. Well deserved. NoSeptember ^talk 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support couldn't believe this user wasn't an admin already.... Mikkerpikker ... 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. King of All the Franks 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support. Would make a great sysop. — TheKMan ^talk 06:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support. Obviously experienced, good Q1 answer (not just "reverting vandalism," though that is extremely important as well), and creator of AWWD... on top of it. -- Jjjsixsix ^{( talk)}/_{( contribs)} @ 06:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support good editor -- rogerd 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support Nice anti-vandal work. - Ravedave 04:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support. This one should be easy. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support Clearly. Ban e z 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support-- Bling-chav 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support without hesitation. Thatdog 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. No argument here MrVacBob 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Rob e rt 04:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support. Mushroom 10:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support. Sarah Ewart 13:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support. PJM 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support. If we started an Association of Wikipedians Who Want Ashikaba to be an Admin would that overtake your group in members? I think it might.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ ( t- c- e) 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Squeezing in last second support. BD2412 T 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Mildly Strong Oppose, Not good at handling disagreements (See Talk Pages for details) - Mike Beckham 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm sorry for the disagreement we had at Wikipedia Watch but you never did explain why you wanted an NPOV tag on it. Ashibaka tock Ashibaka tock 06:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I stand by my vote - Mike Beckham 11:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 61% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 130 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• See information about Ashibaka's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Wikipedia:Requested moves has always been my personal vice. At one point it had a backlog of over a month, and Category:Requested moves is even worse. Many requested moves are rather uncontroversial, and I would like to do my best to deal with these. Of course, I will also be happy to help out with the usual array of janitorial tasks such as AfD closure, requests for protection, and vandalism rollbacks.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. As I state on my user page, the contribution that I am most proud of is this edit to Template:Nihongo: [1] which resolved a long dispute and cleaned up hundreds of Japan-related pages in one swift stroke. I've also written up Wikipedia:Wikipedia has too many rules, which is a guideline version of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules reflecting Jimbo's comments on what IAR means to him.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I've soared through without any Wikistress until recently, when I was involved in a dispute over Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day with an anonymous user who insisted on adding a paragraph that claimed that there was not much to celebrate on Wikipedia Day 2006 because of Seigenthaler and so forth. When I reverted this message he promptly pointed out my mistakes in such a way that made me rather upset, but I simply slept on it and the next morning the guy was gone. I firmly believe that if you're getting too stressed, or getting angry at someone, you need to turn off the computer and do something totally unrelated. This will put your worries in perspective.

4. When would you use {{ test1}}, and when would you use {{ bv}}?

A. Most cases of blatant vandalism shouldn't actually be called that. For example, a bit of blanking or nonsense from friends of gays merits a {{ test1}}, not because they were necessarily testing, but because it introduces the newbie to a community that assumes good faith and welcomes new contributors. If someone's getting angry with other users or being a POV pusher, you should abandon templates entirely and talk to them personally. {{ bv}} should be reserved for persistent cases where the newbie is without a doubt trying to disrupt things. (Generally, using the test series of templates one by one isn't that great-- it reminds me of the prerecorded messages from Magrathea which didn't stop anyone. "The menace in the voice took on a sharper edge. 'Meanwhile we thank our clients for their kind interest and would ask them to leave. Now.'")

5. 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.)

A. Four times in just over 24 hours indicates a knowledge of the letter of the law. I'd remind them that just because they're strictly obeying WP:3RR doesn't mean they're acting politely, and probably ask them to finish discussion before they attack other people's edits. If they are reverting in obvious vandalism or POV stuff which has already been ruled out on the talk page, I would give them a firmer warning.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. CSD A7 is really easy: if an article about a person or group makes absolutely no statements about why its subject is notable, then it's not useful to anyone reading it. I would do a Google search, especially noting if any other Wikipedia articles turn up in the results (linking to it), and maybe try Google Print/Amazon as well if that seems relevant. If I see anything that might make the subject notable, I'll remove the CSD template and add a link pointing to the possible notability. If the article itself has been improperly nominated, I'll put it on AfD. If the article claims its subject is the king of the world or something, I will delete it as nonsense :)

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. On Lolicon, an article that is certainly controversial, I took three steps: first, to make the changes I thought were necessary, secondly, to discuss them on Talk when someone disputed them, and finally, to just drop the damn thing when it became clear I was in the minority. Now that I am in the majority on that article and reverting anon edits, I'm keeping up the discussion on Talk to make sure there's still a consensus. In general if there's an article that I have a strong opinion on and other people are already arguing about it, I'm just going to keep away and trust them to come up something agreeable.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. There are too many pastel boxes everywhere. Luckily, this is something I can fix (e.g., removing {{ cleanup}} when there's already a {{ pov}} alerting people to the problems in the article). Also, citing sources, of course.

9. Why do you say that you "reluctantly" accept, especially as you are a self-nom? -- Petros471 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Humour. -- D e ath phoenix 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

A. For a while I was unsure whether I was good enough to be "admin-quality" (I was thinking of rejecting any RfA given to me because I'm not a cool enough dude to be admin), then I realized that everyone makes mistakes, and if I want to improve Wikipedia I have to be mindful of them whether I'm admin or not! So I reluctantly accepted my self-nom in light of recent optimism. Also, it's funny, I think. Ashibaka tock 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

10.Thanks for answering the above, I was thinking along those lines but wanted to check. Also I was about to add Do you think you have made any mistakes on Wikipedia? If so could you please say how you corrected them/reacted? -- Petros471 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Um... mainly I was just worried about my sense of humor, which is sometimes not shared by everyone here [2]. Also, when I started editing in 2002 I did silly things like attributing articles to their authors :) I can tell you flat out that I don't make mistakes along the lines of personal attacks or other incivility, and if I did you'd see them mentioned on my user talk page or on this RfA. Ashibaka tock 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.