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

Ian13

final (52/17/7) ending 14:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian13 ( talk · contribs) – Ian13 is a hard working Wikipedian with a few months of experience. He really helped set-up WP:CJ with me. Compu terjoe 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Ian13/ talk 14:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Although he founded the userbox project, Ian is a good moderate, thoughtful guy (not a POV userbox in sight). He's got a little less article experience than I normally like to see in an admin, but I've seen enough good stuff to trust him with a mop. -- Doc ^ask? 14:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support per Doc. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Extreme "He isn't an admin yet?" support - nice, caring, thoughtful user that we're about to corrupt by giving him the mop - go us! -- Cel es tianpower ^háblame 15:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support will use the mop well. -- Alf ^melmac 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support he is an asset to our community, excellent potential to become a great moderator. gidonb 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support. Margana 15:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Experienced enough, with no evident admin liabilities or abuse concerns.-- ragesoss 16:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Shows qualities we need in new administrators. haz _{( user talk)} ^e 16:27, 25 February 2006
10. Support. He knows what he's doing.-- Shanel 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 16:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support -- Ugur Basak 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Although I would like to see more article editing. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support as nominator. Compu terjoe 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support - great vandal fighter -- Tawker 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
16. No reason not to support this user. Good edits, lots of edit summaries, good vandalism reverting. Clean record. -- Firsfron 18:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
17. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support - has demonstrated common sense, and I've no reason not to trust him Waggers 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Strong Support. Will be an excellent admin. -- Tantalum T e lluride 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Mild Support This user deserves it. Wiki eZach| talk 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
21. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Another He isn't an admin yet? support. Also, per the "13" ;-) -- Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support What the hell, he isn't an admin?? Great editor, will be a good admin. Mike _{( T C)} 23:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support a little concern he may be too concerned with process rather than wikipedia's goal of being an encyclopaedia, but on balance believe he will make good use of the admin tools. --01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Don't know where my sig went pgk^{( talk)} 01:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support -- Latinus 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support edits look decent, no reason to suspect that admin tools will be misused.-- MONGO 02:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Rob ert 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support, thought he was one. Ral315 ( talk) 06:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support, I also thought he was one. Thanks for sticking up for userboxes! -- Dragon695 06:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 06:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 14:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support Absolutely no reason not to. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Full Support Due to the lack of sense many of the opposing votes below make, I feel this user is more than qualified to be an adminstrator. Ian represents an individual (who does NOT live in a pineapple under the sea), instead a robot who copies and pastes AFD tags all the livelong day. Why settle for an encyclopedia when you can create a community of educated individuals, who have beliefs, dislikes, and talents? Acetic Acid 09:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Haukur 15:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Strong Support. He is certainly qualified. - Trysha ^{( talk)} 16:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Weak support (changed from neutral) - definitely a good editor, and although I would like to have seen a few more article edits, I'm sure he'll do a good job. Proto|| type 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support, already has the mentality of an administrator. -- Nataly a 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Much positive involvement in the community. -- F a ng Aili 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support per Doc, but disagree with Doc's negative assessment of the userbox project.    GUÐSÞEGN   –  U T E X – 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support. Handles disagreements well; adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support Would make a good administrator. Pegasus1138 ^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support -- Jusjih 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support Joe I 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support per nominator. -- Myles Long 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support Joe I 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support Good guy. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 10:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support great user and knows policy really well.  Grue  20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Mjal 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support per Doc. I would prefer more article space edits, but Those Who Cleanup and do Thankless Tasks Also Serve. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support, seems OK to me. JIP | Talk 15:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. OPPOSE-Frankly from what I've read Ian seems to lack the leadership qualities needed to keep vandals and other miscreants in check.I think vandals will find it far too easy to take advantage of this "jolly good fellow".Sorry Ian but I do not think you have what it takes to be a good administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasi90 ( talk • contribs) (user's 53rd edit, inc. 14 article edits)

   I personally feel I am capable of handling vandals. I feel my work on recent changes reflects this, and I have monitored persistent vandals and submitted many to WP:AIV or asked for a block on IRC, which is rarely not granted. Within real life, I have also assumed several positions of responsibility and I have multiple leadership awards, and within online communities I solely manage one and have been a successful moderator in a variety of positions. Ian13/ talk 16:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Also, to assist me in improving, could you please consider providing some diffs? Many thanks. Ian13/ talk 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   I wouldn't worry about this bad faith vote..I blocked this editor for a week just this afternoon and this was only a few days after I reduced his block from a month after he apologized.-- MONGO 02:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Rob Church ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Could you please inform me why you have opposed, to enable me to improve? Ian13/ talk 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

3. Oppose. Two soon since last nomination and still too little experience building the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 03:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Please see my answer to Q5 below. Ian13/ talk 10:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose VERY VERY WEAKLY, WP:ENC. On your first nom I said come back in a month, but still no article contributions of note. NSL E _{( T+ C)} at 07:13 UTC ( 2006-02-26)
5. Weak Oppose Needs to contribute to Wikipedia the encyclopedia rather than other stuff. DaGizza ^{Chat ©} 07:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Has more edits to userboxes and to userbox-related pages than to the encyclopedia. — Cryptic (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   Please note I have tried to reduce my work in this area. Ian13/ talk 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'd much prefer you try to increase your work in other areas. Nach0king 13:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

7. I am afraid that I cannot support nor be neutral when folks are not in the content areas. Policy does not exist without the content, and knowledge of policy without contribution and work in content is null (just as writing endless articles and not knowing the policies would be onanism), and user pages and user page matters without content are web developing rather than encyclopedia building. Nothing against the fellow, but administrating means content in the policies and policies for the content. Geogre 13:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Per Geogre. You do good work, but not enough in the article space. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose per Cryptic and Geogre. -- Ghirla | talk 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Nothing personal, but we are here to write an encyclopedia and it seems you haven't been doing too much of that. — Cleared as filed. 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Weak oppose. Only 19% of edits are in the actual article mainspace, and many are vandal reverts. Don't get me wrong; vandalism fighting is good, but mainspace contributions outside of vandalism reverts should be the largest percentage of one's edits. -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

    May I ask why you feel the majority of (an admin's) edits must be article edits? Ian has experience in fighting vandals, which is key for adminship. I know users have been obsessing over edits for ages, but I had no idea a large number of justified reverts could harm a candidate. Acetic Acid 09:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

    What makes you think vandalism is they key for adminship? It's one. But admins have other chores. AfDs, Prods and speedy deletions - just to name some! Compu terjoe 09:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

    I hope I already have an understanding in all of these areas, and would be able to complete admin tasks. Ian13/ talk 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

    @Acetic: My personal belief is that participating almost exclusively in administration can be a bad thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't be too comfortable making someone who doesn't contribute outside of administrative tasks, if you see what I'm saying. -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

12. Oppose - more article edits please. FreplySpang (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose, seems like a nice guy, but I'd rather he had more experience in the encyclopedia part of this encyclopedia. Effort to shape up in this regard is solid and worthy of praise, but not there yet. Lord Bob 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose For many of the same reasons above. For example, he has roughly the same amount of edits to his user/talk page as he does to articles including vandal reverting. Well intentioned to be sure, but acting as "Chief Executive" (Community Justice) and "Project Manager" (userboxes) just seems to be building authority structures just for the sake of it and isn't really focusing on building an encyclopedia. And to be honest, I was put off when he gave Mistress Selina Kyle a Barnstar (not for her actions to be fair). I don't think we should be encouraging disruptive editors like that. Overall, needs to spend more time in article space. Lot's of people end up working policy but generally after spending a fair amount of time contributing to the encyclopedia, there's experience gained there that you just don't get elsewhere. (sorry for the long comment) Rx StrangeLove 06:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

    May I take the time to point out I did not give her that barnstar for her actions (and I hope I made that clear), but just for continuing to work on Wikipedia dispite the wheel-warring over blocking her account. Ian13/ talk 16:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

15. Oppose per answers to questions.   ALKIVAR ™ 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose per Geogre. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
17. I really wanted to support, but if you don't even have 150 major edits in the article-namespace, I don't think you can be qualified for adminship. (This isn't edit-countitis; it's common sense -- at least for me.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

    According to another user (see striked comments in neutral), I don't have 150 recent article main edits. Ian13/ talk 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral Darn, I hate my standards for voting. :-( Sorry Ian. 574 mainspace edits concerns me. Especially when most of them are just vandalism reverts. Other than that I see no problems or signs he wouldn't make a good admin, I think he just needs to bring up that count. Moe ε 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral – Evidently a good candidate, but I am concerned that he seems more interested in policy than directly building an encyclopedia. – Joke 16:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral, This was a hard one, but I have to agree with Joke. -- Zsinj ^Talk 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral until more content contributions. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-02-26 05:41Z
   • Neutral - I think Ian is a very sensible chap who would benefit hugely from increasing his experience of actual contribution to the encyclopaedia itself, as opposed to project space, and will make an awesome admin in a few months. At the moment, he just hasn't participated enough on actual editing (the fact Mathbot had less than 150 major edits to figure his edit summary count from is pretty damning). Proto|| type 09:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

     Just in case anyone misinterprets the above: Ian does have more than 150 article-space edits, I guess there just haven't been 150 recently. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-02-27 10:38Z

     No, it means he's not made 150 article space edits he's tagged as major. Proto|| type 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

     Hmm. No it doesn't. Quarl was right. Duh. Okay, I'm changing to weak support. Proto|| type 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

5. Neutral not enough edits yet, but still a good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral due to lack of experience and significant contributions to the main namespace. Stifle 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Neutral. The answer to my question makes it seem like you still have no interest in making good article space contributions, but other than that, everything else seems ok. — TheKMan ^talk 12:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I am interested in contributing usefully to the mainspace, and hope to whenever I can, but I personally think I can be of more use working in other areas at present. Ian13/ talk 13:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• This is the second nomination of the user. Previous nomination. -- Gurubrahma 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Edit summary usage: 89% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 141 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Ian13's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's 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. I would aim to help clear backlogs, which I have noticed can build up very quickly, especially AFD which receives lots of traffic. I would make use of the rollback button in recent changes patrol, and I would like to be able to assist users in blocking persistent vandals, and assist in helping at WP:AIV and WP:VIP, preventing situations becoming out of hand.

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

A. I am pleased with my recent changes patrol activities, as without dedication from users in this area Wikipedia would soon turn into a home for graffiti. Within articles, I aim to clarify points and ensure that article can assist users with a variety of knowledge in the subject. I have worked on cleanup within Prisons in the United States [1] and MOO [2], and I think with NPOV cleanup especially, that having no knowledge of the subject can be useful. I have expanded some Bristol articles, clarifying some inconsistencies.

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 think everyone has faced some conflict at some stage, but I think acting proportionately and discussing before making any changes can help prevent an issue. AGF is always important, and a situation is likely to be easily resolvable without bloodshed. If a situation particularly irritates me, I would step away and go somewhere else, Wikipedia is a big place, and if there is a problem, another user will be able to raise their concerns.

4. Another admin has speedied an item and you consider his decision to be 'out of process'. What would you do?-- Doc ^ask? 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A. I would leave him a note on his talk page, and would hope for a reply there. If that failed, I would take it to WP:DRV, because if I broke process by undeleting it without seeking support from the community, I would probably only generate a wheel war. I think in situations like these AGF should be applied, as since the user is an admin the community has trust in the given user, then I should have trust in their actions. I hope this helps. Ian13/ talk 14:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

5. You seem to have a relatively low number of article edits compared to your edits in other name spaces. How would you explain this to someone who thinks you "don't have enough article editing experience"? — TheKMan ^talk 15:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A. I understand your concern. I have tried to become involved in the Wikipedia community, and understand Wikipedia process and policy, as well as become active in discussion. This has meant much of my work as been in areas other than articles, as other areas are commonly much more complex to govern, and there can be uncertainty as to whether policies apply, and how to approach cleanup activities. I feel I have much to offer to Wikipedia in working behind-the-scenes as it were, and I enjoy making Wikipedia a more organised and happy place for article work. Although I haven't worked hugely in articles, I feel my scope of activities means I am able to assist positively and provide support during any administrator activities. Please feel free to ask any further questions to assist me in fully answering your concerns. Ian13/ talk 15:12, 25 February 2006

6. As a relatively new Wikipedian, I find trawling through mountains of bureaucratic policies annoying when all I'm looking for is a simple how-to guide. As someone who has already done a lot of "behind-the-scenes" work and looks to continue doing this, how do you intend to ensure that Wikipedia policies cover everything they need to, while at the same time newer users can find what they need to know quickly? Waggers 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A. Thank you for your question. I think it is important that Wikipedia policies do not become too expansive as, like you highlighted, it becomes difficult for new users to understand. Common sense has an important application within Wikipedia, as well as the application of policy. Policy is important as it helps everyone understand boundaries and see how to best apply themselves, and I personally support the 'policy in a nutshell' boxes. I think the use and citation of Wikipedia:List of policies can be particularly useful, since it highlights the aims of the 5 pillars (a good new user starting point), and Wikipedia policy, and it helps users see the constraints of Wikipedia and, should they need to, find and read individual policies. I hope this assists you, and feel free to put forth further questions. Ian13/ talk 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

7. Many people call you the king of userboxes. Do you think userboxes will damage your relations with other members? Compu terjoe 22:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A. I severly hope not. My aim of the WikiProject Userboxes, is and has always been to help organise and assist users. It is not in any way intended to be a POV body, and should be neutral in all areas, and I oppose anyone who uses WP:UB as a reason to carry out POV actions, but I do feel members have full right to express their opinions outside of the WikiProject like any other member. I hope this helps. Ian13/ talk 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

8. A hypothetical (but realistic) situation: While doing RC patrol you notice that an anonymous user has removed several paragraphs of text from an article about a current celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. While the excised text was critical and/or unflattering, most of the article is still intact. What actions would you take (including doing nothing, reverting, blocking the anon, etc.) and under what circumstances? -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 08:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A. Thank you for you question. I think that because the main part of the article was intact, I would consult with the user on their talk page, and attempt to find out why they removed it, because as a new user, they may be unsure of how and when to use edit summaries. If the user however had a long history of vandalism, and the IP was not a noted proxy, I would be prepared to revert the user, and leave a test template on their talk page, or a note explaining why I have reverted them, and how they should go about removing the section again if they feel my action was wrong (ie. leave a note on the article talk page, use an edit summary etc). I hope this assists you. Ian13/ talk 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

9. An alien lands on Earth, and writes an article on the appearance of his species; which is tagged with prod. This is not verifiable. However, you then meet this alien and discover the majority of what it (the species is unisexual) described is true. Would you dispute the prod or leave it in place? Compu terjoe 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to ask any other questions, and I will be happy to assist in any way I can. Ian13/ talk 14:18, 25 February 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.