Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ish ishwar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 31 January 2006

Ish_ishwar

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ish ishwar|action=edit}} Vote here] (11/7/2) ending 04:52 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ish_ishwar (talk · contribs) – I believe that Ish ishwar will make an excellent administrator for Wikipedia. He has over 10000 edits, and the talk page shows that he is quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia. With this, I nominate Ish ishwar to be the next Wikipedia administrator. Thistheman 06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Thistheman[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: hi. i accept the nomination. – ishwar (speak) 17:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

beating-nominator-to-the-draw support. Ish is one of the most credible editors I've seen around- diligent, considerate, non-aggressive, with demonstrated grasp of policy. Peace!--cjllw | TALK 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i got beat Support. Of course I support him!; I did nominate him, after all. Interesting how I got beat to the vote. Thistheman 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A serious contributor with valuable specialist knowledge on lingustics. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M e rovingian {T C E} 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above.Blnguyen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. One with Her 07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, never mind about the edit summaries. An advice to Ish ishwar, use more edit summaries from now on. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support more edit summaries is desirable, but it seems a trivial matter. This user shows little risk of abusing powers. Pete.Hurd 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- and watch the edit sums. John Reid 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though edit summary usage is quite low.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Latinus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Edit summary issues. NSL E _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per NSLE. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am also a big fan of edit summaries. If you are interested in increasing your edit summary usage, there is a force edit summary script available. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit summary usage is quite low. Xoloz 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, subject to change. Edit summaries are not trivial. They make life easier for your fellow contributors. Not using them makes other people have to check your edits to see what you changed.--Alhutch 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do oppose nominations where edit summaries are this low, but I may support a future one after that has improved for a time. Jonathunder 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NSLE --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously. (Bishonen)

Neutral

Neutral - As others, I'm concerned about edit summaries as there are an important part of communicating with other editors. ~~Although from his contribs he looks like a fine editor, he seems to have relatively few edits in the User Talk and Project namespaces.~~ --Whouk (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Originally leaned towards support for a user I've seen around for a long time making valuable additions to content in places where Wikipedia is thin on the ground with editors. However, the low use of edit summaries (below 25% for major edits) gives me pause. I consider this non-trivial as it simplifies the task of figuring out article development without checking every diff and tells other users when something is happening to an article that they may be interested in, and when they shouldn't bother. Extrapolating out a bit, the habit of writing edit summaries is even more important for accountability when doing admin-ish things like speedy deletions, as it is often the only evidence non-sysops have of the rationale for the action. Again, I'm not happy that I am unable to support this user right now. - Banyan Tree 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Edit summary usage: 22% for major edits and 31% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Ish_ishwar's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
Would the candidate care to say why they don't use edit summaries, or what their position on edit summaries is?--Alhutch 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

looking at the the Wikipedia Backlog, i think that an easy task is the situation of Encyclopedia images having duplicates in the Commons. i would be happy to help with this.

as is readily apparent, i have not been very active in such things as voting for deleting articles. this is because (1) i am more concerned about the inclusion/coverage of underrepresented topics (e.g. the hundreds of ethnic groups not mentioned in Wikipedia — not even merely by name), (2) no one has really invited me to participate, so i assume that there is already a base of active voters sufficient enough to address these articles. likewise, my non-participation in other areas of Wikipedia is due to my interest in adding the underrepresented topics. thus, my role to date has been primarily an editor. obviously, adminship may require a change in my distribution of energies.

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

A.

i guess my map of American languages is ok (although still in progress): Image:Langs N.Amer.png. Why?: there isnt really a map as detailed as this in cyberspace. (hopefully, someone will be inspired to make a better map.)

i've been trying to improve the Indigenous languages of the Americas article for some time, but this is, understandably, just an enormous topic. Why?: concerning a record of known languages & their genealogical classification, there isn't any site that is terribly comprehensive, with perhaps the exception of Promotora Española de Lingüística (Ethnologue generally does not include extinct languages).

as for articles written mostly be me, there is both Evidentiality and Apophony. i tried to get some approval for/improvement of Evidentially, but, evidently, no one is too interested (even though i find rather interesting!). an unfinished technical article (it'll probably never be complete) which i've spent considerable time on is Vietnamese phonology. maybe my magnum opus will be Southern Athabaskan languages, but it's currently not in a particulary exemplary state. (there's also the non-linguistically-oriented Indian Shaker Church.) Why?: well, hopefully, these are ok introductions to these topics. (if not, please suggest/make improvements.) i havent found any in-depth writings on any Navajo or other Apachean languages, except for linguistic articles (which are probably not understandable to laymen) and a web version of Harry Hoijer's Chiricahua and Mescalero Texts. much internet stuff on Vietnamese pronunciation is unclear and confusing (or not written in English).

otherwise, i've made minor contributions to various linguistic things (e.g., Reduplication: Form, Ao language, Neutralization, archiphoneme, underspecification, Chilcotin phonological processes). Why?: minority languages like Ao and Chilcotin need to be better represented in Wikipedia (plus isnt vowel flattening cool?). although many editors have heard of phonemes, none of these editors seemed to aware of Trubetzkoy's neutralized oppositions or modern underspecification theories (yes, i know the current section is hardly exhaustive or even representative).

i like bibliographies, so i add references/further reading to many articles.

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 dont think i've been in anything that could be called a proper conflict. i will list what are the closest things:

disagreement with User:Doric Loon over the appropriate names (and their scopes) for the phenomenon termed variously ablaut, apophony, etc. this user held that ablaut refers to primarily the phenomenon is the Indo-European language family, while i felt the term refers equally to all languages (regardless of genealogical affiliation). the respective discussion is at Talk:Ablaut. my "dealing with it" involved attempting to state and support my reasons for disagreement and asking 3 other users their opinions on the matter. this was the closest thing to a conflict, i think — so, we should probably ask this user's opinion about my behaviour.

Answer from Doric Loon: Well as far as I'm concerned, that was not a conflict, though at one point we did come close to three reverts. I found Ishwar to be... tenacious. But courteous. I wouldn't call it aggro, and we found a compromise. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tonto Apache: i thought that the Tontos should be called Dilzhe’e as there was a recent movement for name change in one of their communities. however, since the name Tonto is still used in the official name of one the federally recognized communities and the name Tonto is by far the more common name in academic and non-academic writings of Whites both currently and historically, i do concede with User:Node ue's position.
User talk:ish ishwar#"not phonetic": User:Antaeus Feldspar was unhappy with a name i choose. i apologized & asked for some suggestions. (i guess this wasnt interesting enough to reply? apparently this user is unfortunately ill now.)
i put some constructed languages up for deletion a while ago. this apparently annoyed several people. is this conflict?, i dont know.

future conflict resolution may be benefit from a Peace Treaty developed by Thích Nhất Hạnh. Wikipedia may be better if i introduce this. (this may have been first translated into English in his book titled Touching Peace, but perhaps i'm wrong.)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 #I do '''oppose''' nominations where edit summaries are this low, but I may support a future one after that has improved for a time. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' per NSLE --[[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">Kantari</font>]] [[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]|[[User_talk:Naconkantari|t]]||[[Special:Contributions/Naconkantari|c]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Naconkantari|m]] 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Oppose''' obviously. (Bishonen)
 '''Neutral'''
 # '''Neutral''' - As others, I'm concerned about edit summaries as there are an important part of communicating with other editors. <s>Although from his contribs he looks like a fine editor, he seems to have relatively few edits in the User Talk and Project namespaces.</s> --[[User:Whouk|Whouk]] ([[User talk:Whouk|talk]]) 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)