Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 17 February 2024 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Wisdom89[edit]

Final (47/14/8). Withdrawn by candidate. [1]

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) – This is Wisdom's fourth request for the admin tools. At any fourth request it would prudent to look at the failures of the last RFA, to see what the reasons for failure were, and what has changed to demonstrate to the community why a new request should pass.

RFA 3 received 38 opposes before the candidate withdrew

An analysis of opposition / neutral shows the following as key concerns;

  • Pre-transclusion voting / cabal approved
  • Wanting adminship too much
  • Admin Coaching / not able to make own decisions
  • Harshness of opposition at RFA
  • Overzealous at UAA
  • Incorrect CSD tagging


Pre transclusion voting is a legitimate concern for the community, as they do not wish to see RFA's presented as a fait acompli. This RFA will be presented without any comments in support or oppose. "Cabal approved", for want of a better term, is certinaly a recongnisable concern - but one that needs to take note of the nature of this website, it's collaborative nature and that human beings will tend to form friendhips even if only virtually. I can simply state that this RFA was arranged when I emailed Wisdom and he responded. All other communication has been on wiki.

Wanting adminship too much is also a fair concern. Wisdom's last RFA was in April. It is commonly expected that at least three months pass between RFA and here it has been six. Another way of viewing these opposes is that the desire for the tools is not in keeping with some kind of odeal that we have of admins reluctantly accepting the bit. At the end of the day we don't need more admins - we need more active admins. If an editor is passionate about getting the tools to help further it seems silly to deny them the bit just because of their passion.

Admin coaching or general coaching was popularly viewed as "how to pass RFA" not "how to be a good admin". I worked hard coaching Wisdom and was disapointed others couldn't see that the coaching was in how to do stuff. Nevertheless there has been no coaching of any kind in six months. Wisdom stands on his own two feet and his contributions will either meet the communities standards or not.

RFA opposition did strike me as an odd oppose. We are looking at a candidate for adminship not bureaucratship. The key things is wether a candidate matches their own criteria. I believe Wisdom does.

Approach at UAA is something that requires tact and diplomacy as well as good policy knowledge. Clearly some felt that Wisdom did not approach UAA with the finesse required. Looking at recent contributions [2] I see a great willingness to negotiate [3] [4] but also a will to take action when needed [5]. I do think that Wisdoms approach at UAA has been exactly what we need over recent months.

CSD also requires tact and knowledge. I've been through the last 2,500 edits by Wisdom and I found just one article that he has nominated that has not been deleted - Shri Nathjidada Ni Jagya - Danidhar. In fact it was deleted correctly under A1 after Wisdom tagged it as such but has subsequently been recreated. I've reviewed his last 250 deletion tags and in gerneral the deleting admin has deleted per the tag applied. The only exceptions seem to be very minor interpretations (e.g. one nominated as G2 test deleted under G3 vandalism and one as G10 attack deleted as G3 vandalism).

Ignoring the tl;dr version

I'm not trying to brush three failed RFA's under the carpet here. I'm also not trying to restrospectively argue against points raised at the last RFA. I do believe Wisdom89 has learnt from the previous RFA's and that alone demonstrates maturity and aptitude for the sysop tools. I'd urge fellow contributors to really make the effort to review Wisdom's contributions and ask themselves wether he is more likely to be a hinderance or help with the bit. I do believe that the risk of misuse is minimal and that Wisdom will be a net positive with the extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  11:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination by Useight
Wow, this is a hard nomination to write, so much to say without being too wordy. First off, I cannot think of another Wikipedian who embodies their username better than Wisdom89. I've had a lot of interaction with Wisdom, all of it positive; he is courteous, fair, and intelligent. More on that in a moment, I want to get the numbers out of the way first. Wisdom clocks in at nearly 23,000 edits (with about 10,000 to the mainspace and over 5,000 to the project space). Wisdom has been actively editing for more than a year now, all the while finishing up graduate school.

Wisdom has been an amazing clerk at WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:RFPP; his notes there are always very insightful and informative. At UAA, one of the places I see him most, he avoids sounding biting, and boldly knows when to block and when not to do so. At AIV he demonstrates that he knows policy and again knows when a block is appropriate. Lastly, at RFPP these two recent reports show his knowledge of when the protection policy should be applied.

I also see him consistently making excellent points at WP:ANI, the Bureaucrat Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. He is often engaging in discussion at WT:RFA, actively contributing to the matter at hand. Wisdom also has a well-written admin criteria, which he himself more than exceeds.

Lastly is article work. While article writing is a difficult endeavor while enrolled in graduate-level courses, Wisdom has managed to do some excellent work on difficult subject matters, such as taking Phosphoinositide phospholipase C from this to its current state (not quite single-handedly, but he did a majority of the legwork). He has also been instrumental in the recent work on Vasoconstriction and Cardiac muscle, all of these difficult topics on which to write. Wisdom edits Wikipedia for all the right reasons and I am pleased to present him for your consideration. Useight (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously and humbly accept this nomination. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:37, 7 November 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If granted the tools, I plan on concentrating my attention on those areas that I am most familiar and comfortable with. Now, for those areas which I have not yet versed myself in, I have absolutely reservations starting off patiently and slowly, deferring to more experienced administrators before any action is taken, checking up or leaving a notice at WP:ANI or a talk page for instance. When one becomes an administrator, they do not stop learning. I will primarily remain active at those noticeboards which I typically clerk and comment at: WP:UAA, WP:RFC/N, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. With respect to WP:ANI, I'd likely keep the page on my watchlist as it is now, but I am honesetly in no immediate hurry to plunge headlong into drama, which we all know that area is prone to.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Ok, well, I mentioned these in my previous WP:RFAs. I was quite instrumental in getting Rush featured, and Neil Peart to good article status. I suppose this is what I am most known for. I am still one of the primary contributors to both articles. I was an early and heavy contributor to Conservapedia at its inception, which is now also a good article, although I was less involved in that end process. Other articles that I am particularly fond of is Phosphoinositide phospholipase C,Vasodilation, Vasoconstriction, Cardiac muscle, and more recently, Calcium in biology. As a scientist, biology is my primary area of interest, aside from music, and I hope to expand at least one of the aforementioned to a good article within the next month or so. I haven't created many articles (just four or five), but if anyone is interested I have a list of articles I maintain here. Apart from article building, I feel that I am a solid vandal fighter as evidenced by my contributions. Yes, I primarily use WP:TWINKLE to perform those actions, but I feel that I use it quite efficiently and accurately.
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: There were a few conflicts on the Rush article in the past that I was involved in, along with other main editors of the page. We had to deal with some (I hate to use the term) "POV pushing" by obvious fans who wanted to positively contribute, but, in their enthusiasm, ended up decorating the article with unencyclopedic content. It was a little frustrating, but, the situations were diffused quickly and without major incident with discussion on the talk page, a place I tend to immediately direct users to when a potential conflict arises. Other than this, I cannot think of any other editorial conflicts. The only other thing that comes to mind is a few biting (not insulting) comments back and forth between myself and User:Majorly at WP:RFA. However, it ended as quickly as it began.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • There has been some comment regarding WP:UAA and the appropriate tack for an admin to take in this regard. Your mileage may vary, but it's a judgment call as to what makes a user name inappropriate, and we're not all going to agree on that. Although policy exists, this is something that is very slippery, and I daresay that achieving consensus on certain usernames would not be an easy task. As xeno has said in a different context (paraphrasing): vandals are a dime a dozen and easy to block; good contributors are golden. If we assume good faith in the case of usernames and wait for a few edits to understand the intent of the editor, what have we really lost? We often criticize candidates as being too bitey; obviously there's a proper middle ground, but is it really useful to criticize for being too lenient on this issue? It's not like a true vandal is going to get away with anything. In addition, I went back and looked over about two dozen entries at UAA and only found one I would have blocked myself (containing "fart" in the username) but I wouldn't criticize an admin for letting it pass (if you'll pardon the pun).  Frank  |  talk  22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, does anything that happens at RfA have to do with adminship? I'm sure Keeper would be throwing a fit if he saw this.--Koji† 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all the people making comments concerning WP:UAA, and Wisdom89, being "too soft" wouldn't it be better like Frank said above to be more lenient in non blatant cases, and discuss first. I personally would prefer being "too soft" (if the guess is wrong and the user turns out to be a vandal, they can be reported to WP:AIV and taken care of as such. On the other hand, if an administrator clamps down with an "iron fist", then we have the potential of scaring away a potentially constructive editor- even before they make their first edit. Also is it just me, or when I look at some of the opposes in WP:RFA's in general they seem to get wrapped up in trivial matters? NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Beat the nom support... rationale comming soon!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)He he... I beat the nom, for perhaps the first time ever!!! Many of you might be wondering how Balloonman, who claims to spend 1-6 hours per RfA before !voting could beat the nom? The answer is simple, about a week or two ago I learned that this RfA was in the works. I found out because I was researching Wisdom's edit history and checking him out to see if I could nominate him myself! I had decided that I could when I realized that this was coming. Wisdom is a person who should have passed last time, but a number of silly things killed his RfA. Wisdom has the unique experience of being the FIRST person to ever receive an oppose explicitly because he went through admin coaching! I've been watching him for about a year now and have always been impressed. Personally, I think he is on the 'Crat track... I would not be surprised to see his name down below. Over all excellent candidate. And OH, I beat the nom... AFTER going LIVE!!!! YEAH---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support without hesitation. Wisdom has shown over the past months that he is now ready and will make a fine admin. Nancy talk 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. Pedro :  Chat  16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support 22831 edits over three+ years. A relentless contributer to the encyclopedia - to articles as well as to wikipedia discussions. Whatever rough edges may be out there, this is a person who cares about what goes into this project. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. As nominator. Useight (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per first nom. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support because this is someone who could actually help this project. --Neskaya talk 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs) [reply]
  8. Support I'll admit the work at UAA seems a bit naive, but in this case the good qualities clearly outweigh the bad. Say what you will of the UAA edits, his contribs there show a diligent wikipedian, at the very least. His work/comments at WP:RfC/NAME are great, and always seem to be spot on[6][7][8]. He can tell the difference between preventative and punitive, and distinguish between vio's and non[9](in the same diff even). I've yet to find a single comment from him on that page that wasn't helpful[10][11]. Article work is a mix of vandal fighting, gnome-ish edits, and downright excellent work[12]. Together with the evidence from both noms, I'm convinced the candidate is trustworthy.--Koji† 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very strongggg Support : I just couldnt beat the nom.. One of the sensible wikipedians whom I want to add to Category:Wikipedians who should be admins by default -- Tinu Cherian - 17:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. Relentless. Positive. Contribution. Tan | 39 17:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support — No one can doubt this guy's commitment... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MEGA Support : Absolutely, been waiting for this one. — Realist2 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - absolutely. Good user, good contribs Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I was going to wiki-link no-brainer but I don't want to be misconstrued: I do have a brain and it tells me to absolutely support Wisdom.  Frank  |  talk  18:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - good answer to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I really, really, really want this RFA to pass! Excellent user, supporting with absolutely no hesitation. —Ceran(sing / see) 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, albeit weakly. I share the concerns in the oppose section, but Wisdom is a dedicated and clueful editor. Leaning neutral, but I'll support per WTHN. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - Wow, I'm glad to see Wisdom re-nominated. Wisdom, though he may not know this, is one of the reasons that I am still on Wikipedia today. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, and when I was first getting started here, he was the first one to lend me a helping hand. Since then, I have always looked at him as a role model, and have observed nothing but good things. He is logical, level-headed, and bold. He is more than worthy of admin status. — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - didn't realize you weren't one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Regents Park and Juliancolton, above. There are concerns, granted - and I'd hope that the candidate will exercise the appropriate care in using the tools, particularly at UAA. But, to be honest, Wisdom is a great editor with plenty of Clue, and I have no doubt that he'll make a good administrator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Its time to make him an admin. Too much petty bureaucracy stands in the way of us making many good editors, admins. A nod goes out to Rjd and the other opposes (so far only 3), but I don't think that he cannot be trusted to delete, protect, and block. Synergy 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Let he who has wisdom not comment to opposition who obfuscate even the simplest of situations.[reply]
  22. Support as arguments in AfDs in which we both participated seemed reasonable (thus, I would probably trust judgment in closing such discussions), candidate has never been blocked (it is easy to get accidentally or bad faith blocked eventually and thus never even being accidentally or bad faith blocked is great), candidate has a plethora of barnstars on his userpage (demonstrates that the candidate has worked well with and impressed many other editors), has contributed to good articles (is here to build an encyclopedia), etc. --A NobodyMy talk 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Supporto senza riserva. Hey, he has Italian ancestry, I have to support him!!! ;-)
    But seriously, Wisdom is one of the editors I usually always thought to be an admin and he does great work. I am confident that he will heed the concerns voiced by the opposers and that he will not run amok with the tools. SoWhy 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support - My nomination last time sums up my feelings on this candidate. Tiptoety talk 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yup. In the past i've had real objections to some things, particularly some of your RfA opposes. But all the recent things I've looked at seem to suggest that you're over any problems you previously had. The points brought up by the opposers don't really concern me, personally: I actually thought your behaviour in that bizarre ACC argument was pretty good. I think you're ready to wield some admin tools sensibly. ~ mazca t|c 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Vehemently Strong Support - about time. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support As per Ultraexactzz. User has been around since September 2004 and has over 25000 edits.Do not see misuse of tools by the user.Fully trust the user to use the tools with discretion .User has shown great commitment to Wikipedia Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Wait, what? Okay, so normally I have a pretty good idea of who is and who isn't an admin. I am shocked- shocked to learn that this user isn't an admin. Maybe it's because he is on so many "Admins that I trust" lists... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Last time around, I would have weakly supported. Now, per the facts outlined in Pedro's nomination statement, I'm happy to do so wholeheartedly. --barneca (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honoured someone actually read it! Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, I meant the short version. :) --barneca (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Most definitely. Awesome nomination Pedro. Malinaccier (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I admit that I am a tad concerned with the points raised by Ryan, and would recommend Wisdom reviews and fully comprehends the username policy so that he'll know when to remove names as a non-violation and when not to. But the fact of the matter is, I couldn't see him abusing the tools in this area, so much as playing a bit too conservatively - in fact, I think this demonstrates his willingness to assume good faith with newcomers, a trait sought after in admin candidates. Something I admire about the candidate is not only how much "wisdom" he has; it's also how much wisdom he aims to have. He is constantly working to improve on himself, taking praise and constructive criticism in a positive manner, and as such has grown in many ways as a Wikipedian throughout his tenure here. He conducts himself in a manner reminiscent of an administrator, and holds himself to very high standards of civility and dedication. He is competent enough to learn the tricks of the trade without much difficulty, all the while having the dignity and common sense to ask for assistance when needed. On the whole, bringing all points into consideration - experience, intellect, and an overall willingness to assist the project - this request is ultimately no more than a formality. Valtoras (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Fixed all the problems from previous nominations. Definitely capable of the admin tools now. Just cause he has a lot of previous RfAs doesn't mean he can't have fixed his issues. Voyaging(talk) 23:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support seems like a good user, I not believe that lenience at UAA is a bad thing, as xeno once said, although I'm rewording it, (this was mentioned by Frank above, I think) that vandals are a dime-a-dozen, but good contributors are hard to find. Giving users the option of renaming or creating a new account could very easily cause less offense that the big "you are blocked" message, and therefore, the contributor might stay and contribute instead of leaving because they have been blocked "unjustly" (in their opinion), although I would suggest that Wisdom read up on the current community standards on this. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support A great and dedicated editor! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support - Even if this user does make a mistake on the job, I feel confident that they will take the concerns of other editors seriously, and act on them appropriately. — neuro(talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I thought the candidate was already an admin. Definitely qualified. DiverseMentality 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. Good luck. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support he certainly knows his stuff, he was ready months ago IMHO, no perfect but he wont be a problem. I too have seen Wisdom89 turn down usernames at UAA that should have probably been blocked but of all the sins an admin can commit leniency is hardly the worst. Also per the stuff that KojiDude said. Icewedge (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Candidate has experience enough to have earned our trust. I'm sure I've had some positive encounters with Wisdom somewhere or other myself. We do have very different voting records at RFA, and some of the opposers have mentioned candidates RFA contributions, but I've trawled through lots of Wisdom89's opposes and most seem to be not nows to candidates with 10 to a 1000 edits, if Wisdom89 is as civil as an admin as in the RFA opposes that I reviewed then I have no concerns. As for WP:UAA I think a little caution can be a good thing in an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support User has enough experience to be an admin, and per what I said last time. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. This is one of those people I have an urge to IAR sysop. I don't agree with a lot of his opposes, but I believe that as an admin he will be very beneficial to us. bibliomaniac15 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support I mainly agree with nom, but Ryan brings up valid concerns. Firebat08 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support – Excellent candidate for adminship. I've thought Wisdom was admin-material for quite a few months now, and I'm sure he will be very beneficial to Wikipedia as an administrator. He's one of those candidates I'm most impressed of. The opposes don't concern me. I'm sure Wisdom will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Some errors at UAA, but not serious enough to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Editor has content experience - and the opposes just simply don't stack up on examination.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Edit conflict Support - User has earned the tools through excellent contributions and long-term commitment to the project --Flewis(talk) 13:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Sorry Wisdom, but I’m going to have to oppose this nomination. I’ve seen your work at UAA, and I don’t believe that it would be of benefit to have you as an administrator working there. You’re too quick to remove reports that should be blocked. Probably because you don’t entirely agree with the username policy, but perhaps because there were problems associated in your last RfA where people felt that you wanted to block usernames that weren’t against policy. This username should have been and was blocked, despite you suggesting it shouldn’t be – a little research and you’d have clearly found that the term beaners is a racist term to describe Mexicans and that was even pointed out by the person that reported the name. Here you state you’re discussing with a user with the name Downssyndrome90210 – that should have been blocked on sight, no discussion at all needed with them. Here you suggest that the username Drewuniversity shouldn’t have been blocked – he’d already made one edit which was to Drew University, whether this was promotional, a role account or simple attempting to make his edits sound like they’re official from the university doesn’t matter – all should lead to a block. I also get the impression that you feel obliged to edit every single RfA and make your opinion known. In my opinion, RfA has deteriorated significantly in the last year and your involvement partly led to the page turning into an even bigger bureaucratic mess with set standards and bitey opposes. In my honest opinion, you simply want the tools to flex your muscles and you think that they will give you extra weight in discussions – I don’t think that’s a desirable trait in an administrator. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ryan, no apologies are necessary. Yes, I frequent UAA quite often, dropping notes and removing reports as I've seen others do. However, I am going to maintain that my actions, which you have cited above aren't exactly incorrect. UAA is designed for immediate administrator intervention in hardblocking a username. It is, undoubtedly, one of the most potentially bitey areas we have on Wikipedia, with respect to new users that is. I feel that it is best to discuss and be wary rather than block on sight borderline cases. With regards to my RfA actvity, absolutely, I do contribute to nearly 100% of them because I feel that all candidate's deserve to have maximum input. Nothing more. I assure you that it is not to hear (or in this case see) myself talk : ). Lastly, I feel that being granted the bit is a step towards being more helpful to the project - and certainly not a status. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I think you're being a little harsh here over the UAA matters, Ryan. The username policy is something which different users validly apply differently and I think it's right that administrators reflect the spectrum of interpretations of that policy. I would say that your interpretation is a fairly strict one these days - it wasn't always that way, you might want to read opposes #2 and #3 on your own RfA which make points not dissimilar to the one you have above. Discussion with Downssyndrome90210 does not seem unreasonable (unless the numbers have some significance that has escaped me) as the name might be an innocuous self-reference and the user could have been advised of the problems it might nevertheless create and asked to seek a rename. Similarly, it seems acceptable to talk to Drewuniversity and explain our COI policies and suggest they get a rename. Especially given that blocks now move with renames, offering people the change to change a username and keep a clean block log doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Thebeaners does seem an oversight given that the reporter described this as a racial slur and I hope was a lesson well learned by Wisdom about the international aspect of the project. But he didn't remove the name, merely commented that it seemed OK to him - were he an admin he may have done the same, he wouldn't necessarily have removed the report. In my experience it is admins too quick to block that cause problems, not those who err on caution and are perhaps a little keener to discuss problems than they need to be. WJBscribe (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    90210 is the zip code of Beverly Hills, California. Avruch T 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also the title of a ridiculously sexually explicit teen drama. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ridiculously sexually explicit", now that is ridiculously over the top 211.30.109.24 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I vividly remember my "teenage crush" on Shannon Doherty. Those were good times. Everyme 08:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll respond to all this tomorrow - it's late here and I've got work in the morning. Wisdom - when I get home from work I'll ping you an email or you can email me if you have any questions or things you want to discuss. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though it probably won't make any difference, per Ryan. While you've cut down on your ridiculous RFA opposes, you haven't stopped completely as far as I am aware, and unfortunately I'm thinking you'll continue once you're on the "other" side. You seem to be obsessed with WP:UAA, and still can't get it right. There's assuming good faith, but there's also assuming too much good faith. I don't think you understand how disruptive a username can be; your frequent opposes on RFAs for candidates who correctly request a block on a disruptive name because they got it "wrong" (in your opinion) demonstrates this. A final point; I really can't see you doing a lot as an admin, since you seem so reluctant to block disruptive usernames. While I generally detest opposes based on that point alone, brought together with my other points, I can't see you being a net benefit as an admin, so it's an oppose. Al Tally talk 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Majorly. I just wanted to make something very clear, UAA aside, I do plan on working at AIV and RFPP as well, so I absolutely do plan on being active elsewhere if this goes through. Also, UAA is also about helping to clear the back log, not just blocking left and right. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, it seems you have one other point. It is better to have someone cautious than someone block-happy. In areas like UAA, it's better not to block on sight except for blatant violations. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've been expecting this RfA for the past few weeks, so I'm not really surprised it's here. I'm afraid I don't trust your judgment enough to support you. Loosely based on the items mentioned above (although those are points of interest, and I wouldn't give them as much weight as Ryan and Al tally have), and per a recent encounter regarding the account creation team and process, I'd have to oppose, as I don't feel the least bit comfortable with the idea of you as an administrator. It would appear that this RfA is off to a great start - as a result of that, if this should pass, I strongly urge and ask that you listen to the concerns brought to your attention, whether they be now, during this RfA, or after if you do become an administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide some background on Wisdom's run-in with ACC, Rjd? I—and, I am sure, other potential voters—am interested in understanding fully the background and thinking behind the opposition votes. AGK 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Rjd is referring to this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Administrators#It_is_time_for_the_community_to_act... where he refers to the account creator administrators as a "cabal" [13] and where he also fails to understand the relationship of the toolserver to the WMF and WP in this edit [14]. MBisanz talk 19:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict - but I see MBisanz already pointed out what I was referring to, but I'll say what I was going to say, anyways) I'm not looking to sway anybody in one direction or another. I opposed as I don't feel comfortable with giving him the bit, not because I want others to oppose as well. So really, my comments are just for Wisdom himself, and I'd assume he knows what I'm referring to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to respond to every oppose, but I specifically placed cabal in quotations to reflect the fact that I was quoting Kurt and trying to understand exactly what he was thinking. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I couldn't trust you with the admin tools at this time. You're too unstable for my liking. Lately you've been under the radar (at least mine), just keep that up and remember that we are here for the encyclopedia. John Reaves 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm going to have to oppose too. As with Rjd0060, I've been awaiting this RfA. I honestly don't feel comfortable with seeing Wisdom as an administrator. Not only with the ACC encounter and RfA opposes, I believe that he'll be too lenient when it comes to UAA. Already, he's assuming too much good faith with usernames, removing reports for usernames that could have been blocked. I could probably say this a little better, but I think Wisdom will be a little too firm, possibly acting in a way that goes against consensus (again, there is probably another way I could say this.) Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you would be a good admin. Xclamation point 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To date, the candidate has given Wikipedia four RfAs and zero original articles -- a strange ratio for someone who credits editorial input as his strong point. Q2 raises a red flag for me: the claim that he was "quite instrumental in getting Rush featured, and Neil Peart to good article status" is not confirmed by a review of either article's pre-award history -- in both cases, his contributions were overwhelmingly limited to edit reverts and very minor copy editing. Furthermore, the claim in the nomination that he's done 2,500 250 flawless CSD tags doesn't seem in sync with the UAA concerns raised here -- are we all talking about the same person? Sorry, but I cannot support the candidate at this time. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eco, may I request you re-read the bit about CSD tags in the nom? (And, if I may be so bold, my own comments about UAA in the discussion section, probably placed while you were editing?)  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Eco. Actually, I have five original/started articles according to my userpage. They aren't impressive, but that's not the point. I really must address your allegation that I am misleading the community regarding Rush and Neil Peart. Please, I urge you to look through the entire history of both articles both before and after they were made FA and GA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly re-read my nom. I reviewed 2,500 edits (with reference to that section) and 250 deletion tags. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge I goofed in the article ratio -- that was not mentioned in the nomination and I overlooked it on your User Page, so the fault is mine and I sincerely apologise for that error. Likewise, I misread the CSD tag number and I apologise for that error, too. Still, the discrepancy between the CSD tagging and UAA concerns seem out of whack to me. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We might be looking at two different things, but what I see is an instrumental role in bring Rush (band) to FA status.Whoops, forgot to sign. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate having errors pointed out, I am a little concerned about having the candidate and his supporters questioning almost everyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm for this RfA. Please do not take Oppose and Neutral !votes personally -- the Support side is coming across as very defensive. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you thought I took it personally that you were opposing him, but I was merely saying that I interpreted his contributions to getting Rush (band) to FA status differently. I will leave it at that. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with Eco - he's made his stance and fairly so. Yes, he made some minor errors but he's refactored and apologised for them graciously. I don't think we need to badger every opposer and I do agree it makes it look "defensive". I support this bid, I believe Wikipedia will be better with Wisdom as an admin, however the absolute last thing we need is a drama fest. Weeks ago when Wisdom and I discussed it I felt it might be. Sadly it's becoming one. Shame. Pedro :  Chat  23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come one, this isn't drama. This is drama: [15]. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely Not. macy 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate, seeing this is an oppose? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry wisdom89, but I'm not going to support someone who always disturb some comments at RfA, and you have a too bureaucratic RfA criteria. Come back later. macy 23:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "someone who always disturb[s] some comments at RfA"? Are you simply referring to past disputes on this page or do you mean something else? Any specific examples? — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisdom89 sometimes disturbs users in RfA by telling them what to do in his way, something that I don't view good for a future admin. Also he always says that he is not a fan of edit count when he sometimes opposes because of low edit count. macy 01:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He clearly states his philosophy about edit counts here. I don't think there is anything contradictory about his application of this criterion. — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Ryan. I think you should probably understand the consensus reasoning behind UAA better before being granted the ability to block users for violations. Or, indeed, try to get the consensus changed if you feel it needs to be. Sorry. [ roux ] [x] 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No per Ryan. I have seen this user and I have noticed their work; much of this is good. He certainly has developed as a user. But Ryan said it well, and I can't dismiss the fact that I distinctly recall seeing uncalled acerbity, multiple times, from him. Further to this, he seem to become deeply embroiled in heated discussions and drama with other users, hence the aforementioned acerbity. And, of course, there is your participation at RfA; much of what I have seen from you there I have not seen to be becoming of a sysop. I can't give diffs, but I exercise my right to oppose because of a bad feeling. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, and I know that Wisdom does do some good work, but I just can't support for now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Regretful oppose I have concerns about the sections highlighted by Rjd above. While I might be able to live with a broad interpretation of UAA, I have trouble with the other points raised. MBisanz talk 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not support you, thus I Oppose.--intraining Jack In 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask why you can not support? – RyanCross (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well simply do not like admins with inconsistent and poor judgment as highlighted in many of these oppose votes. I know I can trust Wisdom with the tools but for me it goes beyond that sometimes. Another concern is s/he appears to have a group of followers who have disputed these opposes and I fear if I ever disagree with one of them somewhere Wisdom will always agree with them and cause me grief. To be honest I can not Oppose Wisdom just as much as I can not Support, I am moving to Neutral.--intraining Jack In 05:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As far as I'm concerned an editor's suitability for the sysop bit is simple to determine. It's about trust. Can this editor be trusted with the tools? John Reaves and Ryan Postlethwaite articulate why Wisdom is not to be trusted as an Administrator. As a result I must Oppose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - (Noting that this was almost a neutral.) Besides concerns in regards to the concerns above, I'm not sure that I'm secure in feeling that the candidate meets my own criteria at User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria. - jc37 08:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No, per above. Not a strong or categorical no, but at least not yet. Everyme 08:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per vote 5 Leujohn (talk, How did I do?) 08:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral The concerns addressed in his last RFA do not seem to be much improved according to the opinions of the people in opposition. His overzealous desire to become an admin seems still evident per his RFA activities. I also met him once on UAA page, and he just removed it so quickly with the edit summary, "not so much offensive" (to him). On RFAs, the candidate frequently quote his essay on his ground to support/oppose candidates as saying "per my criteria".User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria In my opinion, his quoting the "personal essay" looks somewhat bureaucratic even though the page is not a guideline. Moreover, I notice that he is not so strictly following his own rule regarding his requirement for "edit summary" per his recent "quick" reverts of articles today. Those edit summaries are automatically generated by default, not by the candidate. However, well, despite these matters, I'm holding unexplainable lingering feeling (even to myself) to oppose him sharply, so I stay at neutral (I don't know I would change my mind later).--Caspian blue 21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respecting your fine comments, one thing I would mention is regarding the "personal essay". User:Pedro/Net Positive is a personal essay of mine yet I've noted with interest that "net positive" has become a moderately common comment at RFA. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "looks somewhat bureaucratic even though the page is not a guideline". I've never found codified standards to be bureaucratic, more that they are a statement of feeling and/or standards from an individual and they link to them to save repeating it every time. In a nutshell - linking to one's own criteria for adminship hardly implies it's some kind of "guideline" and I'd be both suprised and disappointed if other editors thought it was. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, his comment like "support/oppose, meets my criteria" leads curious readers to follow the link and somewhat to force them to read the material. The essay is certainly intended for him to avoid unnecessary repetition, but the detailed criteria can be viewed as either kindly to explain about his belief regarding adminship or as unkind for readers to figure out what entries are especially insufficient from candidates when Wisdom opposes. The essay requires readers to invest some amount of time unlike him. Of course, everyone can create an essay regarding policies or anything related to Wikipedia if it does not harm to anyone. But, simply addressing his likeness/dislikenss of candidates briefly is actually beneficial to candidates and readers rather than the stamped-like answer with the long and strict essay. He is also a "regular" participant of RFAs, and in some way, people (at least me) would think that his "essay" reflects his long experience with RFA and misunderstand it as recommendable one like a guideline. I don't understand why you would be disappointed by any possibility in which others would think same as me. Nobody thinks alike every time and occasion. Rather, I'm disappointed at the comment; You don't seem to accept differences between people.--Caspian blue 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my less than clear last statement - what I mean is I'm disappointed (and suprised) if anyone thinks that a link to a "my criteria" page somehow implies that criteria is anything other than a personal essay - e.g. my net positive essay is my criteria and I don't expect it (nor should it e due to its nature) to be viewed as a guideline I'd have thought the fact it is in "user space" would be a big enough giveaway that an essay is not a guideline. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not every essay have same value and attention. I would not read anything from troll's subpages even if they're written really good. If people visit your essay a lot, that is because of your credibility as an admin and editor.--Caspian blue 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the time this RFA finishes I doubt what little credibility I had will be worth much. Thanks for your kind response. Pedro :  Chat  23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient portal-space edits -- Gurch (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a joke? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the conversation one down, NuclearWarfare. Icewedge (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I can confirm this (zOMG drama). I'm leaning towards support as you are a new positive. iMatthew 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone please tell me that's a joke. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of the editors who mention it seems inclined to joke about such a matter, in my experience.  Frank  |  talk  22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a joke. iMatthew 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just a joke. A very bad one. Synergy 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a joke. He really does have insufficient portal-space edits -- Gurch (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed Gurch was stating that a user said on IRC their plans to oppose this RfA. That infact happened, and I was confirming that he wasn't joking. Little did I realize he was playing with that user and would later change it to "I like fish" iMatthew 22:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fish? Who said anything about fish? -- Gurch (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm at a loss here. Is this conversation supposed to be a joke? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so its clear. Macy expressed an interest in opposing. Then gurch said he'd go neutral and what resulted was a bunch of unneeded edits. Synergy 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Neutral I am as torn as an old pair of jeans. Sam Blab 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wait, what? Bleh. Blah! Blargh! Obiviously, It's just opopse for this rsqeeut. --Mixwell!Talk 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Netural You could just watch his activites to conclude if he is fit to be an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsayhi (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Neutral I agree with Shapiros10, I'm Torn like Natalie Imbruglia singing Torn in a town called Torn.--intraining Jack In 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Doesn't fail any of my criteria but I have a bad feeling for some reason that I can't place my finger on. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 8 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4&oldid=1208500050"