Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheProf07 (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 20 April 2008 (→‎Wisdom89: expand on my co-nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wisdom89

Voice your opinion (talk page) (4/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I am delighted to offer up for adminship Wisdom89 hereafter known simply as Wisdom. A long term user, Wisdom really became active in June of 2007. With over 14,000 edits plus about 1,800 deleted contributions both tenure and contribution level are not a concern. I opposed Wisdom's last RFA on the basis of concerns that Wisdom would be more hindernce than help. Those concerns are now gone. A review of Wisdom's contributions should show the following;

Article Work

  • Well just look at Rush (band), Conservapedia and Neil Peart.
  • A simple glance at the associated article talk pages as above, and their histories, shows evidence of Wisdom's desire to collaborate.

Project Work

  • Active at our key areas (in terms of adminship) of WP:AIV, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA etc. etc.
  • Not only active but accurate and able to respond to occasional errors. A quick review of User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA shows how well Wisdom both responded and learnt from a minor error.

Development since last RFA

Housekeeping Items

  • Clean block log
  • WP:HELPDESK contributions demonstrating a thorough policy / guideline knowledge.
  • A civil manner
  • Edit summary usage is spot on.
  • Un-offensive user page
  • Sensible Signature
  • E-mail enabled

Summary

  • Hard though it is to gauge via a text medium, I have personally found Wisdom to be friendly, thoughtful, and ready to adapt and learn. I believe he has come on enormously since his last RFA. He has accepted both my counsel and that of others in many areas; He has not requested admin tools until others felt he was ready - a stance that does him credit. In addition I see Wisdom's comments often across WP, and I feel he balances being WP:BOLD with being tactful and doing what is needed.

All, as ever I would never nominate unless I believed a candidate was both ready and will be a Net Positive to Wikipedia. I find that Wisdom will be that, and more, by granting admin rights. I hope the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Tiptoety talk:

I have had the pleasure of working with Wisdom over my 11 months or so here, and have the pleasure of con-nominating him. Wisdom is an RfA regular who always ensures that candidates are well rounded in areas that require the mop, and I know that he by far excels his own admin requirements. I have seen Wisdom on almost every noticeboard ranging from ANI to AIV and always has proven to be helpful, and often wonder if there is ever a need to check the contributions of a user reported to AIV ass I know I know the result. On noticeboards I always look for his comments as they always prove to be undoubtedly helpful. As well as great work in admin related areas Wisdom has also produced wonderful article contributions such as Rush (band) and Neil Peart (so users who like to oppose due to lack of article contributions, be prepared to support). Overall I feel this user is well rounded, responsible, thoughtful, helpful, and always willing to listen to complaints and learn from mistakes. I do not commonly nominate users for adminship, but there was no way I was going to pass this one up. Wisdom89 is ready for the mop, now lets give it to him. Tiptoety talk 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) I'm more than positive Wisdom is ready for the tools. He understand all the policies well, and has done a good amount of both article and vandalism work since his time here. He has a massive 602 reports to WP:UAA so I know he will definitely be an active member there. He also has 247 reports to WP:AIV which both show experience in two key admin areas. In the articlespace, Wisdom has helped make Rush (band) a featured article, and Neil Peart a good article. He has been contributing since 2006, which is enough experience, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since November 2007. I'm sure he will make a great administrator. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by TheProf - T / C In the past I've supported/opposed an RfA based on Wisdom89's comments. I totally respect this user and, to be honest, thought he was already an administrator! He is clearly ready for the mop and I'm sure he will use the tools to the ultimate good of the project. Also, he's a user you are likely to see in all areas of Wikipedia and is clearly respected by lots of wikipedians, judging by all his barnstars. I'm glad to have the chance to be one of his co-noms. TheProf - T / C 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

OK, this co-nom statement will begin with the most massive RfA cliché since Pedro's net positive; I thought he was an administrator already. I see Wisdom everywhere, from username reporting to speedy deletion, and the helpdesk to WP:AIV. He has an excellent edit summary, two years of experience, an FA under his belt, not to mention his cornucopia of edits here. I definitely think this guy will make a brilliant administrator and an asset to the project. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
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:

General comments

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

Note - could we possibly stop commentating in support / oppose / neutral until the RFA is both accepted & transcluded, unless you are a nominator. Cummon peeps, this is a community and I find the idea of transcluding an RFA with a page full of comments disrespectful to those members of our community that haven't watchlisted it (i.e. all-most all of them).
PLEASE REMOVE THIS COMMENT ON TRANSCLUSION.

Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support Per my nomination and everyone's desire to make Wikipedia a better place for our readership. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Before RFA was transcluded Support (And as co-nom) Duh! Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support before listed at RfA (co-nom)! Really great editor. I'm sure you will make a great admin! TheProf - T / C 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nom support - per my nom and like pedro said: Net positive. Tiptoety talk 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You guessed it, strong support per my co-nom statement. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_3&oldid=206870400"