Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A. B.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


A. B.

[edit]

(86/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A. B. (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate A. B. for adminship. What, he's not an admin, you may ask? No, he's not, and it's time to fix this! A. B. is a highly experienced, dedicated and user that would be an asset to Wikipedia community not only as a user, but also as an admin. This is his second nomination, the first one was neither accepted nor rejected due candidate's to real life problems, and I can only echo Metros' nomination: A. B. is a great spam-fighter and giving him the mop (and thus access to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and blocking spammers, would really help us in our infinite fight against advertisers, as well as with lots of other admin-related tasks.

Here are some candidate's latest diffs: requesting blacklisting (more and even more), extensive spam research, reverting spam (many many times), blacklist-related discussion, vandalism reverts, cleanup, referencing. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited conomination from Durova

[edit]

A.B. doesn't even know I'm writing this, but I can't pass up the opportunity to back this excellent candidate. Here's a very hardworking, capable, and dedicated editor who's been cleaning up Wikipedia quite diligently minus the mop and bucket. No reasons that I can see to object to the candidacy. Let's give this editor the tools to do the job. DurovaCharge! 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humble co-nom from Rudget

[edit]

As above, A.B. isn't aware of me writing this co-nom. If you have not met A.B. recently, it's your bad. Just a few days ago, A. B. saved TTI Telecom from deletion at AFD and consequently it [the AFD] was withdrawn by the nominator. See it here. Furthermore, the user has extensive amounts of knowledge waiting to be furthered by the few extra buttons he will undoubtedly get, and I'm pleased, and most of all honoured to present to you the user that is, A.B.. Rudget zŋ 12:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept -- thank you for your confidence. --A. B. (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left some comments about my edit counts, edit patterns, etc. on the RfA talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/A. B.#General comments. --A. B. (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've been very active with WikiProject Spam so I see myself continuing to work on spam-related issues especially helping with our local whitelist and our new local spam blacklist, both of which are require admin bits to edit. The whitelist can accumulate backlogs of many weeks leading to frustration for established editors; at the same time, perhaps a third of the requests are made in bad faith and it helps to be familiar with our spam archives, spam reports 1,2,3, spam search tools [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and spam templates ({{spamlink}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{UserSummary}}). Other spam-related activities requiring the admin bit can include blocking spammers, semi-protecting articles and deleting non-notable spam articles that have been appropriately tagged for deletion (PROD or CSD).
Beyond that, I don't rule out helping out in other ways as needed.
Note that I intend to add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm not the world's most prolific article writer, but I've started perhaps 10 to 15 short articles over the last 18 months. More often I add to existing articles and I like to believe I'm very thorough in getting the facts straight. For example: in assessing the Doris Brougham AfD, it was unclear how notable the subject was and how reliable or notable the publications cited were. Over the course of the next 2½ hours, I dug up and read numerous articles, posting links and article excerpts on the Doris Brougham talk page[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and references and footnotes on the Doris Brougham article page.[14][15][16][17] Along the way, I researched the notability and reliability of one of the key sources, the Taipei Times, updating and footnoting that article as well. [18][19][20] Eventually after research and documentation, I made a recommendation of "strong keep" on the AfD page.[21][22]
I'm also proud of the work I did straightening out a spam-encrusted list; see Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. I try not to let any any personal biases get in the way of good encyclopedic decisions. Even though I was displeased by the amount of TTI Telecom spam I had to remove (5 spammy product articles deleted via the PROD process), I could see that the company itself was definitely notable. I opposed the article's deletion and re-worked the article from something promotional to something small but heavily referenced and encyclopaedic. It's not Shakespeare, but it's a start for others to build on and further clean up.
Most importantly, I have warned well over 1500 spam accounts and nominated 100s of links for blacklisting with virtually no mistakes. I put a lot of effort into avoiding collateral damage. I hate the thought of penalizing or accusing an innocent editor by mistake.


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:Sure. in mid-2006, I got involved in big disputes in connection with two RfAs 1,2 when I thought candidates (neither of whom I knew) were getting treated unfairly. While there was merit in some of the points I made, I lost sight of the forest for the trees and caused a lot of disruption. In retrospect I realized I should have just made my comment and moved on, rather than trying to wrestle the issue to the ground. I've been asked to stand for admin off and on since then but I always said I would give it at least 12 months after those RfAs to ensure I really had a feel for the community. I think that was a good decision.
I've been in lots of conflicts here and on meta with people upset about their links getting deleted. By the time I've gotten involved, they've usually ignored multiple spam warnings by others, so I don't find it especially stressful. We've got an encyclopaedia to build and they've got a business to run -- I try to help them see there's not really a match there.
As for ways I deal with conflict these days:
a. Not trying to have the last word; I found this meta essay really useful: m:Rule of diminishing replies. As long as the project's integrity is preserved, it's probably OK to let the other guy have the last word.
b. Sometimes "agreeing to disagree"
c. Getting others' advice and help.
d. Keeping a sense of humour.[23][24]
e. When dealing with problematic editors (such as spammers), just stick to templates in most cases as opposed to giving a lecture.
f. This is just an online encyclopaedia and a personal hobby for me -- I'm not trying to cure cancer or Save The Free World.

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/A. B. before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Before the start, strong support. I too wish to urge the community to support this candidate. A. B. is a dedicated editor who is highly experienced and has a wide mix of strengths, all of which can be a benefit to Wikipedia by giving him a mop and bucket. There are no objections or concerns from myself by giving A. B. the admin tools. Based on my long experience working with and along side him in cleaning up Wikipedia, I’ve always been impressed by his intelligence, dedication and candor. I proudly voice my strong support --Hu12 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nominator's support! MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - I can think of few people who would be better-qualified for the admin tools. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd be hard pushed to find anyone I would support more strongly than A. B. I came across him on the Meta blacklist a few months back and it must have taken all of a couple of days for me to realise I could trust him. Since then my respect for him has grown. He deals with extremely difficult spammers with patience and courtesy (& firmness!). He is thoughtful and can be counted on to research & deliver reliable detail. I've learn much from him & I've been trying to get him to go through this for a while now, I'm just pleased to be able to support him now. He will be a great asset to the admin team & I would ask others to support this, thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest Support - as co-nom. The outstanding contributions by this user are viewable right across the board. A rare, and exceptional candidate. — Rudget contributions 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, experienced, capable, responsible, and courteous to even the most hideous of spammers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I know A. B.'s work from the spam and COI noticeboards. In my view he is extremely well-qualified, patient and judicious. EdJohnston 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support Wonderful fellow, very insightful -- his work will be a credit to the mop. Xoloz 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. I worked closely with A. B. for quite some time over at WikiProject Spam and can vouch for him unreservedly. Since some minor, long-ago newbie issues that he freely mentions above, he has a developed into an exceedingly civil, mature editor with a cool head and calm demeanor. He is, in fact, a role model for many of us in how to effectively handle conflicts. His investigative skills (with linkspamming, not socks) and proficiency with policy and procedure are simply outstanding. A. B. is one of our most valuable editors, and his adminship is long overdue. — Satori Son 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Snowolf How can I help? supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  11. Strong support - wow it took a month for him to accept..hehe..like Snowolf, I believe he can do it..--Cometstyles 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was going to be traveling with intermittent Internet access the rest of November, so I waited until I could give this attention. --A. B. (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - will make good use of the mop, I am sure! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support You mean he's not...? A.B. does great work with WikiProject Spam (and a lot of it!), I love his answers to the questions, especially the ones about conflict, and nothing but good can come from giving him some extra tools to help keep the spam at bay. Katr67 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes! - Jehochman Talk 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Even though I have not really interacted with this editor, I have seen them nearly everywhere, which bodes well. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per my original nomination statement from February (!). He would have been an awesome admin candidate then, and he's even better now! Metros 20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes, I'd like to order a single "he's not an admin?" cliche, please. To go. Thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. At last! A hard working editor who is trusted on a number on wikimedia projects - a great candidate! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yeps Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm not going to bore you all with RfA Cliché #1, but A.B. would make an excellent admin. NF24(radio me!) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. --Van helsing (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support knows the ropes and should wield the mop well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Like somebody else up the line mentioned, I'd been waiting for this RfA to go live so I could chime in here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support. At last. I had this page watchlisted long before it was created. Long overdue for the tools which I know he'll put to good use to benefit the Project. —Moondyne 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support with no worry. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - Absolutely no worries. PookeyMaster (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Fine editor, will show good judgement. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Very strong support, a fine candidate. Redrocketboy 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Excellent contributions, and an overall trustworthy user. Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Epbr123 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Good judgement and lots of experience; no concerns from me ×Meegs 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - No concerns, great editor, will be a great addition. -MBK004 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support; well qualified; likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. This is a Secret account 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support, and overdue. To say 'I've been very active with WikiProject Spam' is a bit of an understatement. Kuru talk 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support. Works on a wide range of pages on Wikipedia in a high quality way. Jack?! 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - He is a very good editor. He will do a great job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - A.B. does great work combating spam, going much further than just removing, warning, and moving on. He researches, makes sound and fair judgements (going out of his way to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who might possibly be well intentioned), and finds further patterns of spamming by the users/sites. For anyone who hasn't witnessed this for themselves, take a look and you'll be impressed. Wikipedia will be a better place for having as an admin someone with this much dedication, sound judgement, persistence, and interest in doing the right thing. ScottW (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (who is mostly retired, but felt like chiming in for this . . . seriously, I've had this page on my watchlist for damn-near forever).[reply]
  39. Excellent candidateBalloonman (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Of course. Sarah 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Jmlk17 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Excellent editor! No problems here. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, as A.B. is fine and will make a great admin, but I have no idea why Durova and Rudget felt the need to add unsolicited conominations. Neil ☎ 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because A.B. was too good to let down. — Rudget speak.work 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Suppport, yet another case of "I could have sworn you had the mop".--Isotope23 talk 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's because I already mop so many real floors off-Wikipedia ... --A. B. (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Liked his answer to Q.3 especially. ;-) Experienced user, doesn't raise any red flags. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per EVula's comments above. - jc37 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Wow, I can't believe I overlooked this user. Huge number of edits, very useful and hardworking at AfD to rescue articles, and a great sense or humor. Give this user the mop! Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oh my goodness yes. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Spam, spam, spam and spam (no more) --MoRsE (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support great answers to questions. NHRHS2010 talk 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Impressive contributions and strong support from well-known editors. Good luck! GlassCobra 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support Not before bloody time. You could (and probably should) have been here a year back. Nick (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support Great user, will make good use of the tools! --Versageek 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yeah right, like you're not one already... hey, you're not?! Well, we're a wiki and can always correct things. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 06:48, December 6, 2007
  57. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, of course. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Spebi 09:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Per today's developments. MER-C 11:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per above. Modernist (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Kusma (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support but I change to oppose if you don't use more cowbell :) — Save_Us_229 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- @pple complain 09:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I usually don't do pile-ons. but, I'm extremely impressed with your answers Here. Keep up the good work! SQLQuery me! 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Good answers to questions. Orderinchaos 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Incoming snowball! (well, it's winter now, eh?) OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Levelheaded when confronted by others. spryde | talk 17:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Excellent user. Acalamari 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support after seeing a very levelheaded attempt (currently ongoing AfD) at intervention here, this editor is definitely cool with me. Based on the AfD, I assumed he/she was already mopping, then saw him/her here. Keeper | 76 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support!!!! In my experience, A.B. is smart, mature, level-headed, and responsible. Adminship for A.B. will benefit Wikipedia, and hopefully also A.B. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Very qualified user. I was under the impression that this user was an administrator already! Nishkid64 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support experienced user will be a great admin. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 14:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Excellent candidate.--Kubigula (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, of course. ✤ JonHarder talk 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support JForget 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Maturity and integrity. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Trustworthy, no negative signs here. GDonato (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Positive experience with nom as editor. -- Iterator12n Talk 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. He's/She's not an admin yet?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - One of the earliest contributors I remeber interacting with. I at the time thought they were an admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Per noms. Very qualified to be an admin. --Writer Listener 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per all Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - All of my experiences with this editor have been both positive and pleasant. I have no fear that A. B. will misuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support Not even a chance of misuse of the admin tools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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/A._B.&oldid=1173841030"