Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HelloAnnyong

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

HelloAnnyong

edit

Final (88/1/0); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

edit

HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) – After hemming and hawing for a month or so, I'm nominating myself to be an administrator. I first joined Wikipedia in February 2006 but didn't really become active until early 2007. Since then I've racked up more than 21,000 edits, with more than half in article space. I'm a longtime member and the second highest contributor to WikiProject Third Opinion, where I've helped settle disputes between two editors as best as I can. I've also been active at WikiProject Japan, and I translate articles from the Japanese Wikipedia when I have time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I think at first I would help out in article protection, disruptive editing and vandalism issues, as that's closest to where I have the most experience. Perhaps after some time I would explore other issues on the backlog like move requests, but certainly not before I feel comfortable doing so. More than anything else, I want to keep giving third opinions. There are always editors who need help out there, and if I can aid in solving a dispute, that's where I'll be. But being a sysop should not and will not affect my judgment there, and I would obviously never use the tools to aid in an opinion. I am not particularly involved with AfD, though, and if I ever stepped into that territory I would do so lightly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think I'm most proud of the articles that I've started and those that I've translated. The one that stands out the most is tanbo art. It's not a particularly long article, but it was started as a translation, filled in with more sources, and then eventually promoted to DYK, where it got just over 9,000 hits that day. I'm also proud of my work as a third opinion editor by helping two disagreeing editors come to some amicable solution so that editing can improve. I think that in doing so, I've helped to improve the overall peace and harmony of many pages, particularly small ones that have gone unnoticed by the larger community.
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: In my work at 3O, I've dealt with plenty of conflicts between other people, and keeping cool while trying to help other people is critical. I can't remember any times when I've lost it at an editor or anyone; incivility doesn't solve any problems.
Of course, not all third opinions end peacefully, and that can turn into conflict. For example, I recently gave an opinion at Talk:Akins that I thought was decent and followed Wikipedia policy. Despite my opinion (and those of several other editors) that were all in agreement, one editor still stayed combative. The issue ballooned into several ANI threads, blocks for the editor, and eventually sockpuppeting that spilled over into Commons. The situation did cause me some stress, but I stayed civil throughout.
But in other cases where I've been stressed out, I've asked for further help through dispute resolution, and occasionally I've had to walk away from a conversation altogether.
Additional optional questions from wiooiw
4. A user (Tommy3020) vandalizes an obscure article and eventually you block it as a vandalism only account. The next day, you see a new user (Tommy3020 is back) editing the same article but with seemingly good faith edits. What action(s) would you take if any?
A: I'd probably leave a note on the new user's talk page reminding them of the rules about sockpuppetry and block evasion, and how if they want to continue as an editor they should head back to the first account and request an unblock. It's possible they're not aware of the rules, so a nudge in the right direction could help. Where it goes from there is really up to the editor's actions.
5. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A: Honestly I think only the most egregious vandalism accounts and sockpuppets should be blocked without a warning. At least one warning should be issued in most other cases, if only to remind the editor that what they're doing is unacceptable.
6.What is your view on the current BLP policy? Do you think that it can be improved in any way? Why or why not.
A: It's a good policy that helps to keep the quality of BLP articles high by ensuring that claims are backed up, rather than running into libel and slander issues. I would always rather have less information that's well sourced - especially for BLP pages - than the converse, and I think the policy reflects that. I don't really have any ways to improve the policy.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
7. What is your take on IAR?
A: I think IAR is basically a guideline to use common sense and judgment when editing. It doesn't give an editor free rein, but rather serves as a way to cover instances that are not specifically stated by the policies. It's also meant to stop people from getting overly hung up on the rules when they're editing; after all, we're here to edit content and move the project forward. Should a circumstance come up where the rules cannot be directly applied, IAR allows editors to continue editing so long as their work is in the spirit of the project, i.e. the spirit of the rules.
Additional optional question from Kudpung
8. Correct referencing is of course crucial to maintaining standards. Non English web pages in langauges that probably most of us don't understand are sometimes used by contributors as sourced references. Although they are not disallowed, they are apparently not encouraged (I believe WP:VUE has some info on this)- do you think policy should be tightened up regarding their use?
A: Overall I agree with the policy. Sources in other languages should still be held to the same criteria that we would use here for reliability - i.e. a blog in Swedish is still a blog, and a Japanese newspaper is still a newspaper. If I were to suggest an improvement to the policy, it would be to discourage the use of machine translation. Services like Google Translate are good, but they're not perfect, and the potential to misrepresent the source is high. I think it's okay for editors to use non-English sources, so long as they're careful with the translation.
Additional optional question from Látches
9. Do you see it as part of an administrators role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If yes, what process would you employ?
A: No, I don't think it's up to an admin to unilaterally restrict where an editor can edit. The banning policy has a clause in it that admins may not directly impose bans on editors, and I agree with that. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal and admins aren't supposed to be any different than regular editors, so using the tools to state where an editor can or cannot edit isn't in line with policy. Now having said that, if there's an ArbCom ruling in effect for that sort of article, then I believe an admin can enforce the rule.

General comments

edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Looks good to me. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very impressive. Tommy! [message] 22:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support—yes. Airplaneman ✈ 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Having had WP:3O on my watchlist which i sometimes contribute... Half the time HelloAnnyong has already taken it within minutes of being posted! (s)he has Helped hundreds of wikipedian both new and old. He even checks up on me and lends assistance if I am out of my league! Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    additional comment: I predict the biggest Blizzard in Wiki-history Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Err...WP:SNOW isn't exactly the policy to invoke in this case... bibliomaniac15 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he meant WP:RIGHTNOW!... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I said in a recent RfA, substantial 3O experience is invaluable - it requires good communication and negotiation skills, solid policy knowledge, and clue. Sounds like all the attributes required of an administrator. And bonus support for the self-nom.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Your contributions are varied, substantial, and of quality (4 GAs) but beyond that I've seen your participation firsthand on numerous occasions and always felt you'd be good at the role. I'd have nominated you myself. -- Atama頭 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep, although mind me asking why your name includes annyong yet you translate Japanese? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all! My username is a reference to Arrested Development (TV series); it has nothing to do with my nationality or ethnicity. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also informal hello in korean :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the show, there was an adopted kid from Korea who introduced himself by saying hello in his native language, they assumed that was his name and refer to him as "Annyong". The joke is that when the English-speakers around him greets him by what they think is his name, he repeats it back; to him they're saying hello and he's repeating the greeting, to them it looks like he's just parroting his own name back to them. By the way, I'm a massive fan of that show (that didn't bias my !vote, I swear...). -- Atama頭 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Arrested Development characters#Annyong Bluth -- Atama頭 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. hehe NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seems to be a good candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Activities at 3O suggest that HelloAnnyong will make a fine admin. Rje (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support—yes. Temperament and content production, and length of time here indicate will likely be an unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sure. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 01:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's work on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Active, helpful, and prolific contributor. After my own RfA completed, I was going to make an unsolicited offer to HelloAnnyong to nominate for RfA, but this self-nom beat me to it! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - looks like a clueful editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Stephen 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 3O is not always the funnest place. Good work writing as well. —fetch·comms 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Prolific contributor to the WP:3O who has helped keep it focused and on task, excellent understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, more than qualified for adminship. – Athaenara ✉ 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Tiderolls 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - a Wikipedian since 2006; trustworthy; superb translation work and at Third opinion--Hokeman (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Lots of edits to article space. regular contributor in many areas. Knows how to properly create pages. Sound judgement, and stays incredibly calm even when goaded. Absolutely no reasons not to give her the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Seems knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful whenever we've crossed paths. Will make a good admin. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Exploding Boy (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Excellent answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Good editor. Ready for more. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconfirmed after investigating the opposes' reasoning
  29. Support. Great work at WP:3O - more admins in that area can only be a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Great work. IQinn (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support —DoRD (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good worker. --High Contrast (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per WTHN and net positive rationale. All the best. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's great work at WP:3O, which I think demonstrates a great deal of patience, cool-headedness, and neutrality. A good track record, a desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason not to trust with admin tools. Thparkth (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Won't abuse the tools Secret account 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 21,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, surely will be safe with the mop, etc. Zen-like userpage. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Add: also has autoreviewer, reviewer, and rollbacker already. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Clearly wont abuse the tools, excellent answers to all questions. Látches Lets talk! 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Most definitely An excellent editor with a temperate disposition who has done wonderful work helping out at WP:3O. Good 3O editors become well versed with policy as well as with negotiating through a variety of disputes and HelloAnnyong is an excellent one. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I really thought you were one already. Great answers to the questions so far, great editing history, and strong knowledge of policy. ThemFromSpace 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Plenty of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I love seeing long-time editors run and be recognized for their behind-the-scenes work. A wonderfully qualified candidate. ceranthor 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No concerns, no problems. Inka 888 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Extra points for the selfnom, not that the candidate seems to need them. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  46. Support. Good answers to questions, excellent contributions, wide experience, seems strong with positive interaction skills. Net positive.  Begoontalk 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support: Active, helpful and a solid contributor. A great candidate in every way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I like all the 3O experience. It suggests that the candidate has seen lots of different bits of articlespace, encountered lots of different content-related policies, and dealt with an astonishing variety of disputes - and the awkward people that fuel them. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: This contributor is exactly the kind of admin I would like to see. Involved in RfCs and Third Opinions. Those are the biggest concerns in Wikipedia. If we want WP to be reliable, admins should be mostly concerned with content disputes. We have way too many admins that are concerned with wp:npa exclusively, but fail to see who is right and who is wrong academically in the first place. Will do an excellent job: I wish more people like him would apply for adminship. My full, strong vote. --Sulmues (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I don't often make my personal RfA criteria explicit, but the main one is that I'm reasonably familiar with the candidate even if I haven't interacted with him personally (which allows me to get a feel for his suitability far beyond trying to tick boxes looking through his most recent contribs). From what I've seen of HelloAnnyong's edits over the years, I'm satisfied on that front. It's also important to note quite how awesome HelloAnnyong's user name is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I trust this editor to use the tools responsibly. Townlake (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Sufficient experience, see no reason to think she will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support. Recent dealings with this candidate convince me that HelloAnnyong would be an excellent admin. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong support. Long overdue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – Definitely. No problems here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. はい、いいです - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support—looks like an excellent candidate to me. –Grondemar 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Works for me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Absolutely. Good work at 3PO and not afraid to get stuck in. Fainites barleyscribs 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I can't find anything wrong here. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - no problems here. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Why not?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Sure, why not. Great, active contributor to Wikipedia with long experience, a good sysop in all ways. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I have full faith that he'll do a great job. Good luck. Connormah 19:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Candidate looks suited to adminhood. Bastique ☎ call me! 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support of course - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Have had limited interactions, all good. No problems raised, so I'm pleased to support. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Fully qualified "generalist" candidate who has experience in many fields. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Seraphim♥ 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Deserves it. Has a lot of experience. We can trust him. Yousou (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Impressive. Has my trust. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Have quite a bit of experience with him as a fellow Third Opinion Wikipedian at WP:30 and know that he's steady, considered, responsible, and a self–starter. The very kind of sysop that we need. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Jmlk17 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Well qualified, and I don't find any problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Have seen his vandalism reverts turn up on my watchlist, and in detail, no concerns present themselves. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Another good one for the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support a strong candidate. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I was involved in the Akins thing, and HelloAnnyong's handling of that messy situation helped sort things out. He'll make a good admin in my opinion. Anyone who works hard at 3O, and helps solve disputes between dedicated editors has my respect!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I see no problems with this user. Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Seems to be very level headed with a good knowledge of policy. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I have always been impressed with how HelloAnnyong handles himself. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. He'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Excellent contributions, exemplary civility, excellent answers. Game, set and match. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Appuie. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Not an ideal candidate but I am happy to support. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. oppose Not going to change much at this point, but I can't support this user. [1] He joined in a conversation, made claims he couldn't back up. When called on it, he tried to back out and even insist he hadn't made claims he did, then insisted it be taken to a notice board. He then accused me of coming after him for simply asking him that he cite the consensus he twice claimed.[2] Shows a lack of maturity in debate and not someone I want with the tools.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a conversation that has been conducted in a number of different places, such as here. HelloAnnyong is not the only one who disagrees with your interpretation of policy on the SVG issue and here he is trying to mediate.Fainites barleyscribs 14:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there are others that agree. The problem was not that there is a disagreement over the policy. The problem is how HelloAnnyong conducted himself during the debate. The result of the debate is immaterial to the issue I have. The issue I have is that HelloAnnyong twice claimed a consensus and when asked to provide a link to a discussion demonstrated that consensus he failed to do so. And in fact when I actually took the time to go and try to find it for him, I was unable to do so and found several discussions which didn't indicate any clear consensus. When I brought this up he just back tracked and insisted it be taken to a noticeboard. that's the problem. Someone offering a 3O and throwing around claims like consensus who can't back them up when asked to do so who then starts making borderline bad faith accusations of other users when they just want a straight answer about his claim and position.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr I think your point is valid. HelloAnnyong made some claims that couldn't be backed up and then didn't back down. In my view, people(including admins) generally don't back down(admit they screwed up), and so I think in a way maybe your expected standards are a little to high here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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/HelloAnnyong&oldid=1091463191"