Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Irishguy

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

Irishguy

edit

Final (79/0/1); Ended Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:50:35 UTC

Irishguy (talk · contribs) - Irishguy has been an editor since July 2005, and a regular here since April last year. He's made over 14000 edits in that time, with over 8000 article contributions, and over 1000 project space edits. He's a regular RC patroller, hardly ever leaving my watchlist... he regularly takes part in project debates, in AfDs and such. He's written and expanded a fair few articles as well, some which he's listed on his user page. In all, I think giving the mop and bucket to this valued editor will only be of benefit to Wikipedia. --Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and give my thanks to Majorly for the kind words. IrishGuy talk 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would probably work mainly with AfDs, AIV, and Speedy deletes. AIV especially seems to get backlogged from time to time. I would probably like to assist with Requests for page protection as well as going through and unprotecting pages after the edit wars/vandalism hve passed. I have noticed that sometimes a page remains protected for longer than is necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I wrote the Keith Barry article about three days after his first American special when I looked for more information on him here and found nothing. I would assume that after his special, other would want to learn more as well, so I am proud of getting that up and referenced soon after the special. Obviously, it probably would have been better to have it up the next day :)
Additionally, I have expanded and cleaned up a number of article initally written by new users. Some examples would be William Lustig, Bigfoot (film), and Mark McCracken
I also merged Guerrilla filmmaking and Guerilla filmmaking as well as fleshed it out with more content. [1]
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: I wouldn't say that anything on Wikipedia has caused me stress, per se. There have been a couple of cases of editors creating vanity articles which I either put a speedy tag on or put up for AfD and then those users turned around and made a personal issue out of it via personal attacks and/or vandalism. This, obviously, can get annoying but I wouldn't say that it became unduly stressful, nor do I believe I ever lashed out and violated WP:ATTACK. I may have lost my cool once or twice, but I am human and I think that probably happens to us all from time to time.
Optional question from ST47 (talk · contribs)
4. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A I think my reasons for initially joining were probably quite similar to many others: I was using the encyclopedia and I would come across inaccuracies and think "that's not right". So I joined up and attempted to fix minor errors here and there. As I spent more time doing it, I discovered how rampant vandalism is here. This unfortunate realization subsequently led to my discovery of the spam problem. I think Wikipedia is a great resource. I think it can improve as well and there are many who seem to delight in throwing a monkey wrench into that progress via vandalism. I guess, like many, I just enjoy being a part of a project with noble aims like Wikipedia. Whether or not I become an admin, I still enjoy being a part of this and I will still continue to assist in any way I can.
Optional question from SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
5. Hi Irishguy, I looked at your edit history, and I can't see a single edit to article talk. Maybe the tool isn't recording them, or maybe I'm missing them; if so, I apologize. If the tool is accurate, can you say how you've managed to make 8,500 edits to articles without discussing any of them? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talk page SlimVirgin. He's made 305 edits. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Hmmm. I seem to be able to see them here but maybe I am not understanding your question. If you are talking about edits on article talk pages, the most recent ones, I think, are basic vandalism reverts. Deeper than that, I feel I do have a fair amount of talk page edits, although more recenly I haven't added or removed large chunks of content (unless I was removing vandalism) so I probably don't have much talk edits in the past month or so. I do believe that sweeping changes should be discussed on the talk page. Whilst I am a believer in be bold I think casually ignoring all the work of previous editors is being a little too bold. Discussing things first (when making large alterations) is something I feel is important. IrishGuy talk 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for missing the 305; I must either be using a dodgy tool or else I misread it. I suppose I still worry that 305 edits to talk versus 8,500 to articles isn't a good ratio, and quite a few of the talk-page edits seem to be vandalism reverts. Do you see that as signalling a lack of community interaction or content contribution (which would normally trigger talk-page edits), and do you see either as a problem? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern with the disparity between article edits and talk page edits. As I said, I believe that it mainly comes down to the fact that more recently I have done more work with minor cleanup and reverting vandalism as opposed to large scale additions and/or subtractions. It was never my intention to ignore or bypass community interaction and I do feel that when I have made larger edits I have utilized the talk pages. IrishGuy talk 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, IG, fair enough and thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs)
6. Two part question, I warn you that this is a tricky one. There is an anonymous editor who keeps removing material from Anderson Cooper. The material that is being removed is found in this diff, and pertains to his lack of a public stance on his (perceived) homosexuality. Firstly, per WP:BLP, should the material be removed? Secondly, should the anon. be blocked, and if so, why?
A That is a very interesting question. Both of them, actually. First, from what I understand about WP:BLP, while the guidelines state that we should avoid biased or malicious content, in this particular case, it is sourced and reliably sourced at that. The text is, in my opinion, very neutral and doesn't in any way insinuate that Cooper is or isn't homosexual. While the anonymous editor might not like that particular issue being raised, that doesn't mean deleting it is the correct path. Should the anonymous editor broach the 3RR, obviously a block would be warranted. It also appears that he/she isn't engaging in any level of discussion about the blanking, not even making an edit summary....but by the same token, it doesn't appear that any other editors have attempting to engage him/her in a dialogue on his/her talk page about the deletions. Short of breaking the 3RR, I would want to see if the editor will even attempt to discuss his/her motivations before issuing a block. IrishGuy talk 05:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

7. Your use of edit summaries for minor edits seems very low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
A It is low and it is something that I obviously need to change. There is no particular reason. In some cases it was probably just laziness. I would correct a spelling issue altering an E to an A or something similar and I just didn't think to input a summary for it. Since it was brought to my attention in this RfA, I have been far more attuned to insuring that I add summaries. As for the changing my preferences...I already did :) IrishGuy talk 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • Less than an hour after listing this RfA, made this edit to list an AfD without including the recommended edit summary. These summaries are useful to people that have the page watchlisted, as well as people looking at the history. Not something I'm going to base my decision on here, but something I think an admin ought to be sensitive to. —Doug Bell talk 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. My apologies for that. I try to remember to use edit summaries and I definitely should have in that instance. IrishGuy talk 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deal with the AfD pages as much as anyone and I have never encountered a situation where such an edit summary would have been at all useful. But maybe that's just me. --W.marsh 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(followup unrelated to this candidacy moved to talk page) --W.marsh 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support another great pick from Majorly! --Majorly (o rly?) 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support seems okay... noticed him at afd and csd mostly. --W.marsh 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have dealt with this user in the past, and I don't think there is anything negative about this user that I see. Irishguy is an active contributor to articles and the project namespace, and I think he has a good deal of experience here. Nishkid64 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support I have had good run ins with this user, whether it be RCP or just plain editing. I was thought he was one. ~ Arjun 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. VegaDark 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support more than qualified. Brian Boru is awesome 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. (aeropagitica) 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trustworthy editor. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support since I like his answer to my question. ST47Talk 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support he warned a racist vandal to stop, just imagine what we could do with adminstrative powers --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we? —Doug Bell talk 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He probably meant "he"... :) --Majorly (o rly?) 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good job with your contribs and good luck if you become an admin. (Heck, have some good luck even if you don't become one.) Captain panda In vino veritas 03:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, just make sure you keep up the good work even when you recieve the admin bit ... Yuser31415 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. That lame RfA cliché rears its' head again...I thought he was one already. Daniel.Bryant 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support another great pick from Majorly! ;) riana_dzasta 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good Admin choice..Good Job Majorly--Cometstyles 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support Already thought you were an admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Tacaíocht Seems like a good fellow who has both experience and also the project's best interests in mind. gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. All looks to be in order. Good luck! Sandstein 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. :) Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:50, Sunday, 18 February '07
  22. Support Looks to be trustworthy. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 08:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong clichéd support Tools. Now. The Rambling Man 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Good chap. Special:Makesysop beckons. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support, I thought he was one already. (But I do expect some sort of moronic "Thank you for voting" thing on my talk page, after you're instated :P) Dave 11:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support definitely qualified. - Anas Talk? 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support — we have a great batch of admin candidates flowing in right now. That is a good thing. — Deckiller 14:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Sure, sounds reasonable. Coemgenus 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support looks like an excellent choice.-- danntm T C 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I was considering nominating Irishguy for adminship myself... --Captain Wikify Argh! 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per answers and all above - fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support the admins have been giving Irishguy a rough time here, but it's all in good faith. Anyway, I have no such concerns. YechielMan 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support But please also use edit summaries for minor edits. Garion96 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've seen him around, and I have alot of trust in Majorly. Is he an admin yet? If not, i'm gonna nominate! Just Heditor review 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- Shyam (T/C) 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. My only (minor) hesitation was the edit summary use, I am satisfied by the answer to question 7 however. Looks qualified and trustworthy. WjBscribe 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support This is a great user whom I see around the project often. Also regarding edit summeries, you can enable warnings that you didnt add an edit summary by going to my preferences/editing.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support semper fictilis 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Super. PigmanTalk to me 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Just... be careful if you block IP addresses. You might block the whole of Qatar :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 10:59Z
  43. Support - FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per WJBscribe. —SaxTeacher (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I have seen this user a lot in the AfD logs, and his points always add value to the discussion. He references the policies frequently and effectively, and I think he will make a good administrator. ◄Zahakiel► 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support, minor problems aside, I can't imagine he'll misuse the tools. Will make a great admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - See my discussion below in the oppose section. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom and the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support With mild concern about talk page edits and summaries. Still, no reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I'd prefer more talk-page edits, but we need admins to focus on different issues, and Irishguy seems reponsible and civil, which is good enough for me. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support ElinorD (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Go, go, go. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've worked with him a bit in getting rid of vanity bios at List of magicians, and I've found him to be a hard worker with good judgment. --Elonka 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support of course, even tempered. --Ginkgo100talk 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. He will be a great admin. PeaceNT 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Excellent all round --BozMo talk 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support because I like the shade of green in this user's signature. Just kidding. Support for all the reasons above. --Yamla 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support can't see why not. Darthgriz98 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I appreciate his dedication to RC.--Aldux 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Good editor. General Idea 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support--MONGO 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support-- Heligoland 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Looks good to me. John Reaves (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good editor and excellent RC patroller who'll make use of admin tools. utcursch | talk 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I thought he was already an admin! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Yes, he would make a great admin. - Richardcavell 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support --Ixfd64 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: Obviously qualified, and no sign that he continues to revert war. Worthy of support. Heimstern Läufer 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support — You just can't browse through the wiki without running into him. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: Everybody has so many good things to say about him. He should be a good user. :) --- S&T 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support: Can we give him the tools now?--Wizardman 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support-The number of times I see "already reverted by Irishguy" while using Twinkle is huge. Great editor. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Will make an excellent admin. --Fredrick day 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose - This editor needs to do some work on resolving disputes. I have seen him WP:BITE a newbie and edit war recently, where discussion and compromise might have worked better than over-reaching reverts of an editor's work. As SlimVirgin points our above, this ediotr has a very low talk page edit count, and that speaks to me of detachment from the community. I would like to see more cooperation in addition to the focused tasks he does.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC) The support above convinced to me to look over Irisguy's contributions, and it appears the situation I saw was an isolated event. I do think that Irishguy should examine how he deals with disputes, but I think it that's just a situation that any editor who as focused as he is at times knows. Being focused myself at times, I experience the same problems from time to time. I am changing my vote to support, and I expect that Irishguy will become a good admin and I pledge my support to him after that happens. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Experienced user, will definitely make a fine admin. I'll change to support if I see the edit summary usage for minor edits raise substantially in the next few days.--Húsönd 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary usage risen, thus changed to support.--Húsönd 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A bit of a revert warrior in my opinion, and I remembered blocking him for WP:3RR back in september for a silly revert war, I liked the way he handled the situation afterwards but I'm surpriced that this haven't been mentioned here, thusfore Neutral Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 20 February 2007 (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/Irishguy&oldid=1090626886"