Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Esanchez7587


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

Esanchez7587
(talk page) Final: (33/0/1); Ended 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

- Esanchez7587 has been editing Wikipedia since September 2006, during which time he has made over 8,000 edits, including 5,200 to mainspace. He is an excellent vandal fighter, with 150 reports to WP:AIV. He also has experience of AfD and speedy tagging, and has started and developed numerous articles. He is very friendly and polite user, and deals well with conflicts resulting from his vandal fighting. Esanchez7587 would make good use of the admin tools. Epbr123 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination for adminship to help improve the quality of Wikipedia.  Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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: I will take part as a admin on fighting vandalism, in most parts. I would want to work with speedy deletions, since many tend to be nonsense or an article for a non-notable person or Band/artist. I would work with blocking vandals from returning from editing with their misleading causes. This then leads to another work I would want to keep a look out for: sock puppetry. Vandals think that they have a loophole from getting blocked or support their debates. This is becoming a situation in which I would want to handle, from people using more than one account. I also anticipate for protecting pages from continuous vandalism. I've seen many pages that had to be protected from a bombardment of vandals getting at the page. I'm willing to keep pages clear from vandals and do whatever it takes to get them out of this place as much as possible.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As mentioned, I have done a part of fighting against vandalism. However, away from that, I keep pages in order. I've done edits to music-related articles, in which I keep them sourced with notable information and make sure they're not copied. I've had conditions in which I removed content that were copied from a different source. I usually tend to removing them but if it's necessary, re-word it to make it appropriate for the article. As much as necessary, I do lots of reverts. Wrong info and I revert it automatically.


 * 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've had several, not gonna say I had it easy. Mostly from vandals, arguing about their content being removed. I, myself, basically keep the page away from that. As long its vandalism, I remove it without the use of arguing. In other cases, though, I've had issues with other users on new pages such as a band, I link and advice the users on the notability of a band or artist. Some have agreed to the guidelines, while some do their best to argue against them.


 * One condition in which I had conflict with was User:Signshare, in which the user made several false statements on some articles (especially Mims (rapper)) and we had several conflicts, like nomination his articles for deletion and removal of unsourced content (see User talk:Signshare). The results are a bit drastic (user flammed me on my talk page) and we merely settled now. No conflicts for a while.

Questions from Avruch


 * 4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: In my POV, a "ban" affects editing privileges. A user is prohibited from certain editing privileges but doesn't completely take away all editing powers. A "block" tends to disallow a user from accessing a location. In here, mostly with a reason, users won't be allowed to to edit pages, due to their previous behavior.


 * 5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A: Since one person might disagree with the content, I would put it on the biography's Talk page to make a decision with the contribution and opinions of others. I would need to support my opinion of putting it up and how valuable it would be to have it up in the article. Of course, it should be accompanied with reliable sources.


 * Extend: I'm gonna stick with my answer with this, since I believe that if a certain detail is thought to be a problem, the Talk page is one of the places where I can put up the details for dispute. Not just the administrator disputes his/her points about it but also, several people can come in to also put up their points. Isn't that what are talk pages for? To talk about the edits in the article? If material that might need some thought before it can be put into the article, users simply put it on the talk page and can get other opinions of other users. Together, they can conclude if the information should be included, shouldn't be included, or fixed.


 * 6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
 * A: Honestly, I agree strongly that it would be great to make it more of a decision-making for a user, since some may question about their contributions and if enough users point that out, I agree that the user might put themselves in that condition. It would causes some controversial for someone to disagree but it may just cause more problems. I think it might help someone with their editing from what others would say about the admin's work.

Optional Question from Keepscases


 * 7. What do you imagine the world will be like in the year 7587?
 * A:

General comments

 * See Esanchez7587's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Esanchez7587:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Esanchez7587 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * You haven't enabled email, which is useful for allowing blocked users to contact you. Would this be possible? Addhoc (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the concern about e-mail, as it can also be more immediate than a talk page post - particularly if there is discussion that involves one of your administrative actions. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Enabled now. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the candidate please read WP:BAN, WP:BLOCK, and WP:BLP, than attempt the questions Avurch noted in his neutral again, please? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. I'm confident that Esanchez7587 has a solid grasp of policies and procedures, even though he doesn't have a whole lot of edits to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm willing to overlook that one this time due to his extensive time of active work on Wikipedia.  Useight (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Very good user. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I encountered this user earlier and found him to be both polite and a good vandal-fighter. Acalamari 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Been here a good long time, knows the ropes. :) GlassCobra 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Looking at edit history, good user. Spencer  T♦C 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Looks fine to me.  Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Seen some of the great work he has done on the articles on rap music etc. --WheezyF 14:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Looks like a good user to me. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I'm sure Esanchez7587 will help fight vandilisim which is a growing problem on Wikipedia. His barnstars prove it and Esanchez7587 has personally said to help fight vandilism. SimpsonsFan2008 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Full Support Numerous excellent edits, I see no reason to oppose. CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Great user Ohmpandya  ( Talk to Me... )  20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I've seen this guy around. He'll make a useful admin. Spellcast (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I do not believe that this user would abuse the tools, and I have seen good things at AIV, hence... However, I am very slightly concerned about the narrowness of focus (vandals and vandalism) but I am not worried enough not to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support No problems here. -- Shark face  217  22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Meets my standards, great vandal-fighter with 48 scars to show for it. Some answers above are a bit weak, but are not a major concern. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - All looks good, give em' the mop! Tiptoety  talk 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support On balance this will be a net positive to the project. Nothing worrying on talk pages or in contributions, and plenty of sterling article work. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat  11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support  Dloh  cierekim  16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I can trust this user. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Mop up. Gromlakh (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support valid candidate, very likely to be a good admin. --Angelo (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. A good candidate with solid mainspace experience. I'd like to see a little more AIV work, but no concerns otherwise. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) I have no doubt at all this user is a great user and deserves to become administrator, especially not when looking at his edits and history carefully. Besides that, he has a, clean good record and fine reputation. Take that as a yes from me, okay? Angela from the Blue (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support All looks well. Midorihana ~いいです ね？ 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Does not appear likely to abuse the tools.  Lawrence Cohen  16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Should have been one by now. --Bhadani (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support I don't see any reason he would abuse the tools.  нмŵוτн  τ  16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Yep, see no problems here. Woody (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Sure there are good contributions and excellent vandal fighting and AFD's, although the only concern is the overall involvement in Wiki pages is a bit low with a large chunk of the contribs at WP:AIV.-- JForget 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Good answers, edit history, and record. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 06:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I don't want to oppose based on answers that aren't completely incorrect, but I think answers to my first and second questions leave much to be desired. I don't think moving potentially BLP-violating material from the article to the article talk page is a good idea at all, and bans and blocks have entirely different purposes (although bans can be enforced by blocks). Avruch talk 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the supposedly BLP-violating material can't be placed on the talk page, how can any discussion on whether or not it actually violates BLP go forward? —Random832 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All edits are still in the history, unless they've been oversighted (which they usually aren't if there's still some discussion going on about them). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.