Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ish ishwar


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

Ish_ishwar
final (40/8/5) ending 04:52 7 February 2006 (UTC)

– I believe that Ish ishwar will make an excellent administrator for Wikipedia. He has over 10000 edits, and the talk page shows that he is quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia. With this, I nominate Ish ishwar to be the next Wikipedia administrator. Thistheman 06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Thistheman


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: hi. i accept the nomination. – ishwar  (speak)  17:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose Neutral
 * 1) beating-nominator-to-the-draw support. Ish is one of the most credible editors I've seen around- diligent, considerate, non-aggressive, with demonstrated grasp of policy. Peace!--cjllw | TALK  23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) i got beat Support. Of course I support him!; I did nominate him, after all. Interesting how I got beat to the vote.  Thistheman 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. A serious contributor with valuable specialist knowledge on lingustics. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) M e rovingian { T C E } 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as above.Blnguyen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, never mind about the edit summaries. An advice to Ish ishwar, use more edit summaries from now on. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support more edit summaries is desirable, but it seems a trivial matter. This user shows little risk of abusing powers. Pete.Hurd 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- and watch the edit sums. John Reid 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, even though edit summary usage is quite low.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Latinus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Edit summary usage excluded, I think Ish Ishwar would make a good admin - any disagreements? -- M @  th  wiz  2020  23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not from me. I am simply unable to separate edit summary usage away from my "good enough for admin" package. - BanyanTree 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)  Moved to support. - BanyanTree 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--Ugur Basak 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm a fan of arbitrary criteria just as much as the next guy, but edit summaries are a joke. Edit summaries are the current fad simply because someone bothered to make a script to calculate it. --  BRIAN  0918 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I don't think edit summaries are important enough for this. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Great, great editor, friendly on the few occasions we've talked. I couldn't possibly oppose on edit summary grounds since I'm pretty dismal about summaries myself, and anyway I think their importance is being overstated a bit. They are nice, definitely, but let's not exclude a good candidate on those grounds. Everyking 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Lack of edit summaries is a petty and nitpickery reason to justify an excellent editor being excluded given the mop. As long as he promises to try and use them from now on, I don't see a problem. Proto t c 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I agree with Brian0918's comment on edit summaries. All in 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, although edit summaries are useful, they shouldn't be a preclusion to adminship. Hiding talk 14:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Candidate has addressed the edit summary issue very well, and elaborated on their thoughts on edit summaries. I see no reason not to support. I also encourage people who voted oppose based on edit summaries to read the extra question number 4 and the response recently posted by Ish ishwar (and change their votes).--Alhutch 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Switched from neutral.  Ish ishwar has answered below and has altered his monobook to force edit summaries, which is a more than reasonable response to the concerns raised. - BanyanTree 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. Knowledgeable, reasonable, peaceful, authorative, and contributing high quality content in high quantities: this is the kind of admin we need. Although I do think that edit summaries are quite important, I note that Ish already used them in the most crucial cases (interaction with other editors); his thoughtful and honest response below shows that he is willing to extend his use of them. &mdash; mark &#9998; 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support. Ish makes collaborating a pleasure. Courteous, considerate, intelligent, even-tempered. If people find his lack of summaries objectionable, why not leave a note on his talk page? Ish is the kind of person who takes our suggestions seriously. Personally, I don't see much reason for summaries on each of dozens of copy edit revisions on articles that wouldn't even exist without him; when the page history shows nothing but his name, and we can compare before/after, does it matter which part of the edit was done when? That time can be better spent on creating more articles on underrepresented languages. And I believe Ish does summarize when he's not the primary contributor. kwami 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support. Ish has never been anything but polite and reasonable, he's made fantastic contributions to linguistics and Amerindian language articles, and he always goes out of his way to address problems or difficulties. He's also said he will "make use of edit summaries more in the future." --Whimemsz 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, good editor. And I think he's gotten the POINT about edit summaries by now.  Guettarda 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support seems to be addressing edit summaries issue productively, no other reason to object that I can find. --W.marsh 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) support: Strong contributor.  Ombudsman 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support see rational--Edivorce 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support --Irpen 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Mjal 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Pretty strong aupport. BD2412  T 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Using edit summary now. --FloNight 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) SuperBowl Sunday Support [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support as good editor. NoSeptember   talk  19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, great editor, and now that he was self-imposed the necessity of using edit summaries, I'm sure he'll do great with the mop in his hand. Phædriel  ♥ tell me - 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, good editor, based on his answers won't be doing anything stupid with admin tools, and uses edit summaries more now. If he doesn't object to being an admin, I don't se why he shouldn't be made one - Bobet 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, seems to be a good hardworking editor abakharev 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit summary issues. NSL E (T+C)  恭喜发财!  05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per NSLE. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I am also a big fan of edit summaries.  If you are interested in increasing your edit summary usage, there is a force edit summary script available. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Edit summary usage is quite low. Xoloz 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, subject to change. Edit summaries are not trivial. They make life easier for your fellow contributors. Not using them makes other people have to check your edits to see what you changed.--Alhutch 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Switched to neutral.--Alhutch 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I do oppose nominations where edit summaries are this low, but I may support a future one after that has improved for a time. Jonathunder 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I started to read the long statement on edit summaries below, but without any use of upper case, it is difficult to follow. Using standard mixed case is a courtesy to readers; long text without it comes across as someone who didn't want to bother to communicate clearly. Jonathunder 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the latter issue, I fixed that for you. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per NSLE -- Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Major edits need sumaries, a higher rate is not that much to expect from an admin. Voice of  All T 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sorry if it seems like a pile-on.  Edit summaries are a Very Good Thing to see when tracking recent changes or looking through a page history or user contributions to look for one specific diff.  I think that all editors should use them in all of their edits (or - at minimum - all of their major edits), and admins should ideally lead the way in doing that.  I would like to support in a few months, especially since this editor's doing a good job with underrepresented topics, but this should be taken care of first. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral now; see below. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Having too many edits without summaries increases others' burden to find what exactly you have edited. I wonder if this habit will show up here when deleting pages with no reasons left while I know a very persuasive administrator at Chinese Wikipedia deleting too many things with no reasons. Even though I am also an administrator there (but not here), I am getting tired of his persuasive actions. This is why I oppose you here.--Jusjih 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as being able to tell what someone edits from their edit summaries. Nothing prevents an editor from using false summaries, so the burden of finding out what has been edited is about the same whether edit summaries are present or not.
 * Jusjih, are you aware that the candidate has added a javascript function that forces edit summaries?--Alhutch 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - As others, I'm concerned about edit summaries as there are an important part of communicating with other editors. Although from his contribs he looks like a fine editor, he seems to have relatively few edits in the User Talk and Project namespaces. --Whouk (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Originally leaned towards support for a user I've seen around for a long time making valuable additions to content in places where Wikipedia is thin on the ground with editors.  However, the low use of edit summaries (below 25% for major edits) gives me pause.  I consider this non-trivial as it simplifies the task of figuring out article development without checking every diff and tells other users when something is happening to an article that they may be interested in, and when they shouldn't bother.  Extrapolating out a bit, the habit of writing edit summaries is even more important for accountability when doing admin-ish things like speedy deletions, as it is often the only evidence non-sysops have of the rationale for the action. Again, I'm not happy that I am unable to support this user right now.  - BanyanTree 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Switched to support. - BanyanTree 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral.Along the same lines of the above comment. Use more edit summaries and I will support. Pschemp | Talk 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Seems like a very good candidate for adminship. If the edit summary issue is adressed, I will gladly switch to support.--Alhutch 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * switched to support.--Alhutch 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Outstanding amount of article namespace contributions but I would like to see more experience in the project namespace (250 edits, 1%).  Also I prefer properly copy-edited comments.  As for edit summaries, now is a good time to plug my new user script: User:Quarl/auto_summary.js  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:22Z 
 * 2) Neutral I agree with Quarl, maybe next time --Jaranda wat's sup 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. (I had been opposing.)  I like the fact that he's using more edit summaries now, with the aid of the script that he's been using.  I'd like to see him continue to do that, i.e. for a few months longer than just an RfA period - make it a habit.  The edit summary issue and the project namespace edits (addressed by Quarl) were the only concerns I had, so if he takes care of those two things, I'll probably support next time. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 22% for major edits and 31% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Ish_ishwar's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * Would the candidate care to say why they don't use edit summaries, or what their position on edit summaries is?--Alhutch 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would comparative lack of edit summaries be considered a serious-enough breach to de-admin someone? Repeated acts of incivility, blinkered POV-pushing and argumentativeness, constant edit-warring, history of dubious or deleterious contributions and general craziness presumably are, and have been, good enough reasons; this candidate has no evidence whatsoever of those, however. Attentiveness to summaries is something which can very easily be addressed, unlike most other disbarring attributes. Were it not for automated summaries generated by rollbacks and the like, I'd wager that not a few practising admins have a less-than-perfect summary record. My 2cm, FWIW. --cjllw | TALK  01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * you're right, lots of people don't use them. That doesn't mean they're not important. I'm for edit summaries 100 percent of the time, whether the edit is minor or major. I'd be open to changing my vote if Ish ishwar would respond to people's concerns about edit summaries.--Alhutch 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A.
 * looking at the the Wikipedia Backlog, i think that an easy task is the situation of Encyclopedia images having duplicates in the Commons. i would be happy to help with this.
 * as is readily apparent, i have not been very active in such things as voting for deleting articles. this is because (1) i am more concerned about the inclusion/coverage of underrepresented topics (e.g. the hundreds of ethnic groups not mentioned in Wikipedia — not even merely by name), (2) no one has really invited me to participate, so i assume that there is already a base of active voters sufficient enough to address these articles. likewise, my non-participation in other areas of Wikipedia is due to my interest in adding the underrepresented topics. thus, my role to date has been primarily an editor. obviously, adminship may require a change in my distribution of energies.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * i guess my map of American languages is ok (although still in progress): Image:Langs N.Amer.png. Why?: there isnt really a map as detailed as this in cyberspace. (hopefully, someone will be inspired to make a better map.)
 * i've been trying to improve the Indigenous languages of the Americas article for some time, but this is, understandably, just an enormous topic. Why?: concerning a record of known languages & their genealogical classification, there isn't any site that is terribly comprehensive, with perhaps the exception of Promotora Española de Lingüística (Ethnologue generally does not include extinct languages).
 * as for articles written mostly be me, there is both Evidentiality and Apophony. i tried to get some approval for/improvement of Evidentially, but, evidently, no one is too interested (even though i find rather interesting!). an unfinished technical article (it'll probably never be complete) which i've spent considerable time on is Vietnamese phonology. maybe my magnum opus will be Southern Athabaskan languages, but it's currently not in a particulary exemplary state. (there's also the non-linguistically-oriented Indian Shaker Church.) Why?: well, hopefully, these are ok introductions to these topics. (if not, please suggest/make improvements.) i havent found any in-depth writings on any Navajo or other Apachean languages, except for linguistic articles (which are probably not understandable to laymen) and a web version of Harry Hoijer's Chiricahua and Mescalero Texts. much internet stuff on Vietnamese pronunciation is unclear and confusing (or not written in English).
 * otherwise, i've made minor contributions to various linguistic things (e.g., Reduplication: Form, Ao language, Neutralization, archiphoneme, underspecification, Chilcotin phonological processes). Why?: minority languages like Ao and Chilcotin need to be better represented in Wikipedia (plus isnt vowel flattening cool?). although many editors have heard of phonemes, none of these editors seemed to aware of Trubetzkoy's neutralized oppositions or modern underspecification theories (yes, i know the current section is hardly exhaustive or even representative).
 * i like bibliographies, so i add references/further reading to many articles.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A.
 * i dont think i've been in anything that could be called a proper conflict. i will list what are the closest things:
 * disagreement with User:Doric Loon over the appropriate names (and their scopes) for the phenomenon termed variously ablaut, apophony, etc. this user held that ablaut refers to primarily the phenomenon is the Indo-European language family, while i felt the term refers equally to all languages (regardless of genealogical affiliation). the respective discussion is at Talk:Ablaut. my "dealing with it" involved attempting to state and support my reasons for disagreement and asking 3 other users their opinions on the matter. this was the closest thing to a conflict, i think — so, we should probably ask this user's opinion about my behaviour.
 * Answer from Doric Loon: Well as far as I'm concerned, that was not a conflict, though at one point we did come close to three reverts. I found Ishwar to be... tenacious.    But courteous.  I wouldn't call it aggro, and we found a compromise. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk:Tonto Apache: i thought that the Tontos should be called Dilzhe’e as there was a recent movement for name change in one of their communities. however, since the name Tonto is still used in the official name of one the federally recognized communities and the name Tonto is by far the more common name in academic and non-academic writings of Whites both currently and historically, i do concede with User:Node ue's position.
 * User talk:ish ishwar: User:Antaeus Feldspar was unhappy with a name i choose. i apologized & asked for some suggestions. (i guess this wasnt interesting enough to reply? apparently this user is unfortunately ill now.)
 * i put some constructed languages up for deletion a while ago. this apparently annoyed several people. is this conflict?, i dont know.
 * future conflict resolution may be benefit from a Peace Treaty developed by Thích Nhất Hạnh. Wikipedia may be better if i introduce this. (this may have been first translated into English in his book titled Touching Peace, but perhaps i'm wrong.)


 * 4. Why dont you use edit summaries? What is your "position on edit summaries"? Are you ever going edit summaries in the future?
 * Hi (Tuesday is my "day off"). I see that edit summaries are apparently a concern for many people here, although they were never really a concern of mine. Obviously, since I seem to have annoyed or offended several editors and/or wasted their time, I should probably try not to be so inconsiderate. So, I apologize to all. I do not wish to annoy/offend/waste peoples' lives. I will make an effort change my ways (regardless of the outcome here).


 * Why don’t I use edit summaries? Well, I guess I will reply that I do use and do not use edit summaries. The factors determining this include several different things. I will list some, although I do not mean for the following to be a justification for not using edit summaries — I am just letting you know my (previous) thinking.
 * (1) Some articles have me as the sole contributor (or practically the only contributor). I simply assumed that no one was really watching these articles, thus my edit summarizing would be read primarily by me. I know some people may be watching, but I didn’t think typing these up was worth the type.
 * (2) I often don’t type edit summaries on "minor" edits.
 * (3) My editing style usually finds me making small snippets or adjustments instead of waiting to collect all of my snippets into one large edit. Perhaps this aspect of my editing is already annoying to some. I just often change and re-change my mind when typing. So, I probably hit the "save page" button too often. Since I do editing in this particular way, I either forget write the edit summary (sometimes even forgetting to identify minor edits) or I am too tired/careless/lazy to write them. This is probably me at my most grievous.
 * (4) I usually write summaries when it seems (to me) that what I have changed is particularly important. this include things such as, correcting someone's error, editing a page I usually don’t edit, when involved in disagreements, "major" changes, etc. Note that if so pressed, one could probably find me making exceptions here along the lines of number (3) above.
 * (5) I haven’t been writing edit summaries for redirects or the creation of new articles. These seemed to be "minor" edits, although perhaps some may not agree.
 * (6) If an (usually anonymous) editor makes a "vandalistic" change without an edit summary, I likewise make a revert without an edit summary. I don’t have any excuse for this, and the vandal probably doesn’t either.


 * My position on edit summaries. I guess my position will be something this: I will make use of edit summaries more in the future. If anybody seems to not be aware of edit summaries, I will (gently) point this out to the editor. I will not penalize or think bad of anyone for not writing edit summaries, unless a user seems to be doing so in order to deceive and/or injure others. I hope that this is clear and not too objectionable. Of course, one could persuade me to change/reevaluate my position (and anyone is welcome to).

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks!


 * 5. When would you use &#123;{test1}} to &#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * This question means use #1 over #4? or how to progress from #1 to #4? This is explained at Vandalism, no? This page outlines the general procedure for this. If you are asking how lenient or how forcefully I punish, then I am very lenient & not very forceful. I dont need to skip test3, and I dont see why not to give more than one test1. Blatantvandal, I hadnt read before. This one is amusing: A kind initial welcome with a stop sign, of course this explained after "however". I probably wouldnt use this. As above, I am not so forceful as this. Actually, I prefer to type personal messages.


 * 6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * I would not penalize the editor. The rule was obeyed after all. Talking about such things is ideal here. There must be a reason for these strong feelings leading to the reverts: let's find it out.


 * 7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * This could perhaps be written a little better (the linked page, not the question). This is so much a personal question. What is remarkable to me may not be remarkable to another. It seems like there should be some control for content within an encyclopedia, but it is not obvious to me what Wikipedia is doing here. Apparently, the control is voting to delete articles; however, much of this seems to be bickering. I would rather spend time doing something more useful, such as doing my usual light research into interesting things. I would probably ask someone else for their thoughts, as I couldnt necessarily be sure of my action. Isnt this just a vague noncommittal reply? Yes, it is, which is why I think perhaps the two sentences could be written a little better.


 * 8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * Firstly, readings. And not only what is written in Wikipedia. If it is so controversial, to do it well you need to listen a lot to others. Inviting others to help is helpful. I interpret Neutral point of view as mindfulness — there is a lot written on this topic. I dont know if you can remove bias, but I think that you can report it.


 * 9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * I dont have great frustrations here, which is I why continue to add the pages. Any frustrations with Wikipedia are the same as elsewhere, more or less. Perhaps I wish more editors would research the topics, but such is the internet.


 * ''The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.