Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89


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

Wisdom89
'''Final (14/13/5); Originally scheduled to end 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'''

- Focused Wikipedian and well intentioned Wisdom89 06:54, 10 October 2007 (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?
 *  I am primarily interested in locating vandalism and contributing to its elimination on a grand scale, despite this being an extremely lofty and challenging endeavor. I have a vested interest in promoting discussion and would be vigilant against edit warring. I am also quite opposed to sockpuppetry to circumvent minor and major blocks. While everyone on wikipedia is entitled to edit, I tend not to tolerate subtle deception to promote one's POV. I have a penchant for eliminating original research as I understand the necessity for professional second and third party analysis.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * I am able to contribute to science related articles due to my educational background and current status as a graduate student. My edits are a reflection of my interests and hobbies, music for instance, however I feel that my edits are made with minimal subjectivity, especially in anything medically or science related. My knowledge in these topics allows me to identify factual errors. I intend to become a member of several wikipedia projects in these areas that are designed to broaden information


 * 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?
 * Editing inevitable gets hot, it's unavoidable. I have tried to obey the three revert rule while remaining cool. I usually try and instruct users to foster constructive contribution by taking abrasive or drastic changes of articles to the talk page. I discourage edit warring whenever possible. There is no doubt that I will continue with this philosophy to promote consensus among editors and dissuade users from using edit summaries for discussion.

Question from User:Pedro
 * 4. An IP address has posted POV material into Rush (band) three times and been reverted and warned. Ten minutes later a brand new registered account posts a similar POV entry as their first edit. What actions would you take regarding 1) The article. 2) The IP address 3) The new account ? Pedro : Chat  07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A: If I was not initially involved in the observation of the NPOV violation and was not the one responsible for tagging the user page with warning templates, I'd 1.)Create a new subheading in the talk page of the article addressing the issue of POV 2)I would assume good faith editing with the new user account, however, I would probably remain wary. I wouldn't immediately assume a sock puppet offense. If the IP address continued to revert the edits back without discussion on the talk page, I'd add warning tags, most likely skipping the more lenient levels, as they would have most likely already been given by another admin or user. A possible block might be in order - on the order of 2 hours to 24 hours if no response was given. Since I am a heavy editor of the Rush (band) article, I'd rollback to the most recent NPOV version a single time. The new user account would receive a message on their talk page regarding the situation, that there has been recent issues regarding POV pushing. I'd enlist the help of other editors of the article to help get the new user to use discussion and build consensus. Wisdom89 08:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE . Hello, Wisdom89 and thank you for submitting your RFA. I'm adding a number of questions. They are 100% optional but may help me or other voters decide on how to decide. I was almost persuaded to support by your answer to Pedro's queation, but feel I need a clearer picture. You can remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.
 * These questions will be answered in do time after I am out of the lab : ) Thank you Wisdom89 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?


 * A- If the question is implying that a Checkuser (as this is usually a last resort) has already been performed which turns up incontrovertible evidence that proves said user is engaging in malicious sock puppetry, then little more needs to be done. However, if the question implies that I SUSPECT the user to be using sock puppets to commit rampant acts of vandalism, then I'd go through the necessary and proper channels. First, assume good faith. If this user is well respected and has a clear history of an "outstanding" and clean Wikipedia record, why the need for creating sock puppets? A WP:SSP report should be filed against the alleged user with the anonymous IPs or suspected sock puppet user names being tagged with  .


 * 6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?


 * A- In this particular case, I would respect the other administrator's decision. If the admin had been closely watching the flame war and decided that this was the only recourse, I'd trust that judgement. My experience with administrators have been mostly positive, and very rarely do I see abuse of power - although it does happen. Sometimes a temporary block allows users to cool down when editing gets hot. Yes, I would continue to make attempts at fruitful conversation after leaving a message on their respective talk pages - possibly using other channels such as IRC or email. Email preferably. If the ArbCom rejects the case, I would contact the administrator who originally blocked both users and see if he/she would join me in mediation to ensure that the edit warring doesn't continue.


 * 7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?


 * A- While I am a strong believer in the need for guidelines, I find that they are numerous and sometimes a bit verbose which tends to discourage editors from comprehensively reading the presented information. This usually results in misinterpretation or skimming of the text - or the user avoids reading it altogether. I realize that Wikipedia is an enormous repository for information, and it's a public community which invites anyone to participate - Core policies such as No original research, NPOV, and Verifiability MUST be adhered to - but the myriad of guidelines might need to be better organized or curtailed in content so that users will have a better understanding of this medium and how it operates.


 * 8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?


 * A- Under no circumstances would I immediately block a user indefinitely if they had not already been blocked several times for vandalism or disruption of Wikipedia in the past. In other words, it would never be a first block choice. I tend to give people second chances or the benefit of the doubt. However, a constant barrage of vandalism such as blanking of pages, introduction of vulgarity, incivility etc..etc..coupled with silence (e.g. no discussion after repeated attempts at talk page and warnings tags) would push me to consult with other administrators, some who have dealt with the user before, and others who haven't been involved for neutrality purposes. I need constructive discussion in order to deal with a user, silence or recurrent personal attacks to myself or the other administrators would push me to indefinitely block both anonymous and registered users.


 * 9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A-


 * 10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?


 * A- I would say this is relative - it depends on how often it is edited. Sometimes articles haven't been given enough time to develop notability or meet the standards of decent article. There really is no set number I could give as it would most likely depend on several factors. One such factor is time. Closing a AfD might depend on this factor more, rather than the number of people who have responded. Getting more eyes on the AfD might be a reasonable course of action to help foster discussion such as comments, and not necessarily keep or oppose proposals.


 * 11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?


 * A- While the virtual world is different then life in the real world, I feel the daily stress and agitation that a person experiences throughout the day, and how they cope with that, stress is a pretty good meter stick for judging how they would approach a situation in the virtual realm such as Wikipedia. Over the years, I've learned that people tend to bring their characteristics, foibles, and personality traits to the internet. With that being said, I work good under pressure due to my profession. I haven't experienced burnout yet in any form, virtual or non-virtual. However, one needs to recognize that no one is impervious to stressful situations, especially when abuse or vitriol are involved. Humility is the key. Don't be afraid to enlist the help of other Wikipedians and administrators for a cool down period. Maintaining civility is pivotal in dealing with a dispute or disruptive user.


 * 12. Why do you want to be an administrator?


 * A I feel that I have a solid grasp of the range of policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, despite the fact that I have not taken advantage of ALL facets of this fine place - as some users have pointed out. I tend to be very objective, as that is how I am trained as a scientist. You look at things from multiple angles, you don't jump to conclusions, and you rely on analysis of a situation. This makes for a good administrator. There are destructive things that go on here, and as this site grows in popularity and the number of articles and new users rise, so does the potential for abuse. Invariably, more control is needed. I feel I would be able to fulfill this role with aplomb. I do not have a history of being uncivil or making personal attacks. I can be stern, and I feel that is a necessary trait. A cool, calm, collected mind with a knowledge of the core policies is the heart of a good administrator.


 * 13. Optional question by User:Bearian. Why have you not used edit summaries every time? Bearian 19:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A This is a fair question. I anticipated this being an issue before I began the nomination procedure, but didn't realize to what extent. There is no one single answer to this question. There are times when I am eliminating small pieces of silly vandalism or nonsensical content, and my mind goes into quick mode. Just a rapid revert. That sort of thing shouldn't confuse anyone who checks the diff. However, one should be more careful when dealing with edits that involve removing Original Research. This should be clarified. Sometimes you're in a rush, sometimes you're more attentive. It's not apathy, it's more of reflex in most cases. Also, not to make excuses, but sometimes I contribute to Wikipedia when I am at work and have been called away in haste while editing. This happens often. Again, not an excuse, just an answer. I've made many edits on Wikipedia since I registered my account, some edits summaries I've been lax with, others I've been clear. The only thing I can say is this: I will be more conscientious about this from now on. It is easily fixed.


 * 14. Optional questions from  W ODU P : In Q1, you said that you're interested in locating vandalism and contributing to its elimination. How will the administrative features help you with that? What have you done without the admin buttons to correct and prevent vandalism?


 * A I'll answer the second question first. While some users have pointed out that I have not taken advantage of WP:AIV, I have taken alternate methods. While they maybe difficult to locate, I assure you that I have been known to, first, assume good faith and use a warning level 1 template as my initial approach. I have escalated such warnings as the vandalism has continued. I've left messages on user talk pages instructing them that their edits may be construed as vandalism (although not when it involves content disputes) and will only cause further conflict. I've alway made sure to make users aware of the WP:3RR rule during inflammatory edit wars. Now, as far as blatant vandalism, I tend to eliminate it on sight by simple reversion. You know the drill, page blanking, insertion of gibberish, vulgarity, or incorporation of insidious vandalism that is meant to remain undetected by the general public. Now, onto your first question. Adminstrative features would allow me to combat vandalism more effectively through Arbcom intervention, and WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP - if it comes to that. Vandalism is typically perpetrated through the use of sock puppets, and the policy WP:SSP for adminstrators would be followed accordingly. Checkuser, while not always definitive, is always an option.


 * Optional Question from  Marlith  T / C'''
 * 15 What do you dream Wikipedia will be in the future? Will you fight to create a blessed world where the blood of vandals is the wine that we raise in our toasts? Marlith  T / C  03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A Tough to envision what Wikipedia will ultimately become - it grows almost exponentially - we have eclipsed 2 million articles in the English Wikipedia alone. As I mentioned elsewhere, as the site continues to grow and becomes more pervasive, it will attract the attention of well intentioned users, as well as vandals/trolls. I would love nothing else than to contribute to the control of damaging edits and behavior, but without abusing my power.

Question from User:Piotrus
 * 16. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A As a matter of fact, I would be open to such an idea. I understand that it is voluntary, and would ultimately be the admins choice, not just regarding participation, but also in the conditions underlying the proposal to rescind adminship. I myself have encountered administrators whom I felt acted arbitrarily or with a certain agenda. I've also seen ownership of articles and complete abuse of power. I am unable at this time to, in theory, provide you with a set of restrictions I would employ. That's something I'd consider down the road depending on the outcome of this process. Wisdom89 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Wisdom89's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Wisdom89:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Please use edit summaries (turn that option on in your preferences). It would be tough without them. For example, I don't know why you did this. But I am assuming there was a good reason; I won't oppose based on a lack of edit summaries however because it's something you can correct immediately. - Two  Oars   (Rev)  16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Edit summaries are crucial which is why the percentage might be low, it has been increasing as of late. The reason for the above edit was to move the content to a more appropriate place in the article. Wisdom89 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. I checked the next edit; should have checked the previous edit too. :) - Two  Oars   (Rev)  18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Wisdom, but the way you're responding is screwing up the numbering on the votes. Doczilla 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops you're right. Pardon me Doczilla Wisdom89 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support I see some possible minor issues here but nothing that can't be fixed. By that I mean your opening self nom was a bit "odd", and your answers to the questions didn't really seem to be fully fleshed out and with some unique ways of putting things - "Primarily interested in locating vandalism and contributing to eliminating it on a grand scale, despite this being an extremely lofty and challenging endeavor". Grand Scale? Lofty? Hmmmm.... However your answer to my optional question was spot on. No mention of page protection or losing WP:AGF but keeping a sensible head on. Yep, if that's your attitude then I trust you to make good and fair use of the tools, and thus am happy to offer my support. Good luck. Pedro : Chat
 * 2) Support The answer to Pedro's question was good but I am impressed by Wisdom89's handling of various difficult situations at Talk:Rush (band). Appears to have a sound knowledge of policy. And I like the nom. Short and cute. (may change opinion though if some other evidence comes to light) - Two  Oars   (Rev)  16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support I agree with Phgao that you do good work with articles, however, when I look at the edit counter, there is no mention of any participation with any admin noticeboards (i.e. WP:AIV, WP:ANI). I believe that a future sysop should at least have some experience with these admin noticeboards if he/she is going to be working with them if promoted. On the positive side, you have participated in AFDs, and I give you credit for that. What also concerns me is the lack of edit summaries (Edit summary usage for Wisdom89: 34% for major edits and 9% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.). Anyways, based on what Twooars has stated above, I am willing to support you. nattan g 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above and meets my standards with a featured article- you did not mention this in you nom statement or Q2. I would recommend you review WP:BLOCK, though I don't believe you would go berserk with the block button. Quite the contrary. Also, you can set your preferences so that you must fill in the edit summary before it will save. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per experiences with user. &mdash; Deckiller 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The only flaw I see is edit summarues. We need more anti vandals.  Marlith  T / C  03:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support overall, I can see a good 'pedia builder. Could have written a better intro above but overall looks trustworthy with tools.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak Support. I agree with Nat's concerns, but overall, I think this editor will probably be ok.  -- 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support per Folic Acid. Good answers to questions, good prior work.  However, you have some more things to learn, so please take your time to learn more.  I will not oppose your RfA, because I think I can trust you. Bearian 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Per the answer to Pedro's question. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak Support. Not terribly loquacious in the nomination statement, but recent contribs reveal useful edits in a variety of areas. The answers to the questions are adequate, if strangely phrased, and demonstrate this candidate's understanding of the role of an administrator. This request will probably fail, but I recommend the candidate to try again in a few months. WaltonOne 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support User deserves a chance Dustihowe 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support Based on some good answers to the questions, advise working on some of the concerns raised below. Davewild 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Concerns raised below seem to be focused primarily on lack of edit count (edit-countitis anyone?). Overall impression is of a reliable and trustworthy user, level-headed, unlikely to get into an edit war and act unilaterally to stifle dissenting views/diversity (ie be a "bad" admin).  Support with the caveat that be listed as an admin under review, not a bad move for all new admins.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose (changed after long consideration to neutral) First up; positives - great work to some articles especially Rush. But, there is no consistent use of edit summaries, a total of 180 unique pages in conjunction with hardly any if any participation in admin areas such as AIV, RfA, AfD, means that while you may be a good article editor, I fear you lack experience in areas which admins would most likely take part in. Phgao 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A low number of unique pages is not such a bad thing. After all, Wisdom89 has been working on one article for more than a year and it appears, significantly contributed to the article becoming featured content. A high number of unique pages is achieved when all one does is revert vandalism, which although an equally good thing, takes much less effort than article building. - Two  Oars   (Rev)  16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true, I have been extremely focused on the Rush article, and it certainly took a while to get it to featured article status. Might I add that, while it takes less effort to simply go around reverting vandalism, it has been something I've also taken the time to do. Wisdom89 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - edits to project space mostly confined to featured nominations - hardly any involvement with deletion process or AIV. Addhoc 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment here. I can understand how one might think that - but policy knowledge was always something I felt I was strong in. I hoped to make that apparent with my responses to the questions in this RfA. Wisdom89 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Just not quite there in the experience...yet. Keep up the good work, but try and start using edit summaries more.  Jmlk  1  7  21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Addhoc, inexperience.  Daniel  23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - You say you want to fight vandalism, but I see no reports to WP:AIV, and the low number of User Talk posts looks like you're not warning vandals. I think you need to work on fighting vandalism now, and get a feel for how the process works, before you'll be ready to use the admin buttons for that purpose.  The edit summaries thing is also something that needs to be fixed for a while before standing for admin.  It looks like you're doing good work on the 'pedia, but I don't think you're ready just yet.  -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for a lack of proven policy experience. (AIV, etc). That said, I don't have any prejudices against another RfA at some point down the road after the concerns above have been addressed. Best, -- B figura (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - good intentions but more can be done with his current rights to fight vandalism and assist wikipedia. Leadership in the area of vandalism has little to do with title, and more with action. Tiggerjay 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No, I can't support at this time. You seem to be doing some good things, but I would like to see some more experience. Come back in a few months and my signature should be in the support section. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No per Anonymus Dissident. NHRHS2010  Talk  00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Wisdom89 says xe wants to help at WP:AIV, but has edited that page fewer than two times. Regular vandal-fighters will have vandals who vandalize past a final warning, and will need to report them to administrators. Adminstrative features would allow me to combat vandalism more effectively through Arbcom intervention... Simple vandals don't get to ArbCom. I don't mean to be mean or look like I'm assuming bad faith, Wisdom89 is here to do good things, and I'm happy about that. I think xe could make a good administrator in the future, but I must oppose for now.  W ODU P  03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to belabour the point, but, just pointing out for readers who may not know this: Being an admin does not make one a member of WP:ArbCom.  Participating in Arbitrations has nothing to do with being an admin. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But all that's experience that is needed when resolving disputes at the admin level.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 21:00, 12 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Whuh? I'm not sure what your point is here. All what's experience? I just wanted to clarify for those happening upon this that being an admin is not the same as being on arbcom, as it sounded like the candidate was mistaken about that. Also, it's not just admins who participate in arbitrations.  If you were referring to Wodups's comment about arbcom having nothing to do with simple vandalism, yes, that is true. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per K. N.D. I checked contribs and was disturbed by the lack of talk contribs, too, especially that there's hardly any particpation in longer lasting discussions. Imho the candidate has admin potential, his answers show that he's serious and thoughtful, but he has to show skills at resolving problems to become an admin. Since, according to reports, WP isn't growing as fast anymore and the focus is shifting towards maintaining existing articles, a diplomatic approach towards editors and the ability to handle disputes will become increasingly important. However, I'm looking forward to revisiting this candidate again in a few months and I'm almost certain he will have overcome this lack of experience by then. Gray62 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your input is highly regarded - I appreciate that you see my activity and responses as well-intentioned and productive. Thank you for the comments. I plan to increase my acts of intervention - and have already done so. This process is, if nothing else, giving me a wider view of Wikipedia - depsite visiting nearly all the spaces I could. Participation is key - gives you the practical experience an admin would require if they were given the rights. Cheers. Wisdom89 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Nowhere near enough experience in Wikipedia/project space yet, although your article work is good. The RfA introduction doesn't really sell yourself either, but that's not a big issue. Always use the edit summary. Try again a few months.  Lra drama 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose don't feel offended, however your too many few mainspace edits (one third of them covering just a single article) fail to prove you can actually deal with the mop. --Angelo 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral for the very laconic self-nom, but swaying back and forth on the fence after looking at your input. We'll see. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my vote. Not enough to support, and not enough to oppose. Come back in a few months after you've gathered more experience. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral The lack of usage of edir summaries is a concern here, which is a very important guideline in this project. However, I must acknowledge the great work you did to some of the articles, so I do not think you deserve an oppose comment. I also do not think that you would misuse the admin tools given to you if you pass this RFA. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'm uncomfortable with the lack of edit summaries. Anyone who wants to become an admin needs to give clear and frequent feedback to others. This user has done good work. A greater variety of work would be helpful. However, some WP:CANVAS concerns bother me with regard to this RfA. I think this person has a lot more to learn. (Surely you could have checked your wording and spelling better on your RfA self-nomination and subsequent remarks.) I'm definitely leaning toward oppose, but would first like to see how this person answers all the questions. Doczilla 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede to the lack of edit summaries. I've made adjustments such that all of my edits will be clearly visible for all users to see. I understand your discomfort. As for the Canvasing you referenced, had it been more rampant I could clearly see it being an issue, but two examples is hardly a good case. Besides, I have no idea how those editors would "vote". I just wanted more eyes on the process. As for my spelling, I don't see many mistakes, and even if there are, should this be criteria for whether one should become an administrator? As you've pointed out, I've done "good work" with regards to prose and copy editing. Wisdom89 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I'm impressed by Wisdom89's efforts and ability to get an article to FA, as he did in Rush, and I have no doubt he was the guiding force for that, and for maintaining a highly polished article. His civility and ability to use the talk page is strong. His edit summary count isn't important to me, as it can be easily fixed if needed. I am a bit concerned by two things, though. One, he hasn't particularly branched out in terms of subject matter. While unique pages isn't important to me, trying a few areas out can lead to a wider experience in working out problems. Similarly, I see only limited wikipedia space editing, and feel that if he were to hang out at one of the AN, RfC, AfD or some other community input based Wikipedia space area for a few months, he could watch how things are handled more. If he's already been lurking, then perhaps I'd be inclined to move to weak support. All that said, I have found Wisdom89 to be a conscientious editor (if not summarist, lol) and have confidence that sooner or later, he'll be a good admin and asset to the project.ThuranX 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I actually have been visiting those areas and spaces on Wikipedia - been doing some theoretical research if you can get me :) I appreciate the comments though! Wisdom89 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral 38% for major edits and 13% for minor edits is too low of edit summaries for my liking. Other than that, I don't see any problems, so I will only go neutral. Captain   panda  02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Something that I've committed to fixing and not just arbitrarily because of this RfA. I've already adjusted my preferences and employed TW prior to this self nom. Wisdom89 06:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Requests for adminship, not Editor review. While a consistent use of edit summaries is desirable, it does not really influence his ability to be an administrator. Adminship is a few extra buttons, and not a trophy for being a good editor.  Melsaran  (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistent use of edit summaries can indicate how good this person as an admin would be about explaining to people what they've done wrong. I haven't been on the receiving end of this myself, but I've seen way too many times when admins block people, etc., with insufficient explanation as to what the problem is and how things should be done instead. That's an extreme example, but all the less extreme problems add up. Willingness and ability to explain things is imperative. Plus, the more I see of this person's work and how this person answers questions, the less I feel that this person really knows enough about Wikipedia in general to have the knowledge needed to (1) explain enough different things to others and (2) make the right judgment calls as admin at what should be a much higher rate than other people. A better edit summary history would also give us a better idea as to what specific kind of feedback Wisdom would dispense. (Somehow everything I read in Wisdom's defense makes me conscious of how much there is to defend and pushes me more toward oppose instead of neutral.) Doczilla 01:23, 12 October 2007 (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.