Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shimeru

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Shimeru

Final (62/0/0); Ended Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:46 (UTC)

Shimeru (talk · contribs) - Shimeru is a prolific and productive editor with slightly over 3000 edits(this total is somewhat misleading since he often greatly expands an article with a single edit). I first encountered the editor in the ongoing school discussions where although I sometimes disagreed with him I found him to be civil and insightful. As one can see from his userpage, he has helped substantially rewrite and expand many articles including the recently featured article Kitsune. He has contributed substantially and helped start a wide variety of articles, ranging from Japanese cultural and religious topics to literary socieies, to poets, to 18th century proto-feminists. The user has a large amount of experience both in article space and Wikipedia space and has a healthy understanding of policy. JoshuaZ 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Shimeru 21:20, 8 March 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:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I intend initially to help deal with the backlogs at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and WP:XfD, since those are areas where I've had a fair amount of involvement. I've recently been trying to help close overdue AfDs, but as a non-admin, I obviously can have only a very limited impact; most of the unambiguous keeps tend to be dealt with early. I also monitor WP:AN and the related noteboards, and help out where I can; with the tools, I might be able to do more. I keep an eye on WP:RFPP, WP:Requested moves, and WP:CP as well. I anticipate continuing RC and new page patrol, as well, but I find I rarely am in the position of reverting vandalism following a final warning, so I probably wouldn't be employing the block button very often.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm very happy with kitsune, which I took to GA and then FA over the course of two months or so; I think our article may be one of the best sources of information about that mythological creature that exists on the web, and I'm glad to have contributed a substantial part of it. I'm always pleased when I'm able to contribute a new article, which I've done with subjects such as Harvey Littleton; my biggest contribution of this sort has been a string of articles relating to Ainu mythology, centered around the article kamui. There's much still to be done with those, but before I began, our entire coverage of Ainu mythology was limited to two sub-stubs, one of which was apparently incorrect. Outside of the mainspace, I was fairly happy with some of the discussion at WP:SCHOOLS, although the proposal has evidently failed to reach consensus, and I'm now helping out with WP:AI, which is in its early stages but appears promising.
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: Yes and no. I think it's inevitable that anyone who edits Wikipedia for very long will be involved in a conflict of some kind. However, I try not to let these conflicts cause me any stress, and I think for the most part I've succeeded. I'm capable of arguing my points forcefully, when I feel it's warranted, but I try my best to maintain a level of emotional detachment while doing so. I try always to remain civil, to discuss clearly and rationally, and, if I begin to feel too stressed or emotionally involved in the debate, to "walk away" and do something else for a little while. In the interest of full disclosure, I have had others "read" me as upset when I was not; since then, I've been trying to watch my choice of words so as not to come across as too heated.

Optional Questions

4. You said that you are interested in closing AfD's and your edit history clearly indicates that you are in the "most schools aren't notable" camp (feel free to disagree with this). WP:AFDP points out that most school AfDs result in no consensus. Will you be trying to change that? Why do you think it has been so hard to get the community to agree on an objective school policy? --Selket Talk 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty fair statement of my position. Will I be trying to change the fact that many school AfDs end in no consensus? In a sense, yes, but not through the admin tools. It's my hope to see a guideline in place for notability of schools, and I intend to continue working toward that as an editor. Short of that, I doubt there's anything I could do to change the lack of consensus; consensus isn't something that can be imposed by fiat. In the meantime, any school-related AfDs I might close would need to be evaluated solely in light of our current policies and guidelines; WP:ATT, WP:NOTE (though that one's in question itself, at the moment), and perhaps WP:ORG (which is the closest thing we have to an accepted guideline that might cover schools) would be most relevant if notability were in question.
Now, for the other part of the question... there are some editors who feel strongly about the inclusion of schools, even to the point of proposing "all schools are notable" as a guideline. (Many of these point to our standing "exceptions" for towns and villages and the like.) Others feel that a majority of schools is notable. Others, including myself, feel most schools are not notable, although many are. Some feel that very few schools are notable. Reconciling this broad a spectrum of opinion is not easy. But when I look at what was going on when I first registered on Wikipedia at the end of 2004, and compare it to the recent discussion of late 2006 until a few days ago, I think significant progress has been made even if the proposal ultimately failed. It appears to me as though the largest hurdle now is addressing which sorts of sources can be taken as evidence of notability. This isn't a school-specific issue, but many people with an interest in schools have very definite opinions on the matter, so the discussion there has been rather vigorous. It may be that we'll never reach consensus on what a "non-trivial" source is (or however it might be phrased), but I prefer to think we'll continue to make progress, even if it continues to be slow. Since consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement, it seems a realistic enough goal.

Optional question from Eli Falk

5. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
A: If the vandalism isn't ongoing, there's no need for semi-protection. If the vandalism is from only one or two IPs, a block would be a better approach. If the vandalism is from registered accounts, semi-protection won't stop it; full protection might be necessary. Even if there's ongoing IP vandalism, if it's occurring at a slow enough rate (say, once or twice a day), semi-protection might not be called for, because the benefit of preventing the vandalism needs to be weighed against the cost of preventing potential good IP edits to the article.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. JoshuaZ 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I like the user's answers to the questions, and I know of this user's good work on Wikipedia. I see no issues or concerns that are particularly worrysome. Nishkid64 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support good candidate. Trustworthy and level-headed. Good article work. No problems here. - Anas Talk? 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good editor - if he wants the mop, I see no reason to object. -- MarcoTolo 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support After reviewing your talk pages and contributions, I see you are an active vandal fighter, take part in a healthy amount administrator noticeboards discussions - I am confident you could blossom as an administrator. --Ozgod 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Thanks for your answer to my question. I disagree with you when you said, "I doubt ... I could ... change the lack of consensus." When an AfD comes down to 5 deletes and 3 keeps, the closing admin, in practice, has considerable discretion, and consequently an ability to shift the standard over time. But you have a very solid track record, and I believe you when you say you won't. --Selket Talk 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Terence Ong 07:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Impressive answers to questions and seems a dependable user. Will (aka Wimt) 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Way to vandal-fight, you deserve it. Please don't abuse your new position. StayinAnon 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Another good candidate and there is always room for help at AIV. auburnpilot talk 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very good editor, obviously will not misuse the tools. Rje 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Dorange 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support for one of my favorite editors. Go for it! (^^) Dekimasuよ! 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support :) --dario vet (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - It Experience which matters..--Cometstyles 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - An great example of effective distribution of edits. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absolutely. Everytime I've encountered Shimeru, I've found him to be intelligent, trustworthy, and thoughtful. He's an excellent contributor who has a need for the tools and will use them well. -- Kicking222 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support excellent user with excellent record.-- danntm T C 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This a great user who I see often and I was even considering nominating the user for adminship.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. -- Nick t 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Great user; nothing that concerns me.--TBCΦtalk? 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Kicking222. Will do great work —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A great, great user. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SupportAll looks good. Dfrg.msc 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - good answers to questions, can't find any problems here. Insanephantom 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Richardcavell 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good editor, no concerns. utcursch | talk 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Absolutely. – riana_dzasta 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I don't know the user, but he looks like a good candidate.--Danaman5 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I see no problems with this user, seems he/she will newver mis-use the tools, excellent and accurate answers to questions, would benefit the tools greatly! Good luck - Aquasplash 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good editor, long active in AFD, countervandalism and other work. Dragomiloff 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Reedy Boy 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Substantial edits, balanced answers about use of the tools. Brain says "Yes." Pigmandialogue 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Michael 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 00:21Z
  38. Support - And shimeru is the verb to close, correct? I hope this RfA is closed in favor of Support quickly, if only for us new page patrollers' sanity :) -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support without reservations. Yuser31415 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support appears to be a solid canidate. - Denny 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support based on answers to questions - user seems to be mature and considered based on this and a random review of contributions, and very unlikely to abuse tools. Orderinchaos78 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SupportGood luck! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support--MONGO 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support; this editor clearly has already been a huge help to Wikipedia and will be an excellent admin. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support looks good. --Tbeatty 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Good contributions in XFDs. --Meno25 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Mature and capable. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per all above. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Looks like a good choice.-jufam
  51. yay number 50. You'll be a good admin, support.--Wizardman 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support (not that you need it), every time I've seen Shimeru around I've been impressed. No concerns at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. WjBscribe 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I see no prob. with this user.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Cliched "isn't-he-one-already?" support. Metamagician3000 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Mop. Georgewilliamherbert 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I've reviewed his posts and found him to be civil and insightful, too. He will be a good admin. -- Jreferee 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I finally realized where I recognized Shimeru from! Admins who are willing to step-up and help inexperienced editors with dispute resolution is exactly what Wikipedia needs.--BirgitteSB 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support You seem like a good user that we can trust to (not ab)use the tools. Cbrown1023 talk 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Garion96 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Trustworthy and definitely ready. James086Talk 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. An admin who will delete lots of copyvios? Sounds good to me. >Radiant< 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Seems lilke the kind of admin who would delete lots of factual articels just because of slight notablity and copyvioissues. 24.126.170.194 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to participate in an RfA, please get an account. -- MarcoTolo 19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or remain anonymous and participate just in the comments section and ask questions there --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - participation is encouraged by anons. Mea culpa. -- MarcoTolo 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I'm jealous. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no holes to poke ;) AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marking it as invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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/Shimeru&oldid=1147988485"