Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wangi

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

Wangi

[edit]

Final (57/9/2) Ended 23:46, 2006-08-18 (UTC)

Wangi (talk · contribs) – I've been a Wikipedia editor for over a year now and believe adminship would allow me to got that little bit further in some of the tasks I regularly find myself involved in. Thanks/wangi 23:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (self nomination) /wangi 00:12, 12 August 2006 (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 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: As an editor I have taken in part in many janitorial tasks, the specific taks varying with time and interest. It would be useful to taken part in these a bit more, for example closing AFD/CFD/MFDs; blocking link spammers when they ignore repeated warnings on their talk page; handling mistagged images; and generally helping other editors who are dealing with spam and vandalism in progress (WP:AIV among others). However less is very much more — I'd aim to undertake a few tasks well, rather than many tasks ok.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Like janitorial tasks my editorial contributions and here-and-there. I'm personally pleased with adding a number of photos to articles (both my own and CC); standardisation of the {{Airport infobox}} template (and other work with WP:AIRPORTS); work related to MoS:DP; work related to WP:EL... But perhaps the best pleasure is when you can cleanup an area that's neglected - the example that jumps to mind for this is periodically cleaning up use of {{high-traffic}} (which i've not done for quite a while, and is in need of some TLC just now!). My editorial input has mainly been on articles of interest and based on hitting "random article" every now and then and fixing up the returned article.
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've always tried to extend the eyes on any conflict — post to related talk pages and wikiprojects to try and get as broad an opinion as possible. Naturally there have been prolonged discussions in the past, but I believe I have always kept them related to the task at hand and not personal.
Optional Question 4 from - CrazyRussian talk/email: If promoted, do you plan to take the optional step of joining Category:Administrators open to recall and why? If yes, what course of action will you take if recalled?
A: An interesting concept, and one I read through last week - I beleive your own recall being the topic that led me to the page. Yes, I would add that category to my userpage if successful. I think the idea is a good one and it will make admins more accountable. However I think that as things stand currently an admin would probably stand down if it was obvious that they had lost the trust of their fellow editors and admins - this process would just make it formal (although optional!). The scheme is still in development, but either a RFC or removing the bit and applying via RFA again would seem to be two workable ways to proceed after a recall. Thanks/wangi 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Wangi (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 323 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 12, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 23, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 74.6% Minor edits: 97.3%
Average edits per day: 27.86 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 444 edits): Major article edits: 99.39% Minor article edits: 99.29%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 31 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.34% (17)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.96% (98)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 35.28% (1764)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 20 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 30.87%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 4.42% (221 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.5% (25 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 1.14% (57 edit(s)) (29 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.48% (24 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.28% (14 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2138 | Average edits per page: 2.34 | Edits on top: 9.32%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 51.56% (2578 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 16.12% (806 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 18.08% (904 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 13.3% (665 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 54.1% (2705) | Article talk: 12% (600)
User: 1.52% (76) | User talk: 13% (650)
Wikipedia: 9.54% (477) | Wikipedia talk: 4.58% (229)
Image: 1.2% (60)
Template: 2.48% (124)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0.08% (4)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.32% (66)
Username Wangi
Total edits 5087
Distinct pages edited 2153
Average edits/page 2.363
First edit 12:19, July 18, 2005
 
(main) 2787
Talk 609
User 76
User talk 650
Image 63
Image talk 4
Template 125
Template talk 47
Category 9
Category talk 15
Wikipedia 477
Wikipedia talk 221
Portal 4
Support
  1. Support. Enough experience; wants to work on admin issues and so needs the tools. Looking through his contributions I found good evidence of appropriate civil and informed behaviour: e.g. here in the external links discussion. Mike Christie 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support great edit summary usage, user seems civil, knows policy and takes fantastic pics! No reason to think he'll abuse the tools - Glen 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. Michael 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support offered great help while I was mass-revising the Singapore Changi Airport article, among other airport-related projects. Deserves more tools for his trade. --physicq210 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. DarthVader 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support I counted two reports to WP:AIV. This leads me to believe that the candidate will not spend his valuable time dealing with the alerts there. However, the candidate does seem like a good editor and quite trustworthy, so I don't see why he won't make a good administrator. (I would like the candidate to prove me wrong though, as AIV needs to be watched a lot more!) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just a quick comment re AIV - I was actually refering to WP:AN/I, a typo / braincrash on my behalf... I have made a number of reports there (on a quick check 5+), but I think more importantly have placed quite a bit of feedback on existing incidents (a recent example being this one to provide evidence against a mass removal of extlinks to a specific site which would have been unfounded). AIV is now added back my watchlist! Thanks/wangi 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, thanks for explaining! I've since slightly altered my two cents. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support meets my criteria easily, and great answers. That's all it takes to seduce me. Themindset 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I usually like to see more Wikispace edits, but I'll waive that preference becuase the user seems extraordinarily capable. AdamBiswanger1 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - seems good abakharev 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A good deal of experience and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - looks good to me! Kalani [talk] 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per Mike Christie and consistent with my RfA criteria. Joe 05:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, great user. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 06:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support shows the need, seems to have the experience. ViridaeTalk 06:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian - Talk 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Enough experience for me, and has good reasons for wanting the tools. Thε Halo Θ 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, most unintentially cliche, but through my recent interactions, I actually did think Wangi was an administrator. Certainly shows the know-how and attitude for it! -- Natalya 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. NCurse work 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Well-rounded contributions, willingness to be a janitor, no serious issues raised. The nom statement is brief but the answers to the questions are fair enough. Marskell 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - no reason not to. --Ixfd64 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I've looked at Sean Black's diff, but I can't oppose on those grounds. Wangi clearly took part in discussion regarding the removal of April Fools' Day from the AFD article, even though he at first did the removal without discussion (but as a wiki, not every change needs to be taken to the talk page first). And I don't see why I should be holding Wangi accountable for taking part in an edit war since a few admins participated in the edit war (if I could even call it that). I hold nothing against those admins – and it appears no one else has – and so I'll hold nothing against Wangi. As those current sysops are still capable of donning the mop and bucket, so is Wangi, as far as I can see. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Your janitorial work is excellent, I do not see that you'll abuse the mop, you meet my criteria. Draicone (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Zaxem 01:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Would make a good admin. -Royalguard11Talk 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  29. Support. Isn't? Seriously? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Meets my criteria, won't abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good editor. =) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Certainly meets my criteria for an admin has made some good edits and will make good use of admin tools. Adamcobb 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, although weak. Your edit summary usage is not that high; you should work on that.. Furthermore, please try to support your opinions with arguments. I've seen many contributions of yours on talkpages which are no more than a few lines, but either include no arguments at all or incomplete argumentation. However, this user has proven to be a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia itself and should still get admin tools, regardless of these mistakes. We're all human, after all.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Consistent and dedicated editor who I've seen around doing great work. The tools will definitely help him. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support' - Looks fine. Work on edit summary, though. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK11:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as meets my criteria and this is supposed to be no big deal. I see no concerns of incivility either, no reason to oppose. Ifnord 17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Deserves the extra tools assosiated with Adminship, and as for time at Wikipedia? For me, I couldn't care less if the person requesting Adminship had been at Wikipedia for less than a day its the quality of edits that count. Keep it Up Wangi! Anthony 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose too popular. Support. :D -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Looks like a hard-working and informed editor that would use the mop well. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - recent interactions with the editor support my feeling that he will be a useful and level-headed admin. - David Oberst 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:49, 14 August '06
  43. Support -- Tawker 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Very strong support per the maturity and clarity of thinking displayed here and here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support and please do help with those xFD backlogs.--Kchase T 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support overall good user, enough professional potential. — Deckiller 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- ADNghiem501 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Easily satisfies my contribution expectations, and despite others' concerns about Wangi's understanding and application of WP:DAB, he was indeed helpful in the resolution of Democracy (disambiguation), and I could sense he was trying his best to figure out and explain what the guideline requires, as the guideline does indeed seem to get misinterpreted by many. I hope that opposition votes based on that will be reconsidered. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Kusma (討論) 11:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per Stevietheman Bucketsofg✐ 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Iolakana|T 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support --W.marsh 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support excellent editor. Wikipediarules2221 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support inasmuch as, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I conclude that the candidate is unlikely to abuse or misuse the admin tools, but such conclusion is not drawn with exceeding facility, as the concerns raised by Xoloz and Sean Black are not insignificant. Joe 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) #::Note: Duplicate vote. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Srikeit is quite right; I'll be sure to pay better attention in the future... Joe 21:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fails to meet my criteria. --Masssiveego 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Masssiveego, was there anything specific? I notice your edit summary contained "3r-policy-works" - can you expand on that a bit (just so I can learn from it)? Thanks/wangi 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Massiveego doesn't explain his votes; he opposes every RfA (usually with a new reason every few days or so), so I recommend just ignoring this vote and concentrating on overturning the other issues below. — Deckiller 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose I'm sorry to nitpick, because my overall impression this editor is a good one, but such a short self-nomination statement bothers me a tad: Admins need to be capable of explaining themselves well; terseness in an RfA self-nom doesn't bode well for that. Xoloz 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. [1].--SB | T 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Sean, but a bit of context please. There is a disagreement over what should be on the AFD disambiguation page. While I believe that a number of terms shouldn't be there I have taken the issue to the talk page, other users talk pages and other relevant forums (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#AFD) to get as wide as an opinion as possible and to attempt to gain consensus. That particular edit was followed by a null edit with a fuller edit summary and done along with a comment to Freakofnurture's talk page (I can give you pointer to the post and resulting discussion if you want). Those on the more "inclusionist" side of this issue have been reluctant to discuss it (outwith an edit summary). Thanks/wangi 10:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My opposition has nothing to do with the edit summary. It has everything to do with your extreme, inexplicable exclusionism and blind adherence to what you believe to be "policy". Those two things are quite obviously innapropriate qualities in an administrator.--SB | T 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's fair to say "extreme, inexplicable exclusionism and blind adherence" - I did put together rational which explained my view why it is not useful to include a number of terms on that dabpage. The WP:DAB guideline does include "Only possible titles of articles, or text appearing as links to them, which might suggest ambiguity or confusion should be considered to be put in a disambiguation page." and this is a guideline built up through consensus. By adding extra terms we make it harder for users to find the term they are actually wanting to find (the old "wood for the trees"). The disagreement on the AFD dabpage is not a personal issue with just me involved - there are a (very large for a dabpage) number of editors involved on both "sides". At all stages I have communicated with the interested parties and attempted to gain consensus, and my involvement ended in July with an edit which was fully explained in a discussion on freakofnurture's talk page beforehand. Since then other editors/admins have continued the issue - I don't feel it's that important to continue (there're more important things to do!). Rather I again tried to get editors to discuss the problem when it recently became an issue again. Hopefully this will help explain things, thanks/wangi 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, user fails to understand the utility of disambiguation pages. Think of the readers, not the AWB tykes who pad their edit count by fixing inbound links. The latter have received their reward in full. Neither am I sure I can trust this user not to invoke advantageous blocking in a content dispute. —freak(talk) 16:33, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC)
    Erm right, I'll block you all and the AFD page will be mine alone to rule, muhahha! :) Seriously, if I become an admin and misuse the tools then take them away. Taking the AFD edits as an example it wouldn't be right to ban any user because it is a content dispute (of course there was no reason anyway, but...). Thanks/wangi 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pledge to join the recall category should alleviate your concern, freak. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No featured article. -- Миборовский 05:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. oppose; worried about the heavy-handedness at WP:AIRPORTS when "enforcing" conformity among airport articles, detrimental to the quality of the concerned article, (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive3#Airports_not_included). --Vsion 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SB. Bastique▼parler voir 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose I agree with Sean Black. Admins must not exclude. St.isaac 05:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Xoloz.--cj | talk 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral per Xoloz. Kimchi.sg 11:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neu, poor self-nom.--Andeh 00:55, 14 August 2006 (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/Wangi&oldid=1147963301"