Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wantok

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

Wantok

[edit]

Closed by Cecropia 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) at (18/21/7); Scheduled end time 09:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wantok (talk · contribs) - Wantok has been an editor since 2003, but has been seriously contributing to enwiki and tpiwiki since early 2006. He has few mainspace edits on enwiki, but he is the classic example of a user that is not measured by his edit count.

Wantok is an incredibly thoughtful and diplomatic editor, who takes great care in his work here. Importantly, this user is also an enemy of vandalism. He chooses to focus his anti vandal efforts on obscure pages that apply to his particular expertise, eliminating sneaky vandals and other vandals that are difficult to detect by other editors with dead accuracy.

Wantok is incredibly aware of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and is an important contributor to multiple wikiprojects, and if accepted as an administrator, will be the only administrator from the country of Papua New Guinea which is an english speaking country with a population of about five million that is horribly underrepresented on enwiki, due to the lack of proliferation of the internet over there. His selection as admin will help dramatically improve PNG related wikiprojects, guidelines, articles, categories, templates and portals.

Please look past the edit count of this user as he really is needed as an admin. Aliasd 09:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • Despite the embarrassment of such praise, I do accept this nomination. I care a great deal about Wikipedia, and consider it one of the truly valuable and worthwhile community efforts of modern times. I'd be honoured to take on admin duties with en-Wikipedia. Wantok 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In terms of work that can only be done by admins, primarily keeping an eye on articles relating to Papua New Guinea and, more broadly, Melanesia: anti-vandalism, promoting WP guidelines and policies, resolving conflicts as needed. We don't have lot of revert wars, fortunately, though there are areas of heated debate: Western New Guinea and Bougainville Province, and related articles, certainly have their moments. Wantok 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, the contributions I've found most rewarding and interesting to do have been longer-form work on articles such as Geography of Papua New Guinea or Tourism in Papua New Guinea, but I haven't been doing much of that lately; I'd like to do more. I suppose most of my contribution recently has been much more small-scale: vandalism reversion, policy guidance, minor fixes. And I've enjoyed working within communities such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Melanesia to raise the quality of articles across the whole topic area. Wantok 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been involved in a few conflicts - not a lot. I think I can say I've never found interaction with another user stressful, though occasionally I've put a sharp comment in the edit summary where I should probably take it to the talk page with a fuller explanation. I try to guide, to help clarify, to let users know about policies if needed. Clearly some situations need stronger action (repeat vandalism, revert wars...); if I were given sysop privileges I would be able to take those stronger actions if necessary. Wantok 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Could you explain, if possible, the large gap in contributions between September 2006 to April 2007 (on enWiki)?
A: Certainly: travel to Papua New Guinea, followed by the arrival of a new baby. Wantok 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Would it be extremely advantageous to have an administrator on enwiki from Papua New Guinea? If so, why?
A: In most respects I don't think it matters where an admin is from, strictly; however, a good familiarity with the subject matter in an area helps, I think, to guide discussion or dispute. Apart from that, the main benefit I think would be in ease of communication with Papua New Guinean contributors (of which there are very few so far, but no doubt many more will participate in future). Wantok 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6 (optional question) Do you think fighting vandalism is more important, or creating new articles, that aren't nonsense? RuneWiki777 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: No way I can say one is always more important than the other. Depends on the level of existing coverage of the subject area. In the case of Papua New Guinea and neighbours, the pressing need is probably more for new and broader articles; in a well developed subject area, vandalism is probably a higher priority. But vandalism is, of course, a problem everywhere that has to be kept at bay. Wantok 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: That's a fun task. In no particular order:
  • Voynich manuscript is a wonderful distillation of a lot of disparate sources: well written and informative. Clear, comprehensive and entertaining: what more could one ask for?
  • I was surprised and impressed by the quality of Zen: a very effective job, I think, of fairly presenting a very complex and (to many) obscure subject. Needs some broadening to cover the present day situation in other parts of the world, but overall an excellent article.
  • Hayao Miyazaki is a very fine effort indeed. Enjoyed it a lot, and found it illuminating; it could use perhaps some more fleshing out of the thematic analysis aspect. The hand-drawn image in place of a photo is a lovely touch.
  • WP:NOT is a masterpiece of concise, entertaining guidance.
Wantok 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Please can you give a summary of the policies regarding the following. Thanks, Stwalkerster talk
  • Protection:
A: Protection in general should be applied only where absolutely necessary.
  • Temporary semi-protection is a tool against anonymous vandalism where blocking is ineffective. It may also be necessary when article talk pages are being anonymously disrupted (such as repeated deletion of others' comments).
  • Users can request permanent semi-protection for a user page (not talk); it can also be applied to pages under constant anonymous vandalism.
  • The primary use for temporary full protection is as a means of applying a "time out" to heated content disputes/revert wars (and of course an admin should never apply protection if that admin has been a party to the content dispute).
  • Permanent full protection applies as a matter of course to the Main Page, system templates, etc. It may also be used to avoid repeated re-creation of deleted pages.
  • Deletion:
A: Pages should only be deleted if they cannot reasonably be saved. Speedy deletion per WP:CSD and imagevio/copyvio are immediate and do not require debate; likewise proposed deletion requires no debate, but has a 5-day period for comment. Deletions requiring discussion enter the appropriate WP:AFD/WP:CFD (etc) process, and are deleted if common-sense rough consensus is reached. Undeletions can be immediate if process was clearly not followed; otherwise via deletion review. As with protection, an admin should not delete when that admin has participated in the deletion discussion.
  • Blocking:
A: Blocking is typically a last resort and should be used only where clearly needed. It is usually applied to a user engaging in persistent disruption or actions that endanger WP or other users. It should never be a punishment; only as a means to protect Wikipedia.
Wantok 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wantok before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Nominator support, Wantok is the sort of user that makes Wikipedia great! Aliasd 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding edit counts: It is important to note that this is a special case, as this editor lives not only in Australia, but also in a village in a country where internet is for the most part unavailable. Upon returning to the land of broadband, Wantok brings his unique experience, knowledge and culture to Wikipedia, enriching this encyclopedia in an unusual and special way. Wantok's rare contributions have been thoughtful and enriching, and I believe there is enough of a case to support this nomination, otherwise I would not have nominated this user. Aliasd 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Even though I suspect your RfA will not pass (this time), I offer my support. While you have relatively very few edits, your contributions seem to have substance. You seem to handle yourself very well in conflict situations and have good communication skills, which are important for admins. I would like to see more evidence of active vandal reversion, as that is where you get experience with the escalating levels of warnings that can lead to a block. If you are not equipped with a vandal reverting tool, such as Lupin or Vandal Fighter, I would encourage it. —Gaff ταλκ 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support per κaτaʟaveno. Participate in WP:XfD, study the Administrators' reading list and catch up on policies and guidelines, maybe consider an Editor review and keep contributing to articles. You may also want to take a look at the lists of successful and unsuccessful RfA candidacies to get an idea of what the community is looking for in admins. —AldeBaer 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. No signs of incivility, or evidence which indicates the user will abuse, so I'll support. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Based on answers to questions, the candidate has a sufficient understanding of policy and the admin tools. Editcount may be a little low, but that shouldn't kill the candidacy, IMO. Waltontalk 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -per Walton. I liked his answers to the questions as well. --wpktsfs (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support Sigh. Why not? RuneWiki777 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I see no reasons to oppose. This editor has been here a while, and would make a fine admin. ~ Wikihermit 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I believe this user can be trusted with the tools, although he may not use them as much as some admins. I also support the idea of an admin from PNG. It will encourage the spread of WP in that country and be of value to the project. --Bduke 04:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.  Administrators represent the Wikpedia Foundation.  For example, every decision an Administrator makes on an AfD automatically becomes Foundation precedent and policy.  If the Five Pillars state that no original sources can be copied into Wikipedia, and an Administrator decides that they can be (as has recently been done), that Administrator's decision is, like it or not, Wikipedia Foundation policy.  And that kind of decision directly affects the integrity of Wikipedia.  Therefore, good judgement is absolutely essential in administrative decision making.  The gross number of edits and contributions an applicant has made in the past (or is likely to make in the future) is irrelevant in determining whether or not an applicant has good judgement and is capable of making good decisions.  What really counts in adminship is to know, understand, and live by the Foundation's Five Pillars, to know, know where to look for, and to understand the software processes that underly all of Wikipedia's articles.  This applicant is mature, and is an experienced, professional web designer, developer, and maintainer.  As such I believe he understands completly how to originate and use Wikipedia's article source coding, its templates, portals, special pages, WP: pages, metas, delete, blank, and move pages, the use of subpages, and all the other Wiki software tasks Administrators are expected to know and through which they able to provide help to Wikipedia users, authors and editors.  The applicant is a member of the WikiProject Melanesia, a contributing member of the neo-Melanesian language (Tok Pisin) Wikipedia (tpi.Wikipedia.org), and lives in and understands the cultures of Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Oceania in general.  And he also speaks several of the languages and dialects.  FWIW, in my opinion the applicant is certainly very well-qualified to act as a Wikipedia Administrator. User:K. Kellogg-Smith
  11. Weak Support. seems to know policy (as per answer to question) , and seems to be trustable with the tools. However, a few more edits would have strengthened my support. Stwalkerster talk 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, per Walton and Wikihermit. He's been here a while, and can answer questions on policy effectively. --健次(derumi)talk 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support This editor is in a geographically unusual situation ,and does not physically have the ability to amass a large body of edits. Those which he has submitted are useful and sensible and show an understanding of policy. A number of the oppose editors are themselves of limited experience, and while I intend to WP:BITE no-one, some of them may not wholly appreciate the difficulty of posting contributions from the Australian Outback.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support It seems like this user has relatively few edits than a typical admin should have but I support his adminship per Walton. mirageinred 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Anthony exactly, and the second sentence of the nomination. Daniel
  16. Support after some thinking. A long time contributor who hasn't been in any kind of trouble till now. Anthony.Bradbury's comments make sense. - TwoOars 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I agree with Anthony.Bradbury and Daniel. Acalamari 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -Per above. I don't believe it's that big of a deal.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I think your heart is in the right place and you have done some great work but, based on your answers above and your contribs, I do not see a huge need for the tools. Also, and in general, successful candidates have somewhat more experience (Mainspace and Wikipedia edits) so that they can better demonstrate to the community their admin-related capabilities. κaτaʟavenoTC 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, sorry, your edits haven't been very substantial and though you seem thoughtful I don't think you're experienced enough. Kamryn Matika 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose unfortunately, the candidate made only 11 edits from September 2006 until April 2007. If he keeps up his good work, I'd support him in the future though. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose-He has not made many edits at all, between Sept. and April and I feel and admin needs a lot of edits to show they are ready. He has been here for four years, and he has roughly 550 edits. I have been here for two months, and have 602 edits. I think that is a huge difference. Sorry, but I don't think he has the edit experience!Politics rule 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose This editor seems like a fine user, but I don't think he has had enough experience to warrant adminship. Gutworth (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I know I shouldn't judge people by their edits, but 783?! For me that is too little. I almost have more than that! Too little experience. Tsk Tsk. RuneWiki777 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose - Per Katalaveno and per these stats:
    Wikipedia:
    • 3 Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23
    • 3 Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11
    • 2 Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17
    • 2 WikiProject Football
    • 2 Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 10
    • 2 Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 11
    • 2 Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals
    Almost all of an admin's work is connected to the Wikispace somehow, and these do not inspire me. But your heart's in the right place, work hard in the mainspace, and wikispace, and you'll get there in no time. It's great that this user wants to help out in the mainspace. But, I really don't see why an admin from Papua New Guinea would help us function better. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Papua New Guinea: The nominator gives some arguments that appear to be valid... —AldeBaer 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, simply too few edits. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, not really active or the anti-vandal that he claims to be. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose far too little experience. Jmlk17 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Nowhere near enough experience. Only 4 months of more than 100 edits each. Od Mishehu 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I can not support you at this time because there is not enough Wantok Wiki-history to establish an understanding of your potential.--VS talk 10:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Too few edits. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, not yet, sorry. Neil ╦ 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits. Not this time round. Terence 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I tend to overlook edit counts in favor of other qualities, but there has to be some base of edits from which to discern those qualities and at this number I just cannot give you the nod. I will say that if the numbers come up over the next few months I would be happy to reconsider in a subsequent RfA. JodyB talk 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose -- edit counts do not usually mean much to me, but you have less than 800 edits. I just cant support a contributor with that kind of edit count. Sorry mate, maybe next time. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 01:49, 16 June 2007 UTC)
  17. Oppose Wantok looks like a good person long-term, but the too few edits is important, because sometimes it takes a couple of thousand edits (give or take 10,000) to see a style or pattern evolve. They are off to a good start, but I think adminship is a bit too early here. So mine is an oppose that I hope in a few months will be a support. Orangemarlin 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Get more experience over the next few months, and I will be likely to support. Captain panda 04:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, reluctantly but firmly. Reluctant because Wantok seems like a very nice person, and I think that it's important or editors to be nice; but firm oppose because Wantok had, IMO, far too little experience of wikipedia. Before I could support, I'd need to see a lot more evidence of Wantok's approach to policy and to areas of conflict; but I hope that Wantok's great start to editing will be followed by a lot more. If this RfA fails, please don't that as a criticism, just as friendly "not yet". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. While the editor in question appears to be a wonderful and civil human being, there isn't enough experience under his belt. And although I'm not one to penalize simply for a low Mainspace and edit count, just above 800 is not nearly enough for adminship, and that 800 is spread out between many months. Maybe next time, but for now, it's a no. As well, BrownHairedGirl took the words right out of my mouth. :) NSR77 (Talk) 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I am not thrilled by your answers to certain questions, say question 1. Maybe with some more edits or more consistency I would support your RFA.Metallic95 User Page | Talk 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral at the moment. Could you explain, if possible, the large gap in contributions between Septemeber 2006 to April 2007 (on enWiki)? Looking at your last 800 ish edits I see extreme civility (I'm confused by your comment that you think you may have been sharp in edit summaries) and a good diversity of work. I'm ignoring edit count, but at the moment you seem to have a "burst" of activity then go quiet. If you have time to address my question it would be appreciated, but this is, of course, optional. Pedro |  Chat  15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I can't in all honesty support - I know editcountitis is A Bad Thing but I estimate that, of your 550 mainspace edits, at least 80-90% are reversions or extremely minor edits to footbal articles to update them with the new season's FIFA rankings. I see absolutely nothing in there that would lead me to oppose but nothing to lead me to support. You have only 20 Wikipedia-space & 19 user talk edits so I've no way at all of judging how well you understand and how you judge policy — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral you do need more article writing and more edits in general. Please do more admin-related work like xFDs and read about policy. Terence 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. As expressed above, this user seems to have made a good number of positive contributions to Wikipedia and that's great. As much as I hate judging on editcounts - the lack of edits in project space (or even talk) leaves me incapable of judging the candidate's understanding of policy, and I am unable to support. Like User:Iridescent says, there's nothing to make me want to oppose but nothing on which I can support. Arkyan • (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per lack of involvement in the project, as described above. Participate in more admin-related tasks for a few months to demonstrate your aptitude in applying the policies and guidelines before attempting another RfA. (aeropagitica) 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Not enough policy knowledge demonstrated - more XfD activity would be good, or other policy-related work. I'm not concerned with the overall edit count, however more administrative experience is required, in my opinion. PGWG 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I can't make up my mind; people can change a lot in a couple months, and with a new child, so I'm just not sure I can say for sure either way. No bias to a future nomination, though. --Haemo 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral You seem to be a great contributor, but I don't see a need for adminship. Almost everything you intend to do can be done just as well without admin tools. I hate editcountitis and 780 edits overall wouldn't be a problem to me, but to become an admin you may need more experience in Wikispace. So long, keep up your great mainspace work! Malc82 14:07, 18 June 2007 (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/Wantok&oldid=1257952163"