Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwernol: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:15, 10 June 2006

Gwernol

Discuss here (24/0/0) ending 14:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol (talk · contribs) – There was several comments on EWS23's RFA along the lines of "More like this candidate, please!", so here you are: Gwernol, another highly civil Wikipedian with plenty of experience across many parts of Wikipedia, who could do with a few extra tools to be able to help out the community further. Again I did a thorough contributions review to see if there was any good reason why this RFA shouldn't appear. Short answer, no- in case you hadn't already guessed that ;-). Here's what I found:

Edit count - Can't imagine anyone complaining it's too low...
Time around - First contribution 13 May 2005, plenty early enough. At least three months of heavily active editing should also be ok (note that edits before then were not exactly non-existent).
Civil? No person attacks? - Yes, no problems in this area :)
Edit summaries - Used, and accurate. No problems.
Mistakes - Only very minor ones found, all corrected.
Email enabled? - Yes.
Controversial userpage? - No.
Any edit warring/blocks? - No.

Gwernol has also managed to find his way around every namespace open to his editing, with the exception of 'help talk'. Here is an overview (nb:some of diffs cover more than one edit):

Article - Lots of vandal reversions, but still plenty of playing around with trains [1] [2] [3] and computers [4] [5] [6].
Article talk - understands what they are for, and uses them when needed [7] [8] [9] [10].
User - fine [11] [12].
User talk interactions - Very friendly and polite [13] [14] [15] (in response to [16]) [17], but also firm when needed [18] [19].
Wikipedia- Very good use of WP:AIV. I reviewed a lot of Gwernol's posts there, and they almost always resulted in a block (the one that didn't was because of a backlog that he could have helped clear with the block button). This is a really good sign that he knows when it is/not time to block for vandalism. Good comments to WP:RFA [20] [21] [22] [23], WP:AFD [24] [25] [26] and WP:AN [27] [28].
Wikipedia talk: More good contributions, showing a good understanding of Wikipedia [29] [30] [31] [32].
Image: Upload log shows a range of original contributions.
Others: Vandal fighting gets everywhere [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]!

Hopefully I haven't missed anything major out, if I have I'm sure someone will point it out... Petros471 14:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thanks for giving me this chance to help Wikipedia. Gwernol 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

{{RfA-cliche1}} support per nom. Sensible + knows policy + good Q1 answer = give him the mop. Kimchi.sg 14:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wasn't he one already? --Terenc e Ong 14:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2) When are you going to let me give my nominator support... Petros471 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our secret plan was to edit-conflict you 7 times.</joke> :P Kimchi.sg 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support - and very well-written nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a unique RFA using a list method, found some recent comments that shown the user can handle agressive users well. Been here for quite a while too.--Andeh 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a very well-written RfA and a good record as listed therein. You'll be a great admin! --Guinnog 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naconkantari 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Portal Talk edit! — GT 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely detailed nomination. Mr. Le fty _{Talk to me!} 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared for Adminship Good canidate. Well done. --Pilo t|guy ^{(roger that)} 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support why the hell not? Computerjoe 's talk 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good contributor, and I really appreciated this detailed nomination. Afonso Silva 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. No help talk edits. Snoutwood (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This is actually a support. See [38] [39]. Petros471 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And [40]. Oh, and this edit, of course. Snoutwood (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix this typo to avoid confusion.--Andeh 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a typo. And seeing as this joke has been spelt out to the point of not being funny anymore, I doubt much confusion will arise. Snoutwood (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Andeh 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Reverted, because the original voter intends it to be that way. Besides, it has been excruciatingly explained in the following lines that it's not a real oppose. Why can't we have a little humo(u)r on RfA sometimes? Kimchi.sg 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared for landing on Adminship 49S per Pilotguy and nom -- Tawker 17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Well written RFA. ForestH2 03:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good editor, deserving of the promotion. DVD+ R/W 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a nod to the strongest nomination I have ever seen. Ifnord 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and might I add Excellent example links in nomination speech. No reason to oppose this adminship. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sure. --Ton e 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Rfa cliche1}} --Rory096 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments User's last 5000.Voice-of-All 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Viewing contribution data for user Gwernol (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 76 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 10, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 26, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.89% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 29.34 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 409 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.78% (89)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 4.78% (239)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 50.96%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3322 | Average edits per page: 1.51 | Edits on top: 17.08%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 36.86% (1843 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 13.38% (669 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 49.52% (2476 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.24% (12 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 45.56% (2278) | Article talk: 2.38% (119)
User: 2.78% (139) | User talk: 32.74% (1637)
Wikipedia: 14.32% (716) | Wikipedia talk: 0.62% (31)
Image: 0.5% (25)
Template: 0.48% (24)
Category: 0.36% (18)
Portal: 0.1% (5)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (7)

Suprised the user hasn't requested for adminship earlier.--Andeh 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note on this. I support the notion that adminship should not be a big deal. However I wanted to make sure I was ready before I applied. I had originally considered it earlier in the year at the time I passed 2500 edits, but I saw opinions from several admins (on other RfAs) that more time would help in understanding the policies. I'm glad I waited. Its certainly true that over time you gain a breadth of experience that helps you understand the purpose and applicability of policy and guidelines and how best to deal with other editors. Gwernol 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Gwernol's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
Gwernol's edit statistics with Interiot's tool 2: - Kimchi.sg 14:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username Gwernol
Total edits 9141
Distinct pages edited 5930
Average edits/page 1.541
First edit 2005-05-13 13:50:55
 
(main) 5329
Talk 199
User 199
User talk 2332
Image 42
Image talk 9
Template 36
Template talk 2
Help 1
Category 23
Category talk 3
Wikipedia 920
Wikipedia talk 36
Portal 9
Portal talk 1

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: My starting point will be the everyday janitorial work I've been helping to create as an editor: working on backlogs at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD; helping out at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I'll also continue RC and New Pages patrolling so there will be occasions when I'll block particularly virulent vandals. I have seen occasions where short-term semi-protection of pages has been productive and I anticipate doing that occasionally. My general philosophy of blocks and (s)protection is to use them sparingly when other avenues (test notices and direct collaboration with the editors concerned) have failed to curb serious vandalism.

I've been doing more work on AfDs recently, and I will start to close those out as I gain experience. I'd like to get more involved with WP:DRV, I've read through discussions there but often can't contribute because I can't see the article being discussed. I think I can help with these cases. As I learn the janitorial ropes I'd like to get into other areas such as other XfDs but I'll start with those I'm already familiar with and proceed with caution.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I started out on Wikipedia working on List of British Narrow Gauge Railways and its cousin British industrial narrow gauge railways. The subject matter is somewhat obscure, but these are probably the most comprehensive catalogs of British narrow gauge railways in existence, certainly on the web. They need more work, but they are useful articles. I was particularly pleased with the improvements I was able to make to Ontology (computer science); when I started the article looked like this which I found hard to understand, and I work with ontologies professionally. I think its a lot better now partly through my work and mainly as a result of collaboration by other editors. While its not a FA (sorry Mailer Diablo) I believe its much better. Finally I'm oddly happy with my minor work on subjects I knew nothing about before, such as Free Wales Army or Skateboarding.

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: Yes I have. I don't think its possible to make major changes to articles without some level of disgreement with others, and vandal fighting certainly provokes its share of conflict. I try to work through conflicts by discussing the issue with the other editor(s) involved, on article and user talk pages. I find that compromise is possible in most cases and where it isn't, then WP's policies and guidelines are good guides to creating better quality articles.

I've had my usual share of vandalism to my user and talk pages. These I deal with by a revert and appropriate warnings to the vandal. A couple have been dealt with through WP:AIV. I expect these and don't have a problem dealing with them. Honestly I find Wikipedia a good stress relief mechanism: its a nice break from the stress of my real-world job.

The only occasion that caused me any noticeable stress was the "disagreement" with User:Jimmy Jones back in March, when I was still learning a lot. You'll need to look at the talk page history for the full details, also my summary to WP:AN here. He turned out to be a troll. Having gone through that, I now recognize the signs of this sort of trolling and I was much better able to deal with similar situations that arose later.

Admins are generally higher profile than the majority of editors (though I've been taken for one on several occasions), so are bound to be involved in conflict more frequently. I usually handle these situations well and know when to walk away for a while when tempers get too heated.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 #'''Support''' - Very good contributor, and I really appreciated this detailed nomination. [[User:Afonso Silva|Afonso Silva]] 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''[[User:Kilo-Lima|ilo-Lima]]|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
-#'''Support'''. No help talk edits. [[User:Snoutwood|Snoutwood]] [[User talk:Snoutwood|(talk)]] 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Strong oppose'''. No help talk edits. [[User:Snoutwood|Snoutwood]] [[User talk:Snoutwood|(talk)]] 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #:NB: This is actually a support. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwernol&diff=57900930&oldid=57896562] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwernol&diff=57901643&oldid=57901482]. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #:: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petros471&diff=prev&oldid=57902202]. Oh, and this edit, of course. [[User:Snoutwood|Snoutwood]] [[User talk:Snoutwood|(talk)]] 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 #:::: It's not a typo. And seeing as this joke has been spelt out to the point of not being funny anymore, I doubt much confusion will arise. [[User:Snoutwood|Snoutwood]] [[User talk:Snoutwood|(talk)]] 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #::::: Fixed.--<font style="background:white">[[User:Andypandy1337|Andeh]]</font> 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
+#:''(resetting indent)'' Reverted, because the original voter intends it to be that way. Besides, it has been excruciatingly explained in the following lines that it's not a real oppose. Why can't we have a little humo(u)r on RfA sometimes? [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new sg] 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Cleared for landing on Adminship 49S''' per Pilotguy and nom -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Strong Support''' Well written RFA. [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)