Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whpq

Whpq

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/0/1); Scheduled to end 04:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Whpq (talk · contribs) – Hi folks, I'm very pleased to be nominating Whpq for adminship today. He's had an account on Wikipedia since 2005, been active editor for the entire time (17 years!), and amassed an incredible 129,000 edits. Whpq has created 39 articles, 2 DYKs, and made substantial contributions to dozens more. He's also one of the few editors on Wikipedia who are *very* well versed in copyright and our media file policies, and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he knew more than me on many of these concepts! Whpq frequently makes valuable contributions to FfD, has a keen eye for spotting (often subtle) copyright violations, and is an expert at identifying NFCC violations. Plus, we could really use his expertise at FfD, where there are few active admins (we have an effective bus factor of three at the moment). I'm also routinely impressed by Whpq's remarkable degree of patience, calm disposition, and willingness to explain things, especially when it comes to complex copyrights and/or media file policies. The way he adeptly handles such situations, always resolving them in a polite and amicable way, is very commendable. I'm confident that Whpq will be an excellent and much-needed addition to the admin corps. Cheers, FASTILY 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm proud to co-nominate Whpq for adminship. A veteran editor with over 100,000 contributions, Whpq has been a backbone in file deletion areas for several years and is highly active in tagging copyright violating files for speedy deletion. Whpq has demonstrated a high degree of knowledge in a difficult area, and their talk pages archives are filled with calm and collegial interactions with new users. Whpq has also assisted with numerous cleanups over the years, such as the WikiProject Gastropods cleanup and other image based Contributor copyright investigations. A dedicated and thoughtful worker, Whpq will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am glad to accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited under any other accounts. Prior to registering an account, I did make some edits as an IP editor. I do not remember what those edits are, but I can assure you that the edits were not vandalism, and alas, not sourced. I've improved on that in the intervening years. -- Whpq (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: The idea of a free user generated encyclopedia was an enticing idea that prompted me to create an account in 2005. That idea is still enticing to me, and it is obviously enticing to others as we have seen Wikipedia grow enormously over the years. That growth needs to be supported with administrators to ensure policies and procedures are dealt with properly. Two areas that appear to need some more helping hands is dealing with files, and with copyright issues. These are areas I have experience with as an editor, and feel I can help with the administrative load. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Best can be measured or considered in many different ways. For me, working on the Unreferenced BLP Rescue project is a high point. As a bit of background, in 2010, there was a very real possibility that all unreferenced biographies of living people would be deleted as a matter of policy compliance in a mass deletion. This project took on the task of clearing the huge backlog of unreferenced articles. It was personally rewarding as the editing took me across a wide variety of subject areas, working with some very nice editors in a collaborative and fun environment. More importantly, Wikipedia was able retain articles that otherwise would have disappeared. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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: If I am feeling heated up, or stressed, I step away for a period to clam down. There is rarely any issue in editing that requires it to be dealt with right away, so using a little time to cool off can make a huge difference in stress levels. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from 0xDeadbeef

4. Will you be open to recall? If so, under what conditions?

A: No, not as such. The addition of more avenues for drama is not a good thing. Having said that, if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

5. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?

A: As noted in my answer to question 1, my activity is going to be related to dealing with files, and copyright issues. I don't expect to be working in dispute resolution, or or requests for various permissions or protections. If an editor asks me about these, I will, of course, direct them to the appropriate venue for fulfilling the request such as WP:RFP if they are looking for page protection if the request looks reasonable. If the request looks like a complete non-starter, such as page protection for a page that is stable, I would explain why their request is not a good idea, including directing them to the appropriate guidelines or policy. As for new users asking questions in the file or copyright area, I will answer and guide them as best I can. We have venues that can help new editors (end even experienced editors) on media and copyright, so I try to include a link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and Wikipedia:Teahouse when appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Shushugah

6. If a file was uploaded appropriately onto enwp, but due to licensing expiration/changes it can be uploaded to Commons, how would you preserve the history of the local enwp file, and under what circumstances would you delete/preserve the file locally?

A: There are two components to copyright on files, the copyright on the file itself, and the copyright on the text description of the file. A log of the users contributing need to be maintained to satisfy any attribution requirements of the licensing. License changes on the file could be due to VRT confirmation of a free license, or a file aging into the public domain on a file that was originally uploaded as non-free content. The tool transferring the file to Commons includes the contrribution log from enwp which is sufficient for attribution, and the local file can be deleted. A local file would be preserved if tagged with {{Keep local}} but that would still be subject to FFD if somebody wanted to delete the fail in spite of the keep local request. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from GhostRiver

7. First of all, I want to congratulate you for nearly two decades of active editing, especially for your work with file copyright, an important area of the Wiki that I feel is often overlooked. That being said, after 17 years as an editor, what inspired the jump to RfA?

A: Because Fastily and Moneytrees asked me. Honestly, I have no burning desire to be an admin, but I do have a burning desire to ensure Wikipedia remains a great free encyclopedia. Part of ensuring that happens is having admins deal with policies and procedures that keep things running smoothly. In the areas of files, and copyrights, the number of admins that handle this is very small; too small in fact, so I am willing to help on some that administrative load. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Whpq: Whpq (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Whpq can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as nom -FASTILY 04:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
2. ...As co-nom! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 04:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Support seen them around and thought they were an admin already due to their competent candor ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Editor's experience, intentionality, and attested character suggest a suitable candidate for admin rights. Also, any fencer gets my support by default. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Support I haven't much experience interacting with this editor, but I'd trust anyone recommended by both Fastily and Moneytrees. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
8. Glad to support a veteran editor as well. Volten001 ^☎ 05:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
9. Support, I expect good things from this editor. BD2412 T 05:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Support, looks like a perfect fit. – Popo Dameron talk 05:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
11. Support more than happy to vote early. Has written plenty of perfectly clean article to demonstrate he know all about content creation. New Page Patroller since 2016 and thoroughly 'all round', his vast and long experience obviates any further digging into his history (which would be too time consuming anyway) and checking any other criteria on my 'laundry list'. It's about time he was an admin, and who am I to argue with such respected nominators? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
12. Support More important than their edits is the amount of clean up they've done, which is a LOT. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Support Good-natured, very knowledgeable, and likely to be a huge net positive. I'd normally look more closely at content creation, but I think their work at FfD is so important that a lack of GAs wouldn't change my opinion. Ovinus (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't know the nominee and I've never written a Good or Featured article in my life, I'm just happy to welcome people aboard who will shoulder a share of the administrative load in good spirits and be happy to serve our encyclopedic purposes. – Athaenara ✉ 06:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
15. Support I don't have a problem supporting this nomination based on the above and nominator statements. Wishing you the best of luck with this application, @Whpq:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Support - This user nominated some of the images I uploaded on commons sometime ago for deletion due to copyright issues that I wasn't aware of and I think some of the files I uploaded here on en.wiki too. At first I was so unhappy and felt very bad, but as time goes on, I'm happy they did what they did. I'm sure they'll perform well as an administrator. Goodluck to them. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
17. Support I'm surprised to realise that i don't recognise the candidate's name or signature at all ~ just shows how gnomic i am, i suppose ~ but a brief investigation, my default, and my respect for the noms leads me here. Plus, i really like the simple answer to Question 3. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
18. Add my support. I've seen Whpq around quite often, particularly in file space; he always seems capable and reliable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
19. Support Good candidate. No issues. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
20. Support No issues, has a clue, has a need. Good luck. KylieTastic (talk)
21. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
22. Support—Wikipedia would benefit tremendously from having Whpq as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
23. Support Competent, experienced, no issues. Maproom (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
24. Support: long-time editor who is an expert at what they do best which is an area few editors understand or engage and where help is needed. As stated by the nominators, Whpq's contribs indicate calm interaction with other editors in a difficult area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
25. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
26. Support Another "Wait I thought they were an admin already!" nominations. Would easily be a positive addition to the admin group. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
27. Support per noms, thanks for volunteering. DanCherek (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
28. Support looks good to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
29. Support I trust that the nominators have trust in this candidate, and so by extension I'm happy to support. A quick review of this candidate looked good also. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
30. Support as a good, competent and trusted user in file sector, have a >15 years tenure and highly active for a long time. Thingofme (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
31. I'm very glad that you ran. Easy support. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
32. Have been seeing him for years, and always thought he was an admin. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
33. Support. No brainer. ✗plicit 13:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
34. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
35. Support Can't say I've come across him, but if it reduces the level of talk page moaning about the lack of candidates... Per SG. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
36. Support: I really don't see why this person shouldn't be an admin! I'm willing to bet that there are hardly any Wikipedians from 2005 around today, much less someone of this caliber and with this much expertise. A gem we can't afford to lose. I think the "oppose" folks will be hard-pressed to find a reason to do so... That Coptic Guy 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
37. Support per nominators and above. I trust him on a (somewhat cursory) review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
38. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
39. Support – plenty of experience in a difficult area. I like how Whpq patiently explains our guidelines for non-free content even when receiving insults. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
40. Support – an excellent candidate; knowledgeable, polite, long-term committed Wikipedian. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. First neutral, ever. Oppose per FASTILY (bad nom) + support per Moneytrees (good nom) = neutral. Stop protesting! El_C 14:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Seems peculiar that you're neutral based on the nominators and not the candidate themselves... All power to you? That Coptic Guy 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Based. Wow, that sig is overpowering. El_C 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Is this reading right @El C, that you are not evaluating the candidate merely his nominators? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   No comment. El_C 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   @El C congrats on achieving the chaotic neutral vote 😅 I assume everyone else is either confused or playing along. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Per bludgeoning. ~ 🐿️ El_C (he/him • talk) 14:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   I think the vote rationale (and the vote in general) is just here for the sake of humor. If so, then the joke certainly flew over my head and I guess it's a me-issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just a tad silly. That Coptic Guy 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Interesting take, but wrong. El_C 15:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'd love to be enlightened, then! That Coptic Guy 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'm sure you would, but not everything should be spoon-fed with neat little sugar cubes. El_C 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   LOL... alright then. Whatever makes you feel better--no skin off my nose. That Coptic Guy 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Dude, must you? El_C 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• For the record, FfDs bus factor of 3 isn't that unusual; TfD has a bus factor of 4, CfD has a bus factor of 1 (!), MfD has a bus factor of 4. It's really only RfD and AfD that have broad bases of closers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  We have 40 support votes but in the main RfA page only 33 votes. Is there any problems on the 34th one? Thingofme (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)