Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wandalstouring

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wandalstouring

Final (12/09/06); Ended Tues, 28 Feb 2007 11:57 UTC

Wandalstouring (talk • contribs) - My request for adminship is intended to give me the ability to edit some of the military history project's protected material. I have been an editor on wikipedia for several months and today was reelected for assistant coordinator of the aforementioned project. Wandalstouring 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Co-nominate:Speaking of the devil, I was going to nominate Wandal today. Freaky, ha. I have known Wandal for several months now and he has been nothing but nice and helpful. I think he is a trustworthy and good Wikipedian. Wandal has helped me before in the past, and with out his help I doubt the Roman-Spartan War would have become a FA. ANyway I think Wandal is a great man for the job and this is why I co-nominate him. Kyriakos 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, I accept my selfnomination. Wandalstouring 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)I withdraw my nomination. Reasons are that I don't estimate it to stand a chance and I don't like the development of the accompanying discussion. Wandalstouring 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I will do a bit on images('All images with no copyright tag', 'All images with no fair use rationale', 'All orphaned fairuse images' and 'All images with unknown copyright status'), disputes('NPOV disputes' and 'Accuracy disputes') and article expansion ('All articles to be expanded'). These are all issues I have encountered more or less before and I'm likely to encounter in the future during my normal activity on wikipedia.

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

A: The first evidence section in the crossbow article is a section I really like because this way the ongoing disputes about the 'invention' of this instrument could be brought to an acceptable standstill. I really like the blue-water navy article, which is a low-level article, but where I contributed substantially (before researching I didn't even know what the term meant).

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, frequently, because I visit these spots. The best one so far was blue-water navy where we were able to solve a dispute of assessing national navies and defining the term in the article with sourced information. In WWII for example, I was less lucky with the ongoing dispute about the content of the infobox (it's bordering to be systemic bias problem because excluding France is an issue that only appears in the US-influenced wikipedia).

Optional question from --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@

4.If spaced, your username could be Wandals touring. That would be advertising. Is that what your name is meant to be? If it is, I would suggest changing your username before running for RFA.

No, the name has a long tradition and is quite recognizable. To pick up your interpretation, we do have vandals moving around on wikipedia, so it could be seen more as stating a fact than advertising. Wandalstouring 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't recognize it. Could you tell me what it is? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Wandalstouring's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - I think that this editor's extensive knowledge of military history is valuable to wikipedia. I will suggest, though, that the candidate should remember to be civil. - [1], [2]. The candidate also has a tendency to make many edits that are fixes of typos/spelling mistakes in his previous edits. - Richardcavell 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry for that, it's really hard if you do a translation from other language wikis (all wikis but the English) which have a different culture without heavy citations. Wandalstouring 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Support as co-nom. Kyriakos 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support- working on protected versions is a reputable reason for adminship. Astrotrain 12:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support - in my experience, Wandalstouring is a dedicated, hardworking editor--intelligent, balanced, and mature. An obvious candidate for the mop. semper fictilis 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support A very good contributor and mediator. He is always ready for help at any issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support a good contributor.-- danntm ^T _C 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I know Wandalstouring as an exceptional contributor. Beit Or 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Looks like a good user. By the way what does your user name mean?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. The fact that this is even close is a sad statement on RfA. First, to those who have taken issue with the reasons for Wandalsourings' self-nom, it should be noted that he is an active coordinator with WP:MILHIST, a project that manages a number of high use (and thus protected) templates; thus, his need to edit protected pages is legitimate and presumably fairly frequent. Beyond that, though, it's high time to outgrow this culture in which contributors who are dedicated, pleasant to work with, and familiar with the way we do things around here can't be easily handed a set of tools they're sure to use for the project's best interest. Wandalstouring meets all those qualifications (I've worked with him on a few occasions and have a very favorable impression), and it would be a shame if we turned down his offer to help out. --Robth^Talk 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   I do understand if someone has issues entrusting these sensitive tools to someone if he deems him unfit and being something in some project is no guarantee for character (and I have no objections if a vote is close because of that). What I don't understand is editcountitis and easily scared people. Wandalstouring 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   Why do so many people complain about the fact that the candidates they like don't pass with flying colors? If all reasonable people would agree, there would be no need to have an RfA. We would just make sure that our bureaucrats are reasonable, and then say "Go ahead and promote whoever deserves it!" If people disagree with you, then either explain why their concerns are incorrect (you countered something that wasn't really the reason for complaint, and then assumed that everyone else was wrong in your rebuttal to that), or accept it. Don't complain about how it's so sad that they disagree, unless it's something obviously stupid like "sir u gotz no helpspace edits". -Amarkov moo! 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

10. Support an excellent editor who has shown his commitment and dedication to the project. Has earned the tools and we would be lucky to have him as an admin--Looper5920 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Given the user has been trusted to be an MILHIST coordinator, could need the tools. --MoRsE 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Thoughful and considerate editor. Whilst not explicit about use of admin tools given his facilitative style and mediation of dispute in milhist articles will benefit from availability and the implicit authority perceived by many users.ALR 11:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Valuable contributer to military articles but I'm not seeing much need for the tools. An occasional need to edit a protected template can be handled by posting at WP:RPP. Tagging copyright problems doesn't need admin tools and I don't see much participation at WP:IFD. —Dgies^t c 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   No, I didn't list on WP:IFD, but rather tried to find alternative solutions for such cases like the {{externalimages}} or writing requests for images which are available on the net(and uploaded some after getting an appropriate license). Wandalstouring 09:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Which is certainly a reasonable method, but I still don't see why you need admin tools? —Dgies^t c 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. I have a couple tangiental issues, which would probably get a weak support alone. But the main factor is that you state you intend to be an admin so that you can edit protected pages. That, and the fact that you view disputes and expansion as sysop chores. Admins do not get better dispute resolution powers, nor do they get better article expansion powers, and they are very rarely supposed to edit protected pages. -Amarkov moo! 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, and invoking systemic bias in a dispute gets a pretty much automatic oppose. You shouldn't be calling anyone biased, and it doesn't help to imply that it's so deeply ingrained that they don't notice it. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   I pointed out that these issues 'I'm likely to encounter in the future during my normal activity on wikipedia'. So I do the job now, however, I never argued that I could do it better with any tools.

   If a dispute shows certain traits of a grouping based on origin, it is systemic (rather part of the definition what is systemic; no matter how well-chosen or reasonable arguments are, what doesn't mean that it is wrong). If you read this issue again, you can see that I was able to consider the arguments of the 'biased' side, but they continued to be rather focused on one thing without considering the need to handle all under the same criteria. Wandalstouring 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Urgh...I would advise anyone who's interested in this point ("systemic bias") in the context of this RfA to have a look at the whole discussion for themselves on Talk:World War II. It is not an exaggeration to say that (with respect) WT has completely misunderstood the issue. Systemic bias may or may not exist here on Wikipedia, but if it does, this is not an example of it. Badgerpatrol 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. One of the weakest reasons for a self-nom I've ever seen. He doesn't need the tools and doesn't seem to understand the responsibility being an admin entails. NeoFreak 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per NeoFreak, there's no clear need for the tools here. The Rambling Man 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose A lot of Wikipedia space edits, but not in the areas expected of an administrator. I don't see enough evidence that Wandalstouring has an understanding of all of the tools or a need to use them. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Also, an edit summary usage of 75% for major edits and 55% for minor edits is quite low. Good edit summary usage is something I value. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose echo NeoFreak, but also I'm wondering about trusting someone with the tools who mainly wants them to edit specific protected pages. *Mishatx*-In\Out 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should have stated more explicitly that it is me and the other coordinators who decide that a template etc. needs protection, while it is also our task to maintain and modify these protected templates. Wandalstouring 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose.this reasoning scares me.Rlevse 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - A large number of reasons not to be an admin. The nomination is made in good faith, but there are some very unusual elements to it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. A quick scan of his contribs suggests WT is a decent and hard-working editor. However, I have had some discussion with him re the ongoing infoxbox debate refed above, and I am consequently a little bit of the opinion that his understanding of NPOV may be imperfect- in fact, he perhaps has got slightly the wrong end of the stick about the whole issue, which makes me somewhat suspicious re his knowledge of wider policy. Will have a think about it and may change my mind later, however. I think you may have shot yourself in the foot a little bit with your answer to Q3, btw...;-) Badgerpatrol 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Honesty pays off. Wandalstouring 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral untill I decide. For now, I will voice my concerns. You have 75% edit summaries for major edits and 55% summaries for minor edits. You should make sure to improve this. Also, tell more in the answers to the questions. They were too quick and didn't tell enough. Lastly, I note the oppose statements and in conclusion, will hold my vote here for now. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   55% minor edits aren't only fixes of typos in my previous edits. By the way, you could fix the typo in your edit with a minor edit. :P Wandalstouring 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral obviously a dedicate user, but the answer to Q1 and the nomination statement does not suggest any real need for the tools. That, and your edit summary usage, do not urge me to support. - Anas ^Talk? 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Actually, I don't mind users who request adminship for a limited purpose, so long as they make their intention plain from the beginning, and they show a well-rounded resume. However, level of edit summary usage is too low, and wiki-space experience is borderline. The candidate should be well-suited after a few more months. Xoloz 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per opposer's and answers. BJ^Talk 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral by this statement, your RfA is quote [intended] to give me the ability to edit some of the military history project's protected material. You can always ask an administrator to unprotect the page, if it's fully protected or edit the page if it's semi, since you are an established user. An admin's mop is designed for tools way beyond the scope of editing. You have to know the policies, treat the community with respect (and expect respect in return), clean-up unneeded articles/pictures/etc., have a non-biased view, etc. Real96 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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.