Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwwwolf

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

[edit] Wwwwolf

Final (62/3/5) ended 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wwwwolf (talk • contribs) – Wwwwolf is a slow and thoughtful editor. He has been around since at least 2004 but has only made roughly 2,400 edits since then, preferring instead to put a lot of thought and work into each comment and contribution. If you've seen him around, it may well have been on AfD, which he never forgets to treat as a discussion. He sometimes writes about Wikipedia in his LiveJournal to review how well he did in a discussion and judge whether his reactions were appropriate. I have no doubt that Wwwwolf will make an excellent administrator whose mindful awareness and active neutrality will bring much benefit to our community. Ashibaka tock 06:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind observations, and I'm glad, and quite honoured, to accept the nomination. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support No problems here. Will be a great admin. ForestH2
2. I should add my own support as well :) Ashibaka tock 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
3. High Support Excellent work, Wwwwolf. No doubt this nomination is a well thought out one by a smart user. Full support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Political Mind (talk • contribs) .

   This account was created on the same day it posted here (May 28). Redux 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

   Well, at least it did not "ding." Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Support. Good grasp of policy, and Afd participation makes up for lack of user-talk edits. RadioKirk talk to me 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Looks good. Kusma (討論) 17:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Wwwwolf is the kind of editor we should strive to be. Yanksox 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support low raw number of user talk edits doesn't bother me, most of them are long, thoughtful comments... I suspect many people maybe have thousands of user talk edits but have rarely posted anything but a template there :-) I'll take actual comments any day. And he has (perportionally) a lot of talk edits, and the content of his average project space comments suggests this is hardly a candidate who can't communicate effectively. Thoughtful, acts in good faith... seems like a fine candidate. --W.marsh 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per RadioKirk. Quality over quantity. Experience in area proposed for adminship use. :) Dlohcierekim 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
9. RfA cliché #1. (Sorry, RadioKirk. :D) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
10. I'll pick another cliché -- Tawker 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks fine. --Tone 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, Good user with good intentions. Also has a cool picture on his live journal.-- The ikiroid  19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - Hahnchen 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Good user. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
17. support per nom. TerraVentura 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Thunderbrand 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support based on civility, patience and intelligence [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
20. more like this one, please. Derex 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. DarthVader 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Good luck! :-) SushiGeek 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - when I cross paths with him, he always seems to be thoughtful and patient when dealing with issues. Tony Fox 01:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a balanced editor who is observant, communicates well and will not abuse tools. Tyrenius 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. —Ruud 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Kept a cool head in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals, despite another editor who was being very argumentative in the same discussion. Sounds like a good admin candidate for this reason in itself. --Elkman 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. WT edits a bit low, but otherwise very good.Voice-of-All^Talk 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support --Terence Ong 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Seen him at AFD doing a good job. can be trusted with the tools. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Support – Gurch 10:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support DGX 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support ... good vibes ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Support JoshuaZ 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per my criteria. ShortJason 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
38. Robert 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support -- DS1953 ^talk 02:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
40. I'm going to Support Wwwwolf. I'm appreciative of people who think before they type and consider the impact on others. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Definite support. (But how to pronounce your name?) +sj + 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per cliché. --TantalumTelluride 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Support™ --Rory096 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Strong support. Not only is adminship supposed to be no big deal, but on a more personal note, I've run into Wwwwolf on the net many, many times over the years, and he has always left a favorable impression. (Also, while I'm here -- isn't this whole "not enough user talks" thing just kind of silly? "Well, the man's been doing good work here for a couple of years and certainly isn't doing anyone any harm, but couldn't he, like, jump through some random hoops before anyone hands him a mop and a bucket so he can clean up after other people?" C'mon...) -- Captain Disdain 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Very thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Lapinmies 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Lesbian pile-on support--digital_me^(t/c) 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. We need people helping out with deletion processes. Royboycrashfan 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Joe I 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support My kind of guy — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Merovingian {T C @} 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
52. Support VegaDark 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
53. Support looks good and seems to take Wikipedia seriously. No reason to believe Wwwwolf wouldn't make a good admin _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Edit history looks solid.--MONGO 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Weak support. Weak because of the relatively low edit count considering how long wolf has been here. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
56. More like this candidate, please!^TM Support ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support per nominator. the wub "?!" 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per nominator. --Guinnog 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support- I would trust Wwwwolf with the admin tools. Reyk _YO! 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support --t ALL IN c 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Seems to be well-qualified --Runcorn 15:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Very good edits that I've seen. DakPowers (Talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose #Oppose Good editor but not enough user talk edits. Lou franklin 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User is on ArbCom block for violation of violation of remedies 1 and 2 of his RfAr through a sock; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement -- Tawker 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(Fixed link to arbitration enforcement) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Weak oppose. Generally good but very few user talks. To talk, telling image uploaders any problems, such as no source, no license, or orphaned fair use images, can build up a lot of user talks.--Jusjih 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   Uh, no offense, but what's the point of just "building up" a bunch of edits by pasting templates robotically? It won't mean he's any more or less able to communicate with other editors, which is what (in theory) user talk edits should indicate. --W.marsh 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. Ricardo Lagos 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for such a vote? DarthVader 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Well, in situations like this, I personally prefer to assume good faith, but in this instance past history makes it kind of difficult. Just looking at some of his contributions makes it kind of obvious that he's a couple of edits away from being blocked indefinitely... -- Captain Disdain 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   ...uh, wow. Talk about timing. -- Captain Disdain 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Significant edits are low. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 13:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Good editor, but I would like to see more user talk edits. Not enough to meet my standards. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with Linuxerist; interaction with other users is too minimal to be able to say whether there would be any concerns or not. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 20:29 UTC
3. Does not appear to meet 1FA, but has shown active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, lack of edits in main and project space means I can't support, but I do wish you well. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - doesn't have a huge amount of edits for aquiring admin status, per Stifle.--Andeh 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments All user's contributions using my tool at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS. Voice-of-All^Talk 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Wwwwolf (over the 2464 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 718 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 10, May, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 83.61% Minor edits: 95.56%
Article edit summary use (last 593 edits) : Major article edits: 97.73% Minor article edits: 97.97%
Average edits per day: 6.3 (for last 500 edit(s))
Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 5.76% (142)
Unique pages edited: 1062 | Average edits per page: 2.32 | Edits on top: 6.25%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 19.16% (472 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 56.01% (1380 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 6.45% (159 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 18.38% (453 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 65.5% (1614) | Article talk: 8.81% (217)
User: 4.91% (121) | User talk: 1.5% (37)
Wikipedia: 14.2% (350) | Wikipedia talk: 0.57% (14)
Image: 3.08% (76)
Template: 1.14% (28)
Category: 0.2% (5)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (2)

• See Wwwwolf's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Edit counts from Interiots external Java Script tool.

Total:2462 (Signed: Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:50, 28 May 2006 (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 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: Oh, hard to say yet, but I suspect the usual: page protections, closing and carrying out deletions followed by AfD debates, copyvio deletions, and speedy deletions in case of clear-cut cases (well, there's plenty). I prefer to do things that are not too hasty in nature though; I'd rather not to get too many enemies =) I'll probably find my own purpose to do things in whatever capacity I have. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I'm most pleased about my rather gnomatic nature and tons of smaller but hopefully crucial edits. I've also done a handful of other interesting things, such as originating articles on Exult and Pentagram (game engine). One good example would be GtkRadiant (which might be a quite a good example of what kind of a big stub I can create if I put my mind to it, speaking of a topic that I'm somewhat familiar on basic terms, with but cannot be called an expert). There's some articles I've expanded a great deal, like Legend of the Green Dragon, Abuse (computer game), and Commodore DOS. Yet, I'm not saying these articles are without flaws, it seems that I'm much better at doing small things in small movements, properly. But I suppose that's what WP is generally about anyway =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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 don't remember ever having a big fight about editing any specific matter - not with established editors, anyway, trolls are an another case =) I've ended up in some rather long-winded debates in AfD from time to time with people who and tend to be rather verbose in defending or opposing things in AfDs general - sometimes I see this as a flaw, sometimes not. Anyway, big debates and even policy changes sometimes sting, but they generally don't worry me all that much in the end and I'm rarely hurt in any way. If I lose, I usually take the "Well, it's probably for the better anyway" kind of mentality. I tend to take plenty of those famous "deep breaths" before replying, just in case. I try to keep calm. It always helps. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 I notice from User:Wwwwolf/Other_wikis that you are active on many other Wikis, including other language Wikipedias, other Wikimedia projects, and a variety of non-Wikimedia Wikis. Could you discuss your work with other Wikis and whether that experience will help you as an admin here?

My most wide work outside of Wikipedia in these wikis so far was Final Fantasy VII Wikibook, which recently got transwikied to StrategyWiki. Aside of that, my biggest contributions are probably to fi.wikipedia, in which I have started a few articles on topics already covered in en.wikipedia, and occassionally done the reverse, also (Article on Jori Olkkonen was started this way, for example). As for how this helps on adminning, I can't really say, all I know is that I've seen quite a few different kind of wikis (and quite a few different kinds of other virtual communities), and have some kind of idea how they work and how all other virtual communities tend to work. I also have a MediaWiki install of my own (not public yet), where I've caught a glimpse of the admin functions, so that's probably the only thing that may help directly adminning here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2 You seem to have a narrow editing range, focused mainly on videogames and starwars. The only edits outside such areas seems to be in other similar areas (such as anime). Looking at the other wikis you edit, the edits seem to be similar. How would you respond to concerns that your contributions have been to a narrow range?

I'd respond by saying that I tend to keep my mouth shut about things that I don't really know all that much about. =) It's true that I really don't wander much off of the paths of topics that don't interest me much, but usually if I happen to wander there, I tend to do things that I feel I can do (typofixes, interwiki links, and like). And yeah, perhaps work in a bit more broad space would help. Perhaps my sister's idea of hitting the Random button and working on articles that come up isn't that silly after all. =) (Umm, Star Wars? Can't remember editing too many SW topics really...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Er yeah, don't know why I said Star Wars there. JoshuaZ 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3 Almost all your Wikipedia space edits are to AfDs. How would you respond to concern that you do not have a wide background/experience in Wikipedia policy matters?

I wouldn't participate in AfDs unless I knew a thing or two about policies, and knowing my WikiLawyeristic (WikiLawyeristic in good sense, mind you, definitely not in the WP:POINT sense =) tendencies, I'm always willing to learn more of them. I'm not as much interested in raising my voice to change the policies, because there's been so far few rules that concern me and I've seen most rules so far being sensible enough. I'd wager that right now I have a pretty good idea about the inclusion/notability criteria, and related topics - verifiability, what sort of sources articles should have and when, and like. I'm quite familiar, though not to that level of intimate knowledge, with other core policies like style and NPOV matters. Of other guidelines, I think I have a pretty good grasp of What Not To Do, even if I can't cite the paragraph and section of the policy by heart... which would admittedly be a pretty handy skill, which I already seem to be able to do what comes to notability criteria. =) In closing, I'd like to say I'm often an observer of virtual communities and I like to see how they really work and how they seem to work. I think I have a good picture of how, in general terms, this whole place seems to run. But if I don't know, I'm more inclined to look things up from the policies rather than trying to go headlong into the danger and make a big mess by not knowing how things really work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The above 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.