Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwalla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gwalla

Vote here

(21/4/2) ending 20:55 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gwalla is careful & well-informed, contributing to a variety of topics (see his user page). Reserved & focused in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. He has contributed more than 1500 edits since January 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I humbly accept Mr. Heresiarch's nomination. — Gwalla | Talk 23:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Graham ☺ | Talk 21:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. CryptoDerk 22:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). Being active behind the scenes shouldn't preclude someone from being an admin. After an in depth look at his edits, his talk page, his discussions, and his logic, he appears to me to be ideal admin material.
  4. Certainly a good grasp of policy as evidenced by VFD contributions. Also note that his edits prior to about August were completely VFD-free, which makes up for any bias against him for this reason. For the record, he does have more than 2000 edits. -- Grunt   ҈  23:36, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
  5. Seems solid. Since he's done so much VfD work, I took a close look at it—his votes seem to be much in line with community consensus, and on more controversial topics he justifies his opinion well. —Stormie 01:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I've had numerous interactions with Gwalla, and all were positive. Very reasonable and hard-working editor, perhaps with a mild VfD addiction, but I've seen nothing but excellent article-related edits too. • Benc • 04:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:38, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
    {Ανάριον} 11:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. If anything, the VfD work is a plus -- VfD is one of the 'policy areas' of Wikipedia, and mature contributions there, in addition to the more general areas of the site, are a plus. I feel Gwalla has contributed well to Wikipedia. --Improv 18:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 20:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Go Gwalla! Support! And endorsed by Heresiarch as well. - RedWordSmith 05:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. ℛyan! | Talk 11:23, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Examined a number of user's edits in main and talk namespaces; all are good as far as I've seen. Appears willing and able to explain himself when necessary, to distinguish between his personal interests and the good of Wikipedia, and to resolve disputes amicably and according to policy. Level of attention to VfD is abnormal, but an examination of voting patterns does not suggest an agenda (especially since the number of articles he nominates is relatively low), and a willingness to participate in this administrative task seems like an argument for adminship, not against it. —Triskaideka 21:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Wolfman 04:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. All of the user's edits seem to be in good faith. If one of the detractors could cite concrete examples of a frivolous deletion, it might make more sense. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:36, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely. I also think people opposing on the basis that he thinks most of the VfD nominators are correct are missing the spirit of the project. Our users nominate for VfD wisely, for the most part, so it's not surprising to see mainly "delete" votes. Will Gwalla be a good administrator? Absolutely. Geogre 00:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    My concern is that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of Gwalla and many other regulars on Vfd to even try to improve an article rather than delete it. I have seen quite a few articles that could have been saved with a little effort deleted, Nacho King! comes to mind. If Gwalla can produce evidence that he has previously worked to improve articles posted on Vfd, I am willing to change my vote. -JCarriker 02:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Strong support. Being a deletionist is not a valid reason to oppose adminship. Ambi 06:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Slightly overzealous VfDing gives me a lack of clear sense of this user. Vote moved to support. –Andre (talk) 15:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Weak oppose. I am primarily concerned with his eagerness to delete articles without even trying to improve them.-JCarriker 05:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC) Support. Gwalla has addressed my concerns. -JCarriker 22:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Good edits, including in VfD. No evidence of serious conflicts with others. func(talk) 14:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. ffirehorse 20:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. Good unbiased edits in VfD. jni 14:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Approximately 70% of his recent contributions have to do with VfD. Oppose. Sorry. --Lst27
  2. I'm with Lst on this one. Over 1000 VfD votes logged in the last 2 months, vast majority are deletes. With no significant edits outside of VfD and a lot of repetitive minor edits, not sure how we can gauge his readiness for adminship. (my views on admin noms) -- Netoholic @ 21:36, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
  3. I agree. User is a bit too VfD-zealous. Any way, not enough edits in my book. Would possibly support after 2,000 edits and a branch out in his contribs. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Too little edits, too many deletions. {Ανάριον} 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. I agree with both blankfaze and Grunt. Come back in three weeks or so. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:39, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hey, I check Vfd often as well, but I think Gwalla spends a little too much time doing so. I'd like to see more and larger-scale edits to articles. As of now, I have a hard time evaluating how he interacts with other users. --Slowking Man 06:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Gwalla has more than 2000 edits.
  • I think its admirable someone is paying such close attention to the VfD ballots--he has far more tolerance for it than I--and isn't this the sort of administrative work we're looking for? PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, why are we taking into consideration the amount of VfD work Gwalla has performed? My question is posed because that adminship is a responsibility where the person will need to be aware of the VfD process and other Wikipedia policies reasonably well, and I feel extensive balanced work here would be a plus for the community. Also, if Gwalla's work on VfD has been moderate, balanced and diplomatic (haven't looked at this closely yet) it might be that he/she will also be very good at arbritration disputes. To play devil's advocate on my own points, however, it may be that we want a balanced of encyclopaedia articles and meta stuff, in which Gwalla might be seen as somewhat lacking. Thoughts? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuba, you're right, of course. Someone who goes to VfD often ought to be considered more worthy of adminship than less. Netoholic brought up the issue, and I'm a little surprised to see people following it. JCarricker's point in general is, in general, a good one that every single Wikipedian's conscience should be pricked by. That said, I know that I've saved more than a few from deletion, but I haven't saved anywhere nearly as many as I could have. The reason is simple: VfD isn't Clean Up. I'm not dismissing JCarricker's concerns at all, but the simple truth is that when something gets to VfD, we are supposed to be deciding strictly whether something should stay or not. The Clean Up process has been overwhelmed as surely as VfD has, and far too few people work there, but I don't think anyone can be blamed for not saving articles on VfD, even if anyone who does so should be praised for having done so. If anyone asks me if VfD and Clean Up are broken, I'll say "yes," but conflating the two isn't the answer. Geogre 03:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • My concern is not to place blame as to why Vfd is flawed but to see if there is a part of Gwalla that is concerned that it is broken. If his response is as eloquent and thoughtful as yours Geogre, I'll remove my opposition and may even consider supporting the nomination. -JCarriker 03:49, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it's less a matter of VfD being broken than that Cleanup is—cleanup's just flooded (and I have participated in cleanup, although not as much as I should). I have tried to rescue some articles (most recently, Man-Faye), but in general I think the functions should be kept separate. For one thing, the more VfD takes over the job of Cleanup, the more articles will be put on VfD because they need to be fixed up rather than deleted. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that answers my question. -JCarriker 22:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would participate in Votes for Undeletion and scan Recent Changes for vandalism. I don't expect to do much speedy-deleting, as I prefer the VfD process in most cases.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm pretty pleased with Initiation (phonetics), Tod Browning, and List of web comics.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I was involved in a small conflict over tengwar, which was resolved amicably. Some users have caused me some stress, but I take it in stride, since nothing that happens on Wikipedia can really cause me harm. Decisions I think are poor are, at worst, small, short-term setbacks to the project, and at best are cases in which I'm wrong (hey, it happens).