Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NawlinWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] NawlinWiki

Final (64/3/3) Ended 10:36, 2006-08-26 (UTC)

NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) – Over the past few months, I have had the good fortune of interacting with NawlinWiki, and after seeing his contributions, achievements, and dedication to Wikipedia, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be an excellent administrator. First off, while Nawlin has only been seriously contributing for about 4 1/2 months, he has thousands upon thousands of edits- almost 2,500 in August alone. He is an incredibly friendly and helpful user; Nawlin's talk page (and talk archive) are full of barnstars, thank yous, and other commendations. He is highly active in WP:AFD, in both adding to discussions and nominating articles for deletion. Nawlin is also an incredible reverter of vandalism- he frequents WP:AIV, and every time he performs a revert (which he has hundreds, if not thousands, of times), he makes sure to talk to and/or warn the vandals. In addition to all of the above excellent traits, he marks his edits as minor whenever it is appropriate, and he always uses edit summaries. I have never nominated someone to be an admin before, but I don't know if I've ever seen a non-sysop as qualified to become one as NawlinWiki. Suffice it to say, I think this user is highly qualified to be an administrator; he not just has a need for the admin tools, but would use them extremely well. Kicking222 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.  :) NawlinWiki 23:56, 18 August 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: The things I've been doing on a non-sysop basis so far: reverting vandalism (including monitoring WP:AIV requests), categorizing, and working on articles and images for deletion. It seems that the Articles for Speedy Deletion page is often backlogged, and I would be very willing to help monitor and deal with that page. What I would like most to use admin powers for is being able to stop a rapidfire vandal in progress, rather than reporting to WP:AIV, or, for example, being able to stop someone who is repeatedly recreating a nonsense article. I am aware that I have a little bit of a deletionist leaning, and would keep that in mind and would deliberately try to compensate for that by avoiding deleting borderline articles or images and letting the XfD processes take their course.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Creating articles on significant people: for example, Edward Villella, Patience Wright, Zelda Fichandler, Dave Giusti, and Carla Overbeck. Also, catching largescale, creative vandalism/nonsense: for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGC Premiership; the socks of User:Woodylogan, such as User:24.181.67.89. Finally, "rescuing" and expanding articles about noteworthy people that were incomplete or about to get deleted, such as W.A. "Tony" Boyle, Will Wolford, and Gene Levitt.
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'm a youth soccer referee in real life -- I'm used to dealing with abuse.  :) Basically, I try not to feel like I have ownership of articles here. While I can't say I have been perfectly polite and gentle in every exchange, I don't think I've been involved in any flame wars and wouldn't expect to be.
Optional question from SynergeticMaggot: Would you mind elaborating on the first question please? SynergeticMaggot 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Done, thanks.
Second optional question from SynergeticMaggot: I noticed that your e-mail is not activated. Would you be so kind as to activate it now? SynergeticMaggot 10:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Done, thanks.
Comments
  • I've semi-protected this due to heavy vandalism. Yanksox 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user NawlinWiki (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 34 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 20, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 16, July, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 66.41% Minor edits: 72.29%
Average edits per day: 175.95 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 531 edits): Major article edits: 99.58% Minor article edits: 73.68%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 5 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.42% (21)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.28% (114)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 30.68% (1534)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 4 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 7.21%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 12.28% (614 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.48% (24 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.94% (47 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.18% (9 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 2.08% (104 edit(s)) (67 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.72% (36 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3785 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 27.36%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 39.3% (1965 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.92% (146 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 28.56% (1428 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 27.32% (1366 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 59.36% (2968) | Article talk: 0.98% (49)
User: 1.7% (85) | User talk: 18.16% (908)
Wikipedia: 18.7% (935) | Wikipedia talk: 0.08% (4)
Image: 0.02% (1)
Template: 0.02% (1)
Category: 0.96% (48)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Edit count using Interiot's tool2 (as of 16:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Username NawlinWiki
Total edits 21121
Distinct pages edited 15504
Average edits/page 1.362
First edit 15:42, June 30, 2005
(main) 13949
Talk 120
User 361
User talk 3689
Image 13
Template 31
Category 648
Wikipedia 2302
Wikipedia talk 5
Portal 3
Support
  1. Strong support. Got here first. Fan-1967 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Superstrong support as nominator. If only I'd remembered to put in this official vote when I was creating said nom, I could've been first! -- Kicking222 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment... Shouldn't we wait? I'm as excited as anyone (actually, yesterday I looked to see if Nawlin had ever been nominated, so this is great timing), but shouldn't we hold off until the questions are answered, just for good form? Srose (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Tell you what: If he answers that he's planning to use his admin tools to create entries for all gaming clans and myspace bands, I'll change my vote, but for now I'll let it stand ;-) Fan-1967 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    I trust Nawlin with the mop and flamethrower just as much as anyone else, but I know that RfAs have been damaged by early votes, and Nawlin hasn't even accepted yet (although he seems more than willing to on Kicking222's talk page). Anyhow, just a suggestion/concern, I'd never impose anything on anyone here and I'll cast my support in just as soon as Nawlin finishes typing his acceptance. (Unless I'm asleep, which frequently happens when good candidates come up.)Srose (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Very very impressive contribs and edit stats. He has my support --Ageo020 11:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. No problems I can see. Kimchi.sg 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - good vandal fighter. MER-C 12:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. New Orleans is the most beautiful city in the U.S., and quite possibly the world. Rama's arrow 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support I've noticed his contributions for some time now (actually I thought he was following me around at one point - he just makes so many contributions to new/troubled articles that he was inevitably working on a lot of the same articles I was). --W.marsh 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support very good user. ForestH2 t/c 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per previous good interactions and the No Big Deal clause. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support due to overall excellent contributions to AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I knew this was going to go live while I was asleep. Srose (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support He always beats me to vandal reverts! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support A very good vandal fighter, impressive contributions and edit stats. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support could use the tools. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I can't usefully add anything to what Andrew Lenahan and Siva1979 have already said. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support over 21000 edits! Wow! --CFIF ☎ 21:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support excellent editor who has earned the promotion. —Khoikhoi 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong support. Excellent editor and vandal fighter. He/she has a great deal of edits to user_talk and Wikipedia namespaces. --Nishkid64 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. What? Not an admin? You're the second recipient of the Crazy Russian Cliche. Really, I never use it... - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I often see the candidate's name in the edit history of WP:AIV and always assumed he/she was addressing the reports, rather than making the reports. I like his/her eagerness to stop real-time vandalism, an action I feel to be very important in terms of Wikipedia maintenance. I also appreciate the candidate's honesty and self-realisation in regards to XfD's. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support—If not good enough to be an Admin, then we may be setting the standards a bit too high. Williamborg (Bill) 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Great vandalfighter and good communication with others. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support as an excellent vandal-squisher. We always need more. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 07:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. I'd say something, but it's been said. Green caterpillar 14:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support: Very rare I say anything in these parts, back to the shadows. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. I've met him a few times before, and I give him a very nice Support, despite being a little weak in minor edit summaries and talk participation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support I would like to see more work on edit summaries and writing articles, I am happy that NawlinWiki is a referre, and user seems to be qualifiied enough to hold the mop and bucket.-- danntm T C 20:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. I've run into NawlinWiki many times on AIV and always found them a good spotter for naughty things going on. Please try to up the percentages on edit summaries though. :) Syrthiss 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I've seen NawlinWiki around a lot and developed a sense of trust for his judgement. Edit summaries % is a worry as above but I've go no other concerns - Peripitus (Talk) 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    99% for major edits and 73% for minor edits is a concern? -- Kicking222 02:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 66.41% Minor edits: 72.29% is I believe the number I was commenting on, from VoA's tool. Syrthiss 11:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, does a good job with a lot of thankless work. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - he was on my hitlist User:Blnguyen/RfA.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support: Have seen NawlinWiki's work and see no reason not to support him. A strong candidate indeed. --Kinu t/c 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support I like this editor. --Guinnog 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support without question. One of our most useful vandal fighters, NawlinWiki has shown a strong understanding of policy and is a reliable contributor. Will make an excellent admin, IMHO. Gwernol 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support great editor. Budgiekiller 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support -- not only a vandal fighter, but also helped out with putting actual truth into the John Goodsall article when I've been fighting vandalism to it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support A great vandal fighter who will use the mop wisely. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Changing my vote from neutral in the light of expansion of answer to question 1.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. I was quite impressed when I first saw him on my watchlist. Bibliomaniac15 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support - Time.OnWiki != Experience. I should mention that I was promoted at 2 months... with heavy vandal fighting... it's not a big deal -- Tawker 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support JoshuaZ 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Noticed as a result of baseball-related contributions; seems like a good editor. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Merovingian - Talk 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per all of above. Good editor, can use the tools, no worries. Suggest adjusting Preferences to remind when an edit's about to be posted without a summary. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Strong support per above and below. Skilled and productive editor. Has neither glaring personality defects nor perverse fixations on article content disputes. —freak(talk) 16:02, Aug. 22, 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support I had a so-so encounter in an AfD involving Clearview Mall, but aside from that, I'm all for it. Yanksox 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Very happy to support. I've run into NawlinWiki several times in the course of my vandal hunts on Wikipedia, and I've seen excellent work as a countervandal and in working with others. Heimstern Läufer 05:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-23 05:40Z
  53. Slightly qualified support. I think it's worth raising as a concern that NawlinWiki is sometimes more deletionist than I would like. MarkGallagher/Fuddlemark raises an excellent point that NawlinWiki is far too prone to rely on "NN, delete" as his deletion justification, and I would hope that he/she will cease that behavior. However, on the whole this editor has contributed strongly to the Wikipedia, is polite and productive. If I think it's a problem I'll have to monitor AfD more closely and try to counterbalance. Captainktainer * Talk 17:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per nom...good contributor! Anger22 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Has made some worthwhile additions in content and seems active in the community. No red flags. -MrFizyx 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, and how. Good guy and well-deserving. I have no doubt he'll wield the mop responsibly. VoiceOfReason 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support --Alex talk here 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support -- Szvest 11:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
  59. Omg I overlooked this one Support. I see his name on WP:AIV all the time. Give him the mop :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support per nom. Michael 17:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 18:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2006
  63. Support though it already looks headed for a successful close -- Lost(talk) 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support This user has contributed in many edits and is obviously now ready for adminship -- Casmith 789 10:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Inflated edit counts due to vandal fight and such look impressive but what does it tell us about the candidate? NawlinWiki has only 120 article talk page edits and hardly any of those few are actually part of a conversation but mostly vandalism reverts. Most of the articles mentioned above, in response to question 2, have been created in the last few days. I need to see a lot more evidence that this user is actually interacting with other users in wikipedia. The nominator says above "NawlinWiki is an incredibly friendly and helpful user". I think it would be a good idea to be more specific with regard to where these interactions have occurred. It is hard to find any looking through the NawlinWiki's edits. David D. (Talk) 22:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    So you're unhappy that the candidate hasn't got heavily involved with writing articles, and you are not sure that "NawlinWiki is an incredibly friendly and helpful user" is a true statement. Any difs to back this up? Such as incivil edit summaries/messages? Thank you.--Andeh 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think you misundertand my objections. My complaint is i have not seen him interact with other users from looking through his talk page diffs. However the nominator seems to imply he is very helpful and friendly. I am not out to search for bad things I want to be shown the good things. With regard to the articles, I am not seeking vast contributions but enough to know he can collaborate. Since many of the articles he has started in the last few days it is impossible to know how he collaborates. He states that "I try not to feel like I have ownership of articles here". I'd say it is hard to tell since most are so recent. Just out of interest, were those recent articles created specifically for this RfA? David D. (Talk) 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, I'm sorry but this just seems like assuming bad faith here. You can't enough find any examples of interactions, so you assume this means he will have bad interactions. He's created articles in the past few days so you assume they were created for this RfA. At every turn you're assuming the worst of the candidate... which is what we try to avoid here. --W.marsh 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have never assumed bad interactions, i am saying there is not enough information for me to make a decision. Maybe i should be considering a neutral stance but i have to say i am swayed to oppose by the severe lack of talk edits. In my view it is the job of the nominator to give the examples that i need to make a decision. I have looked for examples and see practically none of collaborative interations with other wikipedians. I am assuming good faith that they they are out there. I am asking people to show me where they are. Anyone can rack up tons of edits with vandal fight etc. I'm afraid huge numbers of edits are the not part of my criteria when considering a candidate. I look for the quality of the edits. David D. (Talk) 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- only 4 months here, edit count is not everything, try again in 6 months I'll likly support --T-rex 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    First edit 15:42, June 30, 2005? Starting editing from 4 April 2006, so been here nearly 5 months.--Andeh 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well I'm looking for around 9 months --T-rex 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Very strong oppose. Repeated tagged pages for deletion, attempting to remove them from the site. TSD284 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    note user repeatedly recreated an article that is now salted, no other edits. Syrthiss 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    The only contributions from this user have been attacks against NawlinWiki on this RfA, and the user was subsequently blocked. --Chris (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Per David D. 14,000 edits, but only 120 to article Talk: pages? Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, and this editor needs to interact far more in the actual creation of encyclopedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now, very weak answer to question 1, brief answers to other questions give me very little to go on. --pgk(talk) 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral Tending towards support from seeing this editor around in the various Wikispaces but I require a fuller answer to question 1 before committing. (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like NawlinWiki, and it's good to see more referees editing :-). However, I think he may have a little ways to go yet before becoming Cluey enough for adminship. I'm also unimpressed by some of his AfD nominations, such as the one he cited in his answers to the questions, and this one. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Pgk. VanM 16:09, 23 August 2006 (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.