Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wenli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Wenli

Final (19/15/4); Scheduled to end 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wenli (talk · contribs) - This user has made 2500 contribs to Wikipedia, armed and ready for combat, and has no edit war history. Its personal interests are wikifying articles, fixing typos and reverting vandalism. -Goodshoped 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. — Wenli (reply here) 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to assist mainly with deletion nominations, particularly the Articles for deletion, speedy deletions, and proposed deletions. I have been a regular AfD participant, and have tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion, which have all since been deleted. In addition, I will also help out with clearing other administrative backlogs, such as WP:AIV, WP:AN3 and WP:UAA. As I become more experienced as an administrator, I will expand in the admin work that I partake in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions are with Wikipedia maintenance, mainly with the typo team and WikiProject Wikify. I have regularly cleaned up and rewrote neglected pages, especially those on the dead-end pages list. I have used tools such as AutoWikiBrowser effectively (to help the community, of course), and I plan on using the administrative tools in the same manner. I've also contributed a significant amount to Microsoft Windows stubs.
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: I have been involved in several minor conflicts with users over my vandalism reverts or my edits in general. However, I have always stayed WP:COOL and responded to these conflicts in a reasonable and understanding manner. As an administrator, I will always keep in mind that I can make mistakes, and I will assume good faith and keep an open mind when dealing with conflicts.

[edit] Optional Questions

4. What subjects/articles do you/have you actively contributed to? Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A: I believe that I have covered this in question 2, but to clarify, I have contributed most actively to the Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects. If you're looking for a specific subject, I feel that I have contributed the most to WikiProject Microsoft Windows, where I have greatly improved many of the stubs (example).
5. What do you want Wikipedia to be in the future? Marlith T/C 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A: I think that the most feasible and important goal for Wikipedia at this time is to improve the quality (specifically, the style, tone, and grammar) of its articles. There are approximately 2,300 articles in need of copyediting, and 7,100 uncategorized articles as of now. Wikipedia's factual accuracy is questioned by many. These (and many other quality-related problems) clearly need to be addressed in order for Wikipedia to become the world's most reliable free knowledge repository.
6. What are your opinions about Wikipedia's recent move to allow anons to create pages? FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A: Well, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I do believe that the current system (which isn't the original system) has been working fine for almost three years. Roughly half of the ~4,000 articles created every day are deleted, and it's only going to increase with Wikipedia's rapid growth. More new articles will contribute to the already heavy maintenance backlogs ({{wikify}}, {{uncategorized}}, etc.) as well as increase the AfD backlog, which currently sits at around 219 articles. I don't think that we need any more new pages at this time.
I think he was referring to this. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I misunderstood the question. I have rewritten my answer. — Wenli (reply here) 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wenli before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • "I have regularly cleaned up and rewrote neglected pages". I question this user's copyediting skills. :) *Cremepuff222* 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you give examples?Balloonman 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Examples are embedded... Its rewritten. AvruchTalk 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support. I support, because she/he has been in Wikipedia for a time, and has contributed 2500+ edits, and fights vandalism. -Goodshoped 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I would trust this user with the mop, I am sure he will be dedicated enough to contribute well. Marlith T/C 02:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. We need more admins. I trust this user. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good, solid editor. Nice example of a qualified editor with a lower count. I really hope this passes. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks good. T Rex | talk 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Support - You say you fight vandalism and revert typos, but you've had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (See:talk page). These are two key areas for admins to work in. Rudget Contributions 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support - Not a great amount of experience, but doubt he would abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 11:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, nothing suggests an inability to cope with the buttons. This made me chuckle, for some reason. Neil ☎ 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I would trust this user with the tools. Very unlikely that this user will abuse the tools given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support east.718 at 14:59, 10/26/2007
  11. A fine user; should be a good administrator. Acalamari 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Good user who deserves the mop. NHRHS2010 talk 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support Fine user! PatPolitics rule! 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I think will be a good admin and I find the oppose arguments weak. Sumoeagle179 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Weak support, cancelling out ca. one quarter of one of the less well-founded opposes (take your pick). — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support. for (expletive)'s sake, you'd think we're all beyond the whole I-trust-him-but-I-don't-want-him-to-have-the-mop-for-the-pettiest-reason thing aren't we? This user obviously has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and I'm sure will do a fine job with the mop. Good on you for trying to make a difference and putting your hand up to help. Good luck! --Pumpmeup 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support -- Wenli has enough edits to satisfy my tastes, and seems to be trusted by the community. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. Majorly (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  20.  — H2O —  08:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose For starters, let me just say that I am not one to oppose. But quite simply I feel I must make a point here. My predominant concern is that of a lack of general experience, not only in mainspace, but also among the clockwork and policies of Wikipedia. I fail to see much, indeed any discussion as do I see little concrete editing. Most mainspace edits are AWB sweeps, inasmuch as the contributions are concerned. A fairly low edit count coupled with a lack of general experience is a no-no IMHO. Don’t take it bluntly but I do, quite frankly, feel that you would profit from a little more understanding. Furthermore, I note you have had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (as Rudget already mentioned). Consider some article writing too. One of the cornerstones of adminship is an all-embracing, all-inclusive and wide-ranging acquaintance with the “clockwork” of Wikipedia, something which I can’t seem to find in your contributions at the moment. -- Chris B • talk 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm curious to what you mean by "article writing". Would you like to see me creating more articles, editing articles... — Wenli (reply here) 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The candidate needs more experience, per Chris. Some article-writing would be helpful as well. Majoreditor 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    WP:Editcountitis Marlith T/C 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Majoreditor's oppose has nothing to do with the number of edits that Wenli has made. It is not editcountitis. NHRHS2010 talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    As with Chris, I'm wondering what you mean by "article-writing". — Wenli (reply here) 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    In the Wikipedia context, "article-writing" is defined as taking an article that does not currently exist, or one that is very poorly written, and creating it or making it better. --Agüeybaná 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, using that definition, I believe that I have done plenty of article writing. Please take a look at the example that I gave below DGG's comment. Here's another example. — Wenli (reply here) 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — I agree, to some degree, with Chris. I don't see any signs of discussion, collaborative work, dispute resolution, or contribution to the mainspace. I don't think you're ready at the moment. --Agüeybaná 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Though I do not have any arbitrary standards here, i do not see any substantial work with articles in mainspace. That's the basic part of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding my mainspace contributions, I feel that I have done many substantial edits on articles, but as Mr.Z-man said, they may be hard to see because they're inserted between many AWB edits. Here's an example. — Wenli (reply here) 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    That doesn't look like much of a rewrite. The article only consisted of one paragraph before your edit, and to me the only changes you made were re-wording the already-existing paragraph. It did improve the article, yes, but it didn't look like a "substantial" re-write to me. That's not why I opposed; see my post below to see why I opposed you. I just thought I'd throw my two cents into this argument. Ksy92003(talk) 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your honest opinion; I'll be sure to work on it. — Wenli (reply here) 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    as someone else mentioned below, the examples you have given are good examples of small-scale minor editing, but not of substantial article writing. I don't think I'm being unreasonable-- this is one of the very few times i have opposed over quantity of mainspace edits, but writing articles is after all the basis of the project.DGG (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
  5. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    As I have described in question 1, I believe that my significant contributions to AfD show my understanding of policy in that area (which I will be taking part in as an admin). I also feel that the other work that I have done (such as tagging pages for speedy deletion and maintenance) also reflect my understanding of policy. — Wenli (reply here) 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    With just 252 edits in Wikipedia namespace I honestly find it hard to believe that you have significant contributions to AFD. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Just not quite there on experience yet, but that will be remedied with time. Jmlk17 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Could I trust this user with the tools? No, as they have not the knowledge and experience for me to do so. The only way to gain the necessary policy knowledge is to go out and get your hands dirty with contributing, and I just don't see enough of that. VanTucky Talk 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Inexperience generally, and arguments about "specialisation" aren't really appropriate given we don't hand out only one of the three in the set. Daniel 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. When somebody makes a comment about lack of experience and quality mainspace edits, you should provideyour more substanitive works. Examples that show that the allegation was unfounded. Examples that show that you have made quality edits in the mainspace. When you provide examples, I expect to see something profound. Instead you provided these example and example. That combined with the other opposes, lead me to oppose based on lack of experience.Balloonman 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose– User needs a bit more experience in handling AfD and similar areas before I can trust them with the ability to close them. Ksy92003(talk) 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. sorry - the example cited under the neutral vote below does nothing for my confidence that this person is helping the 'pedia grow. Even then I could be swayed by some DYKs or GA but none are forthcoming -contributions in Q2 above are somewhat vague and perfunctory sounding. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose lack of experience at the coalface. Pete.Hurd 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose largely per the contribs highlighted below. Blind deletionism combined with little interest demonstrated in article work is not a combination that I can support. --JayHenry 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - not quite there in edit count, especially in substantive mainspace edits, and per above concerns re: AfD. Please request again in a couple of months, when I have more evidence. Bearian 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - lack of real contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note that Mikka has reverted criticism of her !votes from her talkpage as 'wikilawyering.' I'm not sure how wikilawyering applies, since policy wasn't the basis of the critical comments... But some people have a low tolerance for constructive criticism. AvruchTalk 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Users are free to remove any and all comments they like from their talk page as they see fit - see WP:DRRC. Daniel 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    That's an essay and as such is non-binding. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - leaning toward oppose. Your significant mainspace edits (inserted occasionally between a few dozen AWB edits) are good. You have signficant AFD experience, but I am a bit concerned, especially with things like this:
    01:07, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Spiegel‎ (→Jeffrey Spiegel - Delete)
    01:07, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOOH - Get Out of Our House‎ (→GOOOH - Get Out of Our House - Delete)
    01:06, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The revolution theory‎ (→The revolution theory - Delete)
    01:05, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anima Banner‎ (→Anima Banner - Delete)
    01:04, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers related to academics (2nd nomination)‎ (→List of entertainers related to academics - Delete)
    01:04, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Rhodes‎ (→Damien Rhodes - Delete)
    01:02, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Blates‎ (→DJ Blates - Delete)
    01:02, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jude Stringfellow‎ (→Jude Stringfellow - Delete)
    (There are more, this is just a sample) In the space of 6 minutes, you reviewed 8 articles? 3 of your comments were just "delete per above" type comments. All but 1 of those AFDs seemed to be notability related, which means you should at least do a cursory Google search after reading the article. Your recent AFD contribs have been a little more spaced apart, but things like I pointed out above, combined with a general lack of substantial (non template) user talk edits is too much for me to support. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your honest opinion. I concede that most of what you say is true, and I'll make sure that I work on it. However, I would like to make it clear that I have always done some research (including a Google search) before commenting on an AfD. If you take a look at the AfDs that I have nominated (example), you will notice that I have included Google searches in each and every one of them. — Wenli (reply here) 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Teetor-tottering between Support and Oppose. I understand that he will not abuse the tools, and I trust him on that. I just don't feel I get enough of an administrator vibe from it. I can't explain it...but that's my reasoning, my horrible, horrible, God-Awful reasoning.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Per some of the above oppose comments, try back again after further experience on the project. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  4. I'm relatively lax on experience, but it seems that much of your experience isn't substantive. Ral315 » 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Can't support with the comments by the opposers, but can't full out oppose either. My suggestion (for what it's worth =]): Come back after you get a bit more experience with Wikipedia policies. Many people will oppose you because of your 252 (at the moment) Projectspace edits. Just do a bit more work. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:14, 1 November 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.