Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wildnox

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.

[edit] Wildnox

Final (11/18/10); Ended Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:37:18 UTC

Wildnox (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Wildnox when I was creating my first page, I needed help and he was more than willing to give it. He has been registered for only 10 months yet has over 3000 edits, over 1200 coming in the past 2 months. He works extremely hard against vandalism, and has reported over 50 users, as well as fixing many pages. I believe it would be better if someone who works this hard to stop vandals could stop them himself, without having to go through the reporting process. He participates regularly in discussing deletions etc. as well as reporting sockpuppets. I hope he will accept this nomination, as he deserves some status for the work he has done and continues to do AsicsTalk 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. --Wildnox(talk) 17:22, 20 January 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 voters:

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: If I was an administrator, most of my sysop work would be in the areas with which I am familiar such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of those I think Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets would be the most important, as it appears that the backlog there is quite large.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: It would be difficult for me to pick an article with which I am particularly pleased. This is because most of my actual article editing contributions, as opposed to my reverts of vandals and socks, have been small and spread out through wikipedia. I'd mostly say I was more pleased with my vandalism reversions than anything else. Maybe, if forced to choose examples of article writing, I can say either my small rewrite of the Slipknot (band) article[1][2] or the articles I've created Dark Lunacy, Forget Me Not (Dark Lunacy album), Devoid, The Diarist, Baptism (band), and Herod (band).
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: Early on I had a handful of edit wars on wikipedia. Most of my early edit warring was cause by my own intial misunderstanding and misinterpretation of wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:VANDAL, and WP:NPOV. Generally I do not get into edit wars in more recent times. The first reason for this being that I usually attempt to discuss or compromise on edits which are reverted. The second reason for this being that a message on the users talk page and a few back and forth afterward can usually solve any problems.


Optional questions from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. Under what circumstances would you semi-protect a page?
A: I'd only semi-protect a page in cases of persistent vandalism or disruption from anons and short term throw-away accounts.
5. Would you ever speedily close something per WP:SNOW and if so, under what circumstances?
A: No, I think a discussion should be allowed to run its course, even if the circumstances appear to be overwhelmingly set to one side. The only time I see closing a discussion speedily as justified are if it is pure disruption or vandalism, which can be closed citing existing policies rather than an essay.
6. How do you determine whether a subject is notable or not?
A: This is always a tricky one in my opinion. Usually I assume any non trivial mentions outside of the subject itself(or its website, books, etc) can be a good indicator of notability for anything. For music, major labels are usually what I look for first. With books, I usually look at the notability of the author, publisher, and sales status as indicators of notability. The "Google Test" in my opinion can be very useful also, not as a main point, but as a reinforcement to other arguments.
General comments
  • See Wildnox's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • See Wildnox's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominated:I noticed the concern over my lacked of cited sources in a few of my created articles. I can answer for the lack of sources in the Dark Lunacy related articles. In the main, I had assumed that linking, to the pages that I had used as source information, in the external links would suffice, I obviously was mistaken. I have have added <ref>s to the article, to clarify what goes to what(one source no longer has the information up and I had to change one). As for the albums, I thought those needed no sources considering the rather obvious nature of the three of them, I will source them later today. I cannot answer forever about the Baptism (band) article, when I created it, I made the grave mistake of never citing a source in the article, and I don't think I ever even made a link to the sources in the external links.--Wildnox(talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator AsicsTalk 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support: Can't see any reason to oppose, and shows a clear need for the tools. David Mestel(Talk) 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Convinced by Addhoc. David Mestel(Talk) 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I see no problems - contributions across the main spaces and effective vandal fighting/user Talk participation too. (aeropagitica) 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. Few overall edits, but your participation everywhere shows I can trust yu with the tools.--Wizardman 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Isn't overly focused on one thing, participating, like wizardman said, everywhere, and as a Recent Changes patroller myself, sysop tools are neccacary to stop vandalism on wikipedia, what real good is a test1 template going to do? → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support-Passes most of my criteria and per Wizardman. Try to get a little more XFD participation though. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support You've got a lot of contribs. and your heart seems to be in the right place. Your Wikipedia edits are only a small percentage of your overall edits, but hopefully that will change if you become an admin. Ganfon 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Petr K 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support meets my guideline.-- danntm T C 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Weak support - the answers to #4 and #5 are really rather brief and I would much rather see some more elaboration on both subjects, especially given that WP:RFP is something that you list as an area of interest. I would strongly suggest reading WP:SEMI and WP:FULL and looking over some of the handled requests before diving in there too much. But that aside, I have seen no reason not to believe that you are a trusted user. WP:SSP obviously needs a ton of help and so there's a tremendous upside to you receiving the bit, thus I support. --BigDT 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Moral support • I suggest you withdraw in face of the avalanche of oppose votes. Sorry, I think you had merit, but they are right that it's probably too early. Consider becoming more active and coming back in a few month's time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't really see a point in withdrawing at this point as there are only two days left and it is already pretty much already finished. I'm 100% sure how to withdraw anyway. If anything this nomination has served as a user review of sorts. --Wildnox(talk) 04:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Please don't get downhearted if you lose - you'll get there one day.--Osidge 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - sorry but I'm seeing an extremely low amount of contributions to the encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - limited contribution to articles and no real participation in XFD's to show knowledge of policy outside vandal-whacking. Easy to rack up edits with WP:VPRF so 3000 in 10 months shows limited input as well. Not sure if the mop is needed quite yet. The Rambling Man 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - the articles that demonstrate his best work are poorly sourced... Addhoc 18:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Low encyclopedic contributions. AfD votes are often WP:ILIKEIT and don't show much policy knowledge. It also doesn't seem the user has much experience in the adminship areas he is planning to work on outside of WP:AIV. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 3000 edits for 10 months would require something exceptional for gaining adminship(personally, I have around 6,500 in half that time), and that's not the case here. Tools don't seem to be needed or warranted just yet. If he becomes more active, i'm sure he'll stand a good chance in the future. Just H 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. Sorry. Yuser31415 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Nothing very amazing besides the anti-vandalism. Edit content mediocre. Few written articles. Articles written none too amazing. Sorry, dude, but I have to say no. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Using VandalProof does absolutely nothing to convince me you'll be a good admin, the articles you are so proud of are bad, and you don't have enough process participation for me to believe that you really will know what to do with admin tools. -Amark moo! 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Just H. Michael 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, besides the vandal fighting, I don't see much editing in other areas. Terence Ong 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Low amount of encyclopedic contributions, large majority in vandal fighting. Hello32020 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Terence Ong. Carpet9 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Sorry, but oppose per above. S.D. ¿п? § 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Hasn't made nearly enough valuable additions to the encyclopaedia. Being a good vandal-fighter does not necessarily make one worthy of being an admin. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per concerns of other users listed above. --Deskana (request backup) 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per above. More experience is necessary, vandal-fighting on its own isn't enough. Address the concerns raised by the opposes and neutrals and try again later. --Coredesat 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose no where close to enough experience.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. 3000 edits for nine months' experience is not very high. While total edit count is not all that matters, there are low Wikipedia_talk edits, and most of the mainspace edits after July are vandalfighting. Vandalfighting is useful, but contribs to improving the encyclopedia is more important for an administrator. However, there is fine participation in the other namespaces, and a good balance. Great vandalfighter, too. –Llama man 18:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral This would be a hard decision for me to make, since I am on the fence I will have to be neutral, I completly concur with both the pros and the cons. Arjun 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per my struck comments above, but the fact that only two-fifths of the articles he cited as his best work had any sources pushed me to neutral. David Mestel(Talk) 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I do not like opposing editors unless I think they would do a bad job. I can not support him because of his low amount of edits for the time he has been here (I have around the same amount and I have been here for less than three months), and he has a small amount of edits in Xfd. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I don't think he would abuse the tools but neither do I think they are especially necessary. Trebor 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, but not going by encyclopedic contributions. Doesn't show too much of a need for admin tools. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Low activity and participation in the projectspace (XfDs, etc.) and no quality contributions in the mainspace. As Sir James Paul, I wouldn't oppose because you're doing nothing wrong and are on the right track. ← ANAS Talk? 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral due to answer to WP:SEMI question, as well as various other concerns above. Not enough to oppose, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I want to support, but you are unfortunately just not quite active enough, and three of the articles you linked to in question 1 were only one sentence long, excluding the infobox and tracklist. Come back in a few months and I will most likely support. Dar-Ape 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. I wouldn't have accepted the nomination as written - "he deserves some status for the work he has done" - and I have to question the wisdom and understanding of a candidate who did. Perhaps not enough to oppose, but more than enough to rule out support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 22 January 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.