Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wimt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Wimt

Closed as successful by Cecropia 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) at (79/1/0); Scheduled end time 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wimt (talk · contribs) It gives me great pleasure to nominate Wimt for adminship. Wimt arrived on Wikipedia in June 2005, but after a year+ of inactivity, he returned back to Wikipedia in February 2007. Since then he has amassed nearly 21,000 edits across all the namespaces. He is primarily a vandal-fighter, but also does a bit of article work and engages in article discussion (AACS encryption key controversy is one example). Wimt has demonstrated a need for the tools, and shows that he has a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is also very civil, and is always there to help answer questions from new users. He's a prolific participant at AIV, with over 300 dead-on user and IP reports. He's an active commentator at WP:AN/I and WP:AN and stays updated on important items needing administrator attention. He also offers his valued opinion at Requests for comment/User names and helped transfer username issues to Usernames for administrator attention. He's requested a number of successful page protections, and participates extensively in XfDs. His prolific activity across the article namespace and the Wikipedia namespace shows that Wikipedia will definitely benefit from Wimt having the tools. I hope the community will agree with me that Wimt is an excellent candidate for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite - Since wimt joined the project propery (he registered in 2005 but made few edits) in February, he has amassed over 19,000 edits. I first encountered him at WP:RFCN, I have to say I never agree with him, but I am often taken aback by his thoughtful comments showing he is readily able to correctly interprete policy. Over 300 edits to AIV shows that he could really use that block button to cut out the middle step and save all us admins some work :-)! He has actually been a really good help with the transfer of username issues to UAA, often giving me pause for thought. Whenever I see Wimts name appear at AN or AN/I, I am abe to rest assured that the problem is in safe hands. I ask that you give him the mop and bucket as he will be an asset to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Many thanks for the nominations. Will (aka Wimt) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from The Sunshine Man I first encountered Will Wimt when he participated in my second RfA (when I edited as Tellyaddict) where he supported me even though it failed, his reasons were justified and very detailed and showed an excellent type skill for an admin. Since then; as Ryan and Nishkid64 said he has amassed an impressive 20,000 + edits and shown excellent work at AIV, I think Wimt would make a great addition to the admin team. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: A great deal of my time on Wikipedia is spent patrolling the recent changes, reverting vandalism / test edits and adding speedy tags to new pages. As such I have a good amount of experience in these areas. I foresee that my primary focus as an administrator would be in these areas, both in terms of helping with the almost permanent backlog at CSD and indeed working at AIV. As well as these, I will help out in other areas such as usernames for administrator attention, requests for page protection and the 3RR noticeboard. I already make many comments on discussions at AN and ANI and I would of course continue doing this as an admin. It is also worth pointing out that I always strive to make sure that I am properly familiar with the workings of pages that I am contributing to, so you can be sure that I won't leap in and make any rash decisions on pages with which I have little experience.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From my personal point of view, I do like to view the large amount of reversion of vandalism and test edits that I have performed among my best contributions. I find the distinction between the two a very important one, and always strive, insofar as it is reasonable, to assume that a new user might be making an innocent test rather than any kind of malicious vandalism. It is my great hope that from the large number of {{uw-test1}} messages that I have given out to IP users, I may have encouraged a few to follow proper avenues for testing and perhaps even create an account and become a valuable contributor to this project. The other thing that I try to do is always give a full explanation to new users as to why I have taken any individual action if they query me about it. This tends to occur most frequently when I tag band articles for speedy deletion under A7. One such example was this explanation I gave recently, after which it was particularly pleasing to receive a message from that user saying that he now understood why his band's article was being deleted.
In terms of articles, most of my contributions involve cleaning up and wikifying new articles. I am always very happy to clean up an article that evidently someone has spent a lot of effort writing, and just needs a little work from someone familiar with the ways of formatting articles on Wikipedia to bring it up to scratch. Whilst I am not one of the greatest article writers here myself, I have the utmost respect for those users that are, and I find that it is important to always keep in mind the fact that Wikpedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia.
2b.: Alright, what is/are your favorite article(s) that you have created, or... to what existing article(s) have you made the most significant improvement? Answer one or both questions, and list as many or as few titles as you would like. — CharlotteWebb 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
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: Of course, due to the nature of the fact that a lot of my edits involve the reversion of vandalism and marking pages for speedy deletion, I tend to get a lot of angry responses, conflict and abuse. Luckily, I am not the kind of person to be offended by any such comments and I always try to address conflicts by acting politely and calmly, regardless of their nature. I believe this can do a great deal to de-escalate any situation. I have been involved in a few frank exchanges of opinion in my time here, such as in the discussion over the AACS encryption key controversy, but I have always strived to remain polite and open to suggestions from all parties concerned. I do count myself as lucky in that I've never been in any major conflicts during my time here. However, if such a situation does arise in the future, I fully intend to address it in the same considered way as I have treated the all conflicts thus far. I also think that the WP:TEA page gives excellent advice for anyone involved in a conflict. It is really remarkable how beneficial a small break and a cup of tea can be if you are feeling a bit worked up over something.
4. The nomination says that you have been a registered editor since June 2005, but you became fairly inactive until returning in this February, where you jumped from two edits in January, to 4880 in February. If you don't mind sharing, what was the cause of this jump? --wpktsfs 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I am certainly quite happy to share the details of this. Basically to set things in perspective, I first joined Wikipedia back in June 2005 and was quite active for a couple of months. I then became rather inactive for about a year and a half. This in fact had nothing to do with Wikipedia but was due to the fact that I moved out of home to start university. What with having such an abrupt change in my life, living out of home for the first time and having to get to know a large number of unfamiliar people, Wikipedia got rather pushed onto the back foot. Thus during the intervening time period, I did not really actively edit - and the few contributions I made were generally typo fixes and such that I came across when randomly browsing for things. I also did make one or two edits as an anonymous user. In February 2007 then, I decided that I wanted to return to active editing on Wikipedia, and indeed did so quite dramatically, making a large number of edits. The reason this was so dramatic, I think, is because I quickly got back into the swing of my previous editing on Wikipedia. My life is now a lot more stable than it was when I first arrived at Wikipedia, so I certainly don't forsee myself disappearing again. I am quite happy for people to judge me as if I had joined the project in February, given my long period away before then. In fact though, I do find that my previous experience from back in June and July 2005 comes in quite handy on various occasions, especially when putting current events into perspective. I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

Optional question by AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: That's an interesting question. What I like most when reading Wikipedia is the fact that I tend to read a great range of topics that I wouldn't ever get round to finding out about otherwise. Whenever possible, I try to read the Featured Article each morning and often a fair few of the DYKs too. Two articles I found particularly interesting were Anton Chekhov and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. I think the reason these come to mind is that I didn't know that much about the subjects before reading them but I found them very readable accounts. In the case of Chekhov, to my shame, I knew little more about him than that he was a famous writer before I encountered the article. Likewise in the case of the grand prix article, I knew that the events of that particular race were very tragic, but I had never really read up on the full story before, due to it having occurred rather early in my life. They both therefore broadened my horizons somewhat. As well as this, there are also some articles on subjects I know more about that I have read and thought were particularly good descriptions. I would say cerebellum is good example of this. It is well structured and goes into a good amount of detail, although I imagine it could be quite heavy reading for someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. There are of course lots of other really interesting articles that I've read here, but I hope that's the kind of answer you were looking for.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wimt before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support, (Cremepuff does a little jig because he beat the nom. :) )Wimt is a prime example of what a well-rounded editor should be. He has over 20,000 edits (half of which are to the mainspace) and edits to most of the other namespaces. Wimt is an extraordinary vandal-whacker with over 300 reports to WP:AIV. Wimt has improved many articles (such as AACS encryption key controversy), which proves that he collaboratively improves the project. I have known Wimt for a while now, and I have no doubt that he'll effectively improve the project. *Cremepuff222* 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - I have known this user for over 5 months and I highly regard him as the best vandal fighter and he is also one of those editors who maintains civility at all times. He will be an asset as an admin and I hope he will be one cause we really do need a few more good admins fighting vandals.. :)..--Cometstyles 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spifflicatingly superb editor. Very good chap. Moreschi Talk 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Big cigar support. The Rambling Man 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Very strong support an excellent and very civil user, and has always remained that way whenever I have encountered him. Acalamari 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Has shown a need for tools, no reason to believe user will misuse tools. PGWG 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support, as per Cometstyles. I see nothing indicating that he will misuse the tools. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong opposesupport a great editor, and great guy, who can definitely be trusted to do some dull sysop chores. Majorly (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. An excellent editor. --Mschel 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support as nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support See no problems here. Happy mopping. —Gaff ταλκ 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support However I would like clarification - you do know this doesn't pay any money, right? It's just with the level of activity I can't see how you can hold down a job as well.... :) Pedro |  Chat  19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong support - as co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per above. Evilclown93(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per noms. Outstanding editor. κaτaʟavenoTC 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support good editor and meets my very low standard for admin (is this person a vandal or a troll? no - then he can become an admin). --Fredrick day 20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support-Great editor, who's work I've seen, a lot. Could really use the tools. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Often seen him in WP:AIV, and he always delivers accurate reports. If Nishkid and Ryan trust you, then I might as well trust you myself. Good luck! —Anas talk? 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support: I'll keep this shorter than Cremepuff222's !vote rationale: Wimt is a great editor who does nothing but stopping the spread of the virus known as "Vandalism". He could use the tools better than half of the sysops out there. « ANIMUM » 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support This guy is a freak! (not in a bad way) 7000 edits in a month?! Support of course. RuneWiki777 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Can't you find a better reason to support than editcountitis? Many others have. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I don't know how you find the time, but please come join us. The Vandals are at the gates! Seriously, grewat editor, excellent experience, potentially a marvellous admin.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support as a strong editor with solid experience. — Scientizzle 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Only one edit in the template talk namespace. And only 20,000 edits? Sorry, but I think admins should have edit counts with six digits; anything less and you could just be gaming the system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    ...so is that a support or an oppose? *Cremepuff222* 21:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's a support, he's was joking - read the edit summary when he added it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    There, I've made it a bit more outrageous. Hopefully that will eliminate any confusion. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, I'm dumb. :) *Cremepuff222* 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    You're not dumb. Most of us don't read every HTML comment or edit summary. Gutworth (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    And, to be fair, the HTML comment wasn't there until my "more outrageous" addendum. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. SupportHas shown a good need for the tools, and is dedicated to improving Wikipedia. SirFozzie 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Great! I see no reason to even think about going weak support, let alone neutral or oppose! Stwalkerster talk 21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Spotless record and purposeful --Javit 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per his answer to question four. --wpktsfs 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong support Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong edit conflict support. I've seen this user around RC patrolling before and he's always seemed completely sensible, and good at explaining things; the diff presented in question 2 about the deleted band article was spot on. Best of luck, - Zeibura Talk 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strong support, one of the more shocking "not an admin? RLY?" candidates in quite some time. · jersyko talk 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - I hate to say this, but per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. That "oppose" section below seems awfully unnecessary for this case ... -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I don't have anything specific to add, it has already been said. Per nom, and all above.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. A non-idiot. – Steel 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    =) Nishkid64 (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Fast postage, item just as described, good communication, no hassles. Would buy from again. However wished to nominate myself so must leave neutral feedback at this time Riana ⁂ 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    eBay now allows auctions on people! That's great! Maybe I should buy Bush and send him to the moon have him help my community :) (P.S. How much does it cost to ship a package over 100 pounds?) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe you should send Hilary Clinton to the moon. ^_^. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'd rather send her to that huge white house in D.C.. We still have 588 days of Bush left though. I think I'll bookmark that site, and remember to have a party when I watch it hit zero :). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm going to have a party when John McCain gets send to the White House in 588 days. ;-) ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Absolutely. GoodnightmushTalk 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support--Húsönd 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong support, one of the fine contributors that keep this place shipshape. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - I can see nothing but good things from this user. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support yup. KrakatoaKatie 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I see no reasons to oppose. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support absolutely – great vandal-fighter; adminship is no big deal. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support No problems. Many good things. Captain panda 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Very good editor who has a need for the tools. Good luck Wimt!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support A fantastic editor! Get the mop! Gutworth (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - fully deserves the tools. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  48. No problems here... --Dark Falls talk 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support 20,000 edits? No wonder it seems like I see the user's name everywhere! Ummm, per nom and others. Flyguy649talkcontribs 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  50. Good user. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  51. Oppose blatantly stole my sig! I've been confused for this... vandal... millions of times! I demand he be banned immediately! (j/k :P) Will (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support per all the comments above.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support for personal editcountitis reasons (just kidding), since this is an easy choice. I'm suprised he isn't an admin already. YechielMan 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support --Tone 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. Peacent 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I've been watching this page since the 4th, waiting for it to go live and the day it does: what happens to my internet connection? A fine contributor who can certainly be trusted. GDonato (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  57. wikipedia-eh-help cabal Support --After Midnight 0001 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - What I'm not going to oppose if I co-nominated him! The Sunshine Man 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  59. + The user can clean up on his own. Flourish the mop, welcome to hell. Keegan's sock 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Strong support, fights vandals like there's no tomorrow. (: Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure Wimt is glad of the support, but you already expressed it at #39. WjBscribe 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  60. Strong support. Has demonstrated that he knows what he's doing and is not (as far as I can judge) insane. WjBscribe 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  61. Oppose Three co noms Support. Sean William @ 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  62. I Black Harry, hereby support this fine candidate as there is no reason for him not to be sysopped. BH (T|C) 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. Neil ╦ 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support I encounter him at AfD quite often and he always provides a thorough rationale. He's beaten me to vandal reverts countless times, and reverted vandalism on my own user page before me quite a few times. Leebo T/C 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Terence 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong and Serious Support Same with User:Leebo's support. Wimt is very good at reverting vandalism and he also reverted vandalism on my user page as well a few times and he is a nice person. Can't wait until you become an admin, Wimt. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  67. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support per nom. Everything looks fine. —AldeBaer 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Got my vote...good editor. Jmlk17 09:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Plenty of good reasons given above - I agree.--VS talk 10:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  72. Strong Support He has a clean record, and is educated on Wiki Policy. I believe he will do fine! Politics rule 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  74. support, of course. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Strange, I thought I already voted. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  76. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  77. Should have been an admin already. Martinp23 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support, demonstrates the proficiency for adminship status. — N96 (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support. A little late, but still felt I should. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Moral support. I would support later after this person has more experience. This person's mainspace edit count is low (not counting anti-vandal bot reverts). Article creation is next to none as well as making an article really good (has only one article about encryption that he edited 20 times). The vast majority of the edits are in the last 3 months. He edits and doesn't discuss, which is bad. He edits 50 times per 1 article talk page edit. End of statement about this editor. //////// General comment: Please note socks like rms125a@hotmail.com may someday devote 3 months of time to easy vandal reverts. Building articles takes much more intellect and is harder to do. Socks usually aren't smart enough to edit over the long term. Once rms125a@hotmail.com becomes an admin, wikipedia becomes crap. Wimt, try again in a few months. Wikipedia isn't going away.UTAFA 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    To be fair, article creation isn't that big of a deal; I've been on Wikipedia for a year and four months, and an admin for 7, and I've still not created my first article. It's also fairly easy to involve yourself only in the article namespace without going to talk pages; just hitting the Random article link a few dozen times and editing what you find (without getting invested in the articles themselves) is quite easy to do. I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm just pointing out that the scenario you dislike is fairly easily achieved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    EVula, I'm not sure there's much point in arguing with the above trolling. It is coming from an editor with less than 50 edits total, whose participation on talk and user talk pages includes proposing a content fork to avoid conflict resolution [1] [2] and inviting a blocked user for an off-wiki discussion about conflict resolution [3]. The reasoning is so absurdly flawed that it reads like a parody of how low RfA arguments can sink. Pascal.Tesson 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    UTAFA has in fact only 38 edits, which do not indicate a deep understanding of wiki policy.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I concur with what Anthony bradbury said. Utafa has no more that 40- edits, and probaly has very little understanding of what wiki policy is. I would not worry about this NO vote. Politics rule 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Could not normally pass the criteria regarding high-quality article contributions according to RfA guide, however it would definitely not become civil to oppose this nomination. Therefore, I am neutral for now. – N96 01:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to support.
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.