Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wknight94

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] Wknight94

Final(67/0/0) Ended 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Wknight94 for adminship. Wknight94 has been an editor since October of 2005 where he has a ton of edits. He has written several excellent baseball articles like John Stearns and Tim Foli a Good article] and expanded many others like Ron Darling.

He has also done alot of general cleanup work including adding unreferenced tags and no cat tags to articles. He fights vandalism and spam [1] and warns them [2], welcomes users [3], and warns users when their article gets prodded [4] [5], participates in AFDs [6], copyright debates, CFDs and done alot of work with categories.

I think Wknight94 would make an excellent admin. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow! Well thanks for the nice nom. I accept. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as nominator Jaranda wat's sup 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - per nom -- Tawker 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, good editor, wasn't he an admin already? --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per above, I'm sure this user will be fine doing tedious admin labor. — Deckiller 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support His contributions to Wikipedia is immense. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom, everything looks good to me. --WinHunter (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. DarthVader 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support — The King of Kings 01:32 July 09 '06
  9. Support I offered to nominate him a few months ago and he said he wasn't ready yet. I've had good interactions with him and he seems to deal with criticism well from the one instance I remember where someone got insulting on his talk page. Lots of cleanup work, lots of content good work on the baseball articles in particular, should make a good admin. --W.marsh 01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support This Fire Burns.....Always 01:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, cliche sitation where I was sure he was an admin already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak support, I'm a bit leery because he has more edits in userspace than usertalkspace. ~Chris (squirrels!!) 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong support per explanation. ~Chris (squirrels!!) 02:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Response
    Please see this example When overhauling an article or creating a new one, I'll often make a sandbox page - in my user area - and do edits there first. You'll notice a lot of my new articles are full-fledged articles from the first edit - but that inflates my user area edit count. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    I actually think that shows a very professional stance, which actually convinces me even more. — Deckiller 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks like Wknight would make a good admin. Prodego talk 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Edit Conflict Support, will be a hard working admin. Roy A.A. 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. Can certainly be trusted with the tools - I'm particularly impressed with the professional use of a sandbox, mentioned above. RandyWang (raves/rants) 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Amazing Support! Nowadays, many Wikipedians don't have anything as prolific as his progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support good grasp of what is the task at hand for a sysop. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Merovingian {T C @} 04:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Looking forward to answering my questions, but it seems everyone is at peace with this user, so I'll add my own vote. Axiomm 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support good stuff hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Weak Support, these 7 month old edits don't shout civility[7][8], other than that I'm bought.--Andeh 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. I'm bought - CrazyRougeian talk/email 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. me too.Voice-of-All 10:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Well I'm convinced, seems very professional. TruthCrusader 11:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - Nice contributor, no worries. Mário 12:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Yanksox 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support I can't add anything else, so Good luck! --WillMak050389 14:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, a clear asset and a model of dedication and good behaviour. Here's someone I'll easily entrust with the mop and bucket. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, good work done. --Terrancommander 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support per response to last question. Mostly Rainy 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Good question answers. Mangojuicetalk 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Excellent answers, including the good discretion exercised on the kumquats. Agent 86 19:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Excellent contributor, and also deserved to be an admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 19:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Excellent editor per above, theres no reason why you shouldn't be given the mop Minun (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Will be good admin --rogerd 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Per questions and the countless edits. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Good answers, well-rounded, don't have any hesitation to support. Themindset 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support why not? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - devoted users make good admins, also I like his answers. abakharev 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support--Jusjih 01:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. SushiGeek 01:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, excellent user, tons of article edits, including a good article, plenty of reversions, good activity in Wikipedia namespace. --Evan Robidoux 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Great contributor. — TKD::Talk 06:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Solid and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Robert 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support: --Bhadani 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)\
  50. Support. Narf. Alphachimp talk 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - Seems like a good candidate... Michael 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - --A. B. 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Strong Support You'll be an awesome admin mate. ShaunES 05:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
  55. Support Joe I 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. 12,000 edits!?!?!?!? Imhungry talk to me here 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-13 04:21Z
  59. Support. Model behaviour and editing. An excellent wikipedian who'll be an excellent administrator. -- I@n ≡ talk 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Good, strong candidate who meets my criteria. --Wisden17 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support Geo. 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. I have often seen this user making positive contributions, and I support his adminship. -Will Beback 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Great answers. Very confident in Wknight94 abilities as an admin.Agne27 05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Impressive. No reason to hold back the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd(?!?) 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Good answers to the questions, overwhelming support from other editors, I'm certain he will make a great admin. Dionyseus 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Wknight94 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 95 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 09, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 5, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 86.24% Minor edits: 99.06%
Average edits per day: 19.9 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 787 edits) : Major article edits: 99.42% Minor article edits: 99.02%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1.56% (78)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.06% (103)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 74.7% (3735)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 5.54%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4069 | Average edits per page: 1.23 | Edits on top: 12.94%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 81.88% (4094 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 4.1% (205 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.28% (364 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.5% (325 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 85.32% (4266) | Article talk: 1.26% (63)
User: 4.24% (212) | User talk: 4.16% (208)
Wikipedia: 2.92% (146) | Wikipedia talk: 0.06% (3)
Image: 0.34% (17)
Template: 0.08% (4)
Category: 1.56% (78)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.04% (2)

Username Wknight94
Total edits 12120
Distinct pages edited 8375
Average edits/page 1.447
First edit 01:38, 5 September 2005
 
(main) 8680
Talk 204
User 900
User talk 839
Image 144
Image talk 2
Template 33
Template talk 5
Help 1
Category 325
Category talk 4
Wikipedia 949
Wikipedia talk 30
Portal 4
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: I would allot some time for WP:RCP and WP:ANI but would probably concentrate on things in and related to CAT:ABL. But I would honestly spend more time on non-admin stuff than admin stuff. I'd probably patrol areas like speedy deletions and I'm reasonably handy with WP:AWB so I'd do category moves as well. Generally, I'd probably go wherever the most help is needed - if it's fighting vandalism, I'm on it - if it's cleaning up backlog at WP:RM, count me in.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I try to give careful thought and effort into every edit but I do occasionally try to pump as much info as I can find into individual articles to make Wikipedia the best source on the internet for those subjects. Those have included a few baseball biography articles, a few articles on old political figures, a few articles involving celebrity criminals and crime victims, etc. And yes, I often try to focus on subjects that are a little more obscure like 19th century Florida senators and baseball players from the 1970s - things that haven't already been covered ad infinitum.  :)
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: Oh sure, I'd be surprised if anyone has avoided stress 100% here. I've dealt with it to varying degrees of self-satisfaction but I'm generally good about letting things slide by. If an area is particularly stress-causing, I avoid it. I see that admins who fight vandalism get their user pages and talk pages vandalized a lot - that wouldn't cause me stress at all. Pathetic attempts at retribution like that are usually more amusing than stressful. If a more reasonable disagreement arises, I let the available policies guide me and am perfectly happy if a fair consensus can be reached - even if it's not in favor of my opinion.
4. Question from Axiomm: How are you willing to handle the following situations:
  • You tag a user as a "sockpuppet" and the user removes it. Would you leave that person alone or would you retag?
  • I would retag immediately and explain to the user that s/he would need to go through proper channels to get the tag removed, just as the proper channels were followed to get the tag attached in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is people don't understand the guidelines in regards to whether a user's homepage should be tagged. I trust however that you'll be patient with users and use proper judgement. Axiomm 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well yes. As I said, I would explain why I tagged their user page - and I would direct them to the applicable policies and processes. But, if I am the one who added the tag in the first place - as your scenario specifies - then I applied it for a reason and it should not be removed except by an admin. Even if the WP:SSP process is complete and they are deemed not to be a sockpuppet, an admin would still be the one removing the tag. (Sorry if I'm belaboring the point.) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You block a user indefinitely and that user naturally thinks you acted unfairly and requests an unblock. Would you post a denial notice or would you let another admin handle it? Axiomm 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would let another admin handle it. There is nothing wrong with letting someone get a second opinion, esp. in the arena of block lengths which seem to be more discretionary. —
  • Very good answer. A lot of users get blocked because the blocker only assumes that the user is guilty. WP:FAITH must be followed. Axiomm 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Mangojuicetalk:

1. What do you see as the difference between an admin involved in an editing dispute and a non-admin involved in an editing dispute? Would being an admin help you resolve editing disputes, and if so, how?
A: If anything, I think an admin needs to be even more mindful of being civil and fair in an edit dispute. Being an admin would not help me in editing disputes which involve me. I don't believe in admin's using admin powers to resolve their own disputes. Even when the powers are used appropriately, it gives the appearance of impropriety. Being an admin would help in resolving edit disputes which don't involve me since I would be free to police WP:3RR violations and vandalism, etc.
2. If Wikipedia was fruit, what type of fruit would it be, and why?
A: Oh, clearly apples because the outside is tasty and yummy and, at the core lies the seeds of life which help the fruit spread throughout the world. (Too serious??)
You get asked that question by a tasty and juicy Mango and you don't take the chance to make at least a little joke? I'm disappointed in you, dear Wknight! :) (j/k!) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies! Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of fruit-related humor in my arsenal. Everything that started with "Two kumquats walk into a bar..." just became too distasteful!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from M inun (Spiderman)

Is there any special administrator tasks you would like to take part in? M inun (Spiderman) 18:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean besides my answer to the first #1 above? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I didn't notice question #1, sorry about that, M inun (Spiderman) 08:27, 16 July 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.