Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Worldtraveller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Worldtraveller

final (49/1/0) ending 08:25 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Worldtraveller (talk · contribs) is an editor who's provided us with several featured articles and some great work on articles for the Wikipedia Signpost. I was surprised to see he wasn't an admin yet, despite the fact he could find good use for the rollback button in his fight against vandalism and the option to delete to facilitate complicated moves and merges. I also find his dealing with other contributors on talk pages a good example for others how to deal with each other. I think Worldtraveller would make a great addition to the administrator team. Mgm|(talk) 08:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
Thank you very much for the nomination! I accept. Worldtraveller 11:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Of course, I support my own nominees! Mgm|(talk) 08:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think we should keep it real. - Darwinek 09:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. I know this user from WP:FAC, and I'm afraid I can't agree with User:Everyking. Worldtraveller has always diligently addressed other users' concerns about the (excellent) articles he submitted to FAC. And, in case he didn't agree with objections, he has always explained why. Support. Phils 10:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. He isn't one already? You cannot be serious. Extreme double-plus support. —Korath (Talk) 10:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. I've seen great work from Worldtraveller, and should have made the nomination myself. - Taxman 12:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, the number of featured articles he has produced speaks for itself. Rje 12:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Definitely support, great editor -- Ferkelparade π 12:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Kingturtle 17:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Worldtraveller's edits and dealings with other users look great. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  10. dab (ᛏ) 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Seems to be quite civil in dealings with even obstreperous users. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Anyone who's willing to edit in the Ashlee Simpson Empire, and can do so without resorting to revert wars, would seem to have what it takes to be an admin. --Carnildo 18:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I see lot of help with dealing with vandals, thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Set this mop and bucket to stun. Dbiv 19:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Certainly support. Isomorphic 20:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support.-gadfium 20:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Definitely. ugen64 21:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Merovingian (t) (c) 00:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Very much so. — Dan | Talk 00:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. I have been trying to think of a good way to say "me too", without saying "me too". I am useless. Me too! Grace Note 05:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Of course. +sj + 05:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Adminship is long overdue. Zzyzx11 | Talk 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support - one of Wikipedia's best editors — his writing and scholarship are always of high quality, and he is a responsive collaborator. He would make a good admin. Fawcett5 12:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. Good dealings with this user. Support. JuntungWu 14:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Based on edits, appears this editor will make good use of admin powers. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. No reason to believe this is anything but a good idea. Kelly Martin 17:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Thoroughly deserving of adminship, and I saw him on TV the other night! — Trilobite (Talk) 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. A TV star, wooo! Appears to be scholarly and consensus-oriented. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Undoubtedly qualified. Emsworth 19:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Theo (Talk) 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  31. Neutralitytalk 01:09, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. His work in the Signpost shows he knows policy, and he seems fair, balanced and knowledgable. Sjakkalle 08:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Valuable and trustwrthy editor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. If Worldtraveller isn't considered qualified, the rest of us may as well resign right now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Very good editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support: You betcha. He does great work. (How can someone be a "deletionist" when they write articles that are not only good, but featured quality? That makes no sense.) Geogre 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support; an obvious one. Likely to be a superb admin. Antandrus 20:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support- JCarriker 22:57, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support - A great editor who would likely make a good admin. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support — little doubt that he'd make a very good admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. Hello World!--Bishonen | talk 19:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support: great editor, works well with others, and donates lots of lovely photos as well. Jonathunder 00:11, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  44. Andre (talk) 18:23, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Looking at his edits, I like him a lot better than I like myself for admin. JRM · Talk 22:07, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  47. El_C 04:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support - I may be away, but that won't stop me voting for these two. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  49. Of course! David Cannon 05:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. In my experience, he's contentious and stubborn, and also strongly deletionist. Despite weeks of effort I was unable to get him to make even the slightest concession in a long-running content dispute. I think an admin ought to at least show some sort of willingness to compromise, and not be utterly intractable. We have a few admins already who think it's either their way or the highway, and I find that kind of attitude doesn't suit adminship very well. Everyking 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    For someone who's strongly deletionist, he hasn't edited deletion-related pages very much at all (30 edits total, by my count). Not to put words in your mouth, but I rather suspect the ones prompting opposition are these three: [1] [2] [3] —Korath (Talk) 10:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    No, my complaint regards his stated belief that an encyclopedia should be nothing more than a collection of brief summaries and his revert warring to remove verifiable content on that basis, even when another user is strongly protesting that the deleted content is in fact notable. If I thought it was just limited to that particular subject, it wouldn't bother me much. Everyking 10:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Personally, I find strong deletists and strong inclusionists are both equally wrong. Everyking, could you back that vote with evidence diffs? 131.211.210.10 11:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I'm only a moderate inclusionist, but I'm not the one being voted on. Yeah, I could hypothetically back it with links. Perhaps I will add some later, if I feel like digging up the evidence. Everyking 11:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    The issue here is that Everyking wanted to include the equivalent of maps of the locations of every wart on Ashlee Simpson's butt, and no one else agreed. Wikipedia doesn't need to include every single verifiable fact in existence. I'm assuming Worldtraveller was simple unwilling to cave to Everyking's obsession. From everything I can see, Worldtraveller was acting on consensus. - Taxman 12:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't want to rehash this stuff, nor do I think that kind of rudeness really warrants a response, but OK: I don't want Wikipedia to include every verifiable fact in existence, not by a long shot. Only notable information, and only when that information does not face a rough consensus of opposition. Instead of "unwilling to cave" you should say "unwilling to give an inch despite endless compromise proposals and attempts at reason". Everyking 12:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I am afraid I believe Everyking has gravely misrepresented the situation in which our opinions clashed. I hope this link to some relevant discussion will illustrate the real nature of the dispute. Worldtraveller 16:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Kate's counting tool indicates 2704 edits since he started here. Mgm|(talk) 08:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • For completeness' sake, and because, while edit counting in general is dumb, just looking at a single number is worse: 1527/201 to articles/talk, 341/41 to Wikipedia/talk, 167/101 to User/talk, 263/1 to Image/talk, 36/12 to Template/talk, and 11/3 to Category/talk. —Korath (Talk) 10:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Rollback would certainly be very useful for a start. Would be handy to be able to do the complex page moves as well. I know there's several areas requiring admin attention which have quite a backlog (eg WP:CfD and WP:IfD), and I'm sure I'll see what I can do to help out with that kind of work.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm very pleased with each of the ten articles I've helped work up to featured status, particularly Silverpit crater and Kreutz Sungrazers, which I started from scratch. I'm also pleased with work I've done on topics which are too minor or about which there is not enough info to ever be featurable, but which nonetheless now have decent articles with images and references, e.g. Boltysh crater, post-glacial rebound, Herbig-Haro object. I've also enjoyed writing regularly for the Signpost over the last couple of months.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. As you might gather from Everyking's vote, I managed to get involved in the skirmishes over Ashlee Simpson-related articles. Unfortunately, my own perspective was that it was Everyking who was being stubborn and unwilling to make the slightest concession, and in that case I was happy to explain my views in a request for comment posted by someone else, which later led to an arbitration case backing that viewpoint. Other than that, I don't think I've been involved in any conflicts - unless you count this, which was a pleasure to be involved in!