Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Varizer (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 5 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wgfinley

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley|action=edit}} Vote here] (25/2/1) ending 00:39 Wednesday, January 11 (UTC)

Wgfinley (talk · contribs) – Wgfinley has been a Wikipedian since July 2004. He's done good work in dispute resolution and in dealing with fair use images; he's an intelligent, reasonable person who cares about the quality of the project and he's recently decided he could use the tools. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm flattered by the nomination and gladly accept. --Wgfinley 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First one for free... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Very impressed with his work on images. Getting the rights to the AP images alone makes him admin-worthy in my mind. (Although I must ask why the images have a notice that they'll soon be deleted? Does this mean all Wgfinley's work was in vain? Probably should make an exception for famous images where permission has been granted.)--Alabamaboy 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Yes please! Good user, will be a great addition. Rx StrangeLove 02:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nominator and candidates editing history.--MONGO 02:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cliché support. I'm surprised Wgfinley isn't an admin already. He has a level head and keen awareness of Wikipedia procedures. He could definitely make good use of admin tools. --Deathphoenix 04:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support based on good edit spread and nice edits. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - based on the way the user dealt with some nominations below. -- Szvest 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  10. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. David | Talk 09:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. An impressively helpful user. More admins interested in mediation and assistance is a great thing. jnothman talk 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Helpful and reasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Solid editor, helpful, will make a great admin. -- Jbamb 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I agree with Jbamb. Thryduulf 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Normally with such a low number of edits in en.wikipedia I would question the breadth of the user's experience in the community. However, because of WG's success in obtaining the AP agreements on the images, I will make this exception. Good work WG. Kingturtle 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support Your my fellow AMA member! BUt seriously you will make a good admin. Some forget that some people can contribute very well with a few, brilliant edits rather than 50,000 "minor edits. Lets remember: "Its meant to be no big deal" --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. -- Phædriel 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, I don't know him very well, but his work on the Kelly Martin RfC convinced me that he has a level head on his shoulders. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support; absolutely. Fine candidate. Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. King of All the Franks 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Though I disagree with his position in the Great Userboxen Conflagration, I think anyone who is passionate about mediation will make for a very helpful admin. Babajobu 01:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Even if he has a low edit count, I will trust him as an admin because of some of his contributions as an editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support fine editor --rogerd 04:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Great user. Neutralitytalk 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose only 1400 edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.9.46 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak oppose. --Kefalonia 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Seems too arrogant and self-righteous, another Kelly Martin in the making. Just like her, he suggests, without concrete evidence, that people who use userboxes are not contributing to the encyclopedia. Quote: "WHO CARES if we alienate a few people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia?" [1] And I don't care about userboxes myself, but this is just not an acceptable way to deal with the community. There's no evidence that anyone here is "more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia". People who use userboxes are typically editors in good standing like anyone else, and any decision to delete userboxes will have to be made in consensus and not dictated by the likes of Kelly. We don't need another admin with a "screw process" attitude. Varizer 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I've ever said "screw process", as a matter of fact, Phil Sandifer once said I "have a tendency towards rules lawyering" [2] which I believe would be the exact opposite of "screw process". If you examine my advocacy concerning Netoholic's and Instantnood's arbitration cases I think you'll find I tend to side more on process, policy and procedure.
    • Regarding user boxes, the discussion on the email list is personal opinions on the matter and I certainly don't think it's fair that you snipped one sentence from an email where I gave my position in great detail (although I do thank you for linking to the full email). I gave my opinion to be considered for the community when developing a policy on them. My personal preference regarding user boxes wouldn't affect my judgment as an admin. --Wgfinley 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is totally not about your preference regarding user boxes. That wasn't the reason for the uproar about Kelly either. It was about her unilateralism, arrogance, and contempt of community opinion, and you endorsed her behaviour in the RfC. That would be enough reason to oppose, your mailing list message just confirms it. If you don't believe in "screw process" you could not have supported Kelly, because that's precisely what she did. Varizer 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You said above that I believe "people who use user boxes are not contributing to the encyclopedia" and I was just trying to point out that is not true and that should be clear to those who read the full email. My position is if people quit the project over not being able to use a certain user box they would not be missed and I stand by that statement. You compared me to Kelly and her "screw process" statement, I pointed out in the past where others have felt otherwise about me and those who read Kelly's RfC will find I wrote an outside view [3] that certainly did not give Kelly a pass, nor did it endorse the "screw process" remark that you referred to. While I certainly agree with IAR and I felt Kelly was acting in good faith I didn't endorse all of her behavior. However, I don't think this is the place to rehash that RfC, I just wanted to make sure those voting who aren't familiar would have full context. You are welcome to your opinion, I understand your vote, but I felt you were misrepresenting some of my positions. --Wgfinley 07:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to rehash that RfC except insofar as I consider it relevant to this RfA. The fact is that (your separate outside view notwithstanding) you directly endorsed Kelly's response to the main complaint, with the flippant comment "What do you call 10,000 user boxes at the bottom of the ocean?" Nothing to misrepresent about that. And the idea that people might quit the project over not being able to use a certain user box is a pure strawman, since no one has done so and no one likely will; however, people may (and some have already - latest example Miborovsky) quit over the fact that certain admins seem to think they're infallible and anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid and therefore they'll continue to do whatever they want - and get away with it. Varizer 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The user did an excellent job with those Associated Press-permissions, though he has made less than 1500 edits in one year and a half, and his edit/page average is 3,2 (!). I'll be glad to support if he's going to be more active, but now's not the time.SoothingR 15:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 76% for major edits and 57% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 115 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis user box signifies the problem many are having -- His it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a user template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --172.141.198.154 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Comment I am simply commenting that you have an impressive record, however I will not vote because I have never met you before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Link9er (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Since I've done a lot of work with AMA and helped start up the Mediation Cabal I have been very involved in dispute resolution so I believe that I would spend a lot of time on AN/I trying to resolve disputes that come there because that is a good deal of what gets posted there. I combat vandalism but like to edit more so am not fanatical about it but I keep a pretty large watch list so I will certainly help there as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The thing I'm most proud of was getting the Associated Press to give us permission for Joe Rosenthal's picture of the flag raising on Iwo Jima and Nick Ut's picture of Kim Phuc Phan Thi and others at Trang Bang, Vietnam. I thought that was important to show we can get support from "the man" for this project and if we try to work with them we can. Of course working as an advocate has been something I am also very proud of and I argued some of the most complex cases of note before the ArbCom. Finally, if you poke around Watergate and its related articles you will see where I've done a lot of work with PD photos and the articles themselves.
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. I certainly have seen my fair share of conflict and have been stressed at times. I think that taking a wikibreak is the key to conflict resolution many times. In our community we are so used to things happening instantaneously and we expect conflict resolution to work that way too and it doesn't. I try to always see the other side of an argument and will frequently look for the common ground to be made between opposing parties. I have my opinions, I'll give them freely and directly, but when I get into conflict resolution mode I try to check my biases at the door.

--Wgfinley 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Can you explain comment 38 on the talk page? SPUI said your edit verged on vandalism. Thanks. KI 02:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I disagree with SPUI over this of course. I'm not very familiar with TfD, I have voted from time to time but I've never done templates for deletion, I'm more familiar with IfD. So I applied an IfD practice to it, at first I noticed I put the wrong type of delete [4] but I used the {{db|ARTICLE}} format, I found the {{nonsense}} template and then realized that patent nonsense really wasn't applicable to this case (like I said, I'm not big on deletion reasons that are non-image related) so I switched it to what it should have been in the first place (by my reasoning) which is {{attack}}.[5]. In between that time an anon reverted me with a pretty unpleasant message [6]. So, to be clear my first two are a mistake on my part and on this 3rd change I've gotten it to the deletion criteria I want to use.
At that point the anon reverted me for the first time with some more unpleasant words [7] and claims I'm "vandalizing" to nominate the template for deletion. I then revert him stating I'm not vandalizing by nominating it for speedy delete [8]. The anon reverts me saying "knock it out (sic)" [9]. By this point I'm asking for some admin help on IRC and I revert him noting he's reverted my nomination twice without any explanation other than calling me names [10]. The anon reverts me again saying that he's not revert warring (gasp) and that I can't use speedy for that template [11]. At that point an MarkGallagher stepped in, said that he thought it should go to TfD, I said fair enough, he protected the article, and it was moved to TfD after some corrections to where the TfD template should go so as not to populate the entire wiki with the deletion notice. The anon was blocked for violation 3RR [12]. Somehow SPUI believe my actions were "close" to vandalism, I don't know what he means for it was clear I just wanted the template up for deletion and I was trying to get to the right way to do that. I still stand by my position that was speedy criteria and I'm certain now that others would disagree but that's a decision for admins evaluating speedy requests to make. --Wgfinley 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wgfinley&oldid=33947970"