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

Waggers[edit]

Final (35/0/1); Ended Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:03:13 (UTC)

Waggers (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination. I've been active on Wikipedia since February 2006 and have accumulated well over 5,000 edits in that time, across all namespaces (over 3,000 in the main article namespace). I've written a good amount of content in numerous articles, mainly on UK geography, British people and hospitals. I've also been involved in various forms of cleanup, including categorisation, RC patrol & vandalism fighting as well as a bit of double-redirect fixing and fixing links to disambiguation pages. I've created and help maintain two portals, and I'm an active member of five wikiprojects. Waggers 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm tempted to decline a self-nomination just for amusement's sake, but I think I'll accept.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: In my mind, there are two major groups of sysop chores that need the most attention. Firstly there are those which are urgent in nature, such as speedy deletion candidates, AIV, copyright violations etc. Secondly, there are those less urgent chores that have built up a significant backlog. If successful, I intend to help wherever I can, but paying particular attention to that first group of most urgent tasks. I expect I'll also help out in those areas with less of a backlog, to prevent more backlogs from occurring. My aim is to be flexible and to meet need wherever it occurs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've spent a fair bit of time building up the articles on the districts of Southampton (and the surrounding area) and the hospitals in Southern Hampshire. I've done a fair bit of research (not original, of course - just looking stuff up in books or online) into some of the history behind those places. I've also created several stubs which I've enjoyed expanding with other users into fully fledged articles. I'm also quite pleased with the Hampshire Portal.
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: There are a few IP users that have questionned the vandalism warnings placed on their user talk pages, but that's par for the course. Probably my worst scuffle was when I was trying to implement the neutral language aspect of MOS, altering "different than" (acceptable in the US but not the UK) and "different to" (vice versa) into "different from" (acceptable pretty much everywhere). A user seemed to think I was trying to impose UK English over US English and neither of us handled it well to begin with, although we eventually calmed down and reached an amicable solution. There was also a conflict over the Galatasaray Football Club article which spread to the Football Hooliganism article, in which I attempted to act as mediator between two warring factions; I managed to get the two parties to engage in discussion and a satisfactory outcome ensued.
Optional question from – Luna Santin (talk)
4. Easy to forget how large of a community Wikipedia is; I don't think I've run into you, before, so I thought I might ask two questions. First, could you describe one or more circumstances in which the use of your admin tools would NOT be appropriate?
Probably the most obvious answer is in a situation where I know another administrator disapproves of my proposed action, as described in WP:WHEEL. There may be times when a decision I make may be contentious, and I intend to avoid getting into any such situation during my first three months or so as an admin while I learn the ropes. My golden rule is going to be that if an administrative action I intend to take isn't clearly backed up by Wikipedia policy, it needs discussing first.
5. Second (er, fifth?), I notice you haven't enabled an email address for your account (Special:Emailuser/Waggers returns an error) -- would you plan on enabling email if/when you became an admin?
Yep. The reason I haven't enabled email up to now is to avoid the temptation of "behind the scenes" discussions. Since the mantra is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, I felt that discussions should be in the open to ensure thorough accountability. As an administrator though I'm sure there are things that require a greater degree of discretion, and so I'll enable email. In fact, I'll go and enable email right now!
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Looks like a good user, very good article contributor, submissions to AIV and good vandal reversion and warnings - could do with the tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Excellent contributions in the AIV. --Meno25 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Would like to see more mainspace non-vandal contributing, but there's enough there that along with his track record and a look at recent posts I'll say he can be trusted/benifit from the tools. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support-Seems good. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Ryanpostlethwaite. Acalamari 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A good admin candidate to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom and things like this. Edit countitis per WP:WBE box on user page is a major concern, but still. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite appearances, I actually share your concerns about editcountitis. I should make it clear on my user page that the stats are there purely for interest and don't hold any weight as to my usefulness. I'll make that change shortly. Waggers 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Just a friendly note: the only CSD categories that are "urgent" are G1 (nonsense, but some of it is offensive), G3 (vandalism), G9 (office actions), G10 (attack pages), and T1 (inflammatory templates) - correct me if I missed some. The others are not so urgent; if it waits 24 hours, it will still get deleted eventually. "Speedy deletion" only means that it doesn't have to go through any formal process. But that's a minor boo-boo, and no reason to oppose a solid candidacy. YechielMan 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that advice, it's much appreciated. Waggers 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seems to be a good, well-rounded person to have the tools. - Denny 05:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Anas talk? 09:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Terence 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Seems to be a very solid editor and needs the mop. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Michael 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per excellent work on portals, very helpful, active vandal fighter, competent mediator and solid article writing. Addhoc 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support solid, experienced user.-- danntm T C 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Clear dedication to the project. Good contributions. --Infrangible 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Looks good. -Mschel 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Glad to see that you nominated yourself, Waggers. Fine AIV work, good candidate. -- Jreferee 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - looks like a fine content contributor and a level-headed one. And we need more admins, etc. So thumbs up. Will doubtless acquire more familiarity with process if needed. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support excellent and dedicated contributed.-- danntm T C 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already expressed your support :-). See #16. WjBscribe 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Good user from what I can tell--$UIT 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support seems like a good and trustworth user... Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I feel that this user can be trusted with the tools. A possible slight obsession with edit counts does not affect his potential as an admin.--Anthony.bradbury 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. SupportI have looked at your talk page archives and have noticed that you treat others in a very civil manner. You also seem to be a responssible person and have a need for the tools. Good luck!:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per others, fine answers to my questions. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe this user will abuse the tools. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I was going to oppose, based on the acceptance statement—just for amusement's sake...but decided not to... Tomertalk 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Terence 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already up at #11, mate :) – Riana talk 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good. – Riana talk 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, no signs he'll abuse the tools.--Wizardman 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support - Active article writer, self-nom with lots of edits who sees adminship as just a tool for helping out with chores and general upkeep? This is my perfect candidate. Milto LOL pia 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I think Twas Now's concern is legitimate, but Waggers's answer is adequate. Just don't act on any policy you aren't sure you understand, and you won't break anything. — coelacan — 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. WjBscribe 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I don't see a lot of Wikipedia-space edits, which is a general indicator of ones knowledge of (or concern for) policy. (You do have 71 edits to WP:AIV, but most of these are from July 2006 or earlier.) The Wikipedia-space is where the vast majority of discussions important to administrators occurs (policy, disputes, bans, assistance, etc.), and active participation with policy-related issues would significantly help you in making decisions as an admin. You might see how other admins behave and thus learn the proper boundaries, or you may simply keep up with the latest developments in policy (for example, WP:A as an amalgamation of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS). However, I am not opposing your RfA on this basis because I do not consider it serious enough to be detrimental to your use of the admin tools, and I see you are a diligent editor. I think you would be a good admin, but consider this a caution. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for those comments, you make a very good point. Whatever the outcome of this RFA, I will make an effort to get more involved in the WP namespace. Waggers 08:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This brings me a little dismay, as someone who generally likes to be left alone by admins, and who is generally denied their wish due to restlessness of admins looking for a problem to solve: most of the admins who most readily come to my mind do so by being well-known, which means they've probably ditched mainspace and spend the majority of their time in WP space and user talk space bothering other people and getting into fights. I think his focus on mainspace is encouraging, and in my opinion, somewhat who is interested mainly in helping out with chorey tasks like backlogs and speedy deletes need not be involved in making policy as long as he reads up on it. I for one would love to see more admin candidates with Waggers' focus on articles and not drama and rules, and with his casual approach to adminship. Milto LOL pia 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category