Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WAvegetarian

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YankeeFan2006 (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 24 July 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WAvegetarian|WAvegetarian]]: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WAvegetarian

Discuss here (41/0/2) Ending 15:03, 2006-07-30 (UTC)

WAvegetarian (talk · contribs) – WAvegetarian is a veteran Wikipedia user who has been editing Wikipedia since 31st May 2005, and has more than 4200 edits. He has been very active on new pages patrol and has more than 1000 deleted edits to this day. He shows a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and actively participates in AfDs. Connor is also an active RC Patroller and has a keen eye for vandalism. He is also very active on the Help Desk and always offers a helping hand to newcomers. This rational, intelligent and civil user would not abuse the responsibilty bestowed to administrators, and should be provided with the appropriate tools. Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I-beat-the-nominator-support :) — FireFox 15:15, 23 July '06
  2. Support This Fire Burns Always 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Meaty Support, excellent user. High points definitely make up for Yanksox's concern in my opinion (but please do take that criticism into account after this RfA). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No red flags as far as I can see. WAvegetarian appears to take part in a wide range of activities on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, please. Misza13 T C 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support per neutral section. Look quite good otherwise. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Things seemed a lot better until I saw those edits in the neutral section. Everything else is in order, though, and nobody can be perfect. Alphachimp talk 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: I've seen this user around and there's nothing worrisome for me. Catamorphism 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seivad 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. He'll make good use of the admin tools. Canderson7 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I agree with Neutral 1 and 2, but it still looks to me like this user could use the admin tools, and those examples don't really show anything that would suggest he would misuse them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've had...quite an experience with WAvegetarian when I was first starting out here. Obviously, I've changed. He is an excellent vandal fighter; I've had first hand experience! (In fact, I was planning to nominate him, darn!) Thistheman 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. That's so hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian - Talk 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. good user, his reputation proceeds him. Highway Return to Oz... 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Edit conflict Support This editor seems to have a sensible grasp of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, judging by the spread of edits and the answers below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yeah, support. JohnnyDemon 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per nominator. Reggae Sanderz 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I'm impressed by his answers and his contribs are top notch imho - great candidate all right. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support (despite what another admin candidate, Yanksox, has to say below). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support. Weak due to concern raised by Yanksox. Roy A.A. 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support definitely, a good contributor who will make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support solid contributor who I'm sure will make a solid administrator hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I was neutral, but a more thorough look at WAveg's contributions and community interactions convinces me that he is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and that his having the tools is likely to benefit the project, so I, my concerns about the issue raised by Yanksox notwithstanding, support. Joe 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support for fellow RC Patroller. Pass the mop! E Asterion u talking to me? 23:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per RandyWang. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Seems like a great user. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Go Bulldogs! --Michael Snow 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'd have to say this here is a pretty hefty support! bd2412 T 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. A 16oz Cut of Meat Support I've been looking for this RfA all summer. Teke 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. DarthVader 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support From what I have seen is a good user, should make good use of the admin tools. --blue520 05:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --A. B. 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support I have had recent dealings with this user and a troublesome third user and I think they have been nothing but professional in their dealings. ViridaeTalk 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. 1ne 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. great big bags o'Support I like the answers given to the questions. TruthCrusader 07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom. --Draicone (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Go Yankees 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose


Neutral
  1. Neutral Seems like a good user, but I'm little worried about this considering that the candidate listed this as being an article that he is proud of. This may seem ridiculous, but that section seems unencylopedic and intended for people that go to/did go to/will go to the school. Yanksox 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my response to the associated optional question below. In direct response to this vote: One of the ways that our project is used is as a neutral review and source of information on companies, places, schools and organizations. While I can't say how widespread it is, I know many people who have "googled" potential dates, employees, employers, etc. We are now being used in the same way. Anecdotally I can say that many people I know used Wikipedia in their college search to get neutral information on schools. The Seattle Public Schools allow you to pick your own school to some degree so I don't see any problem with providing neutral information about the culture of the school to potential students and parents. This of course opens up a whole 'nother issue over what way we expect/want people to use Wikipedia. I'm quite certain that there is a more appropriate space to do this than my RfC. If there is a current discussion about this, either here or on meta, please let me know as I would love to be involved in it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Yanksox. I don't think the candidate actually wrote that section or should be opposed over it, but one would hope that a Wikipedia admin would know that kind of speculation about random school employees and people and so on is utterly unencyclopedic and needs to go. --W.marsh 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have removed the two really troubling items, see [1] for the earlier version. --W.marsh 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per YankSox and W.Marsh. Joe 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
    Again, please see my reasoning in the response to Yanksox' question.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user WAvegetarian (over the 4311 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 388 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 11.02 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 355 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4311 edits shown on this page and last 30 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.3% (13)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.62% (70)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.53% (799)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 47.75%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 26 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2057 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 12.34%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.56% (2352 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.39% (879 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.33% (747 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.31% (272 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 36.12% (1557) | Article talk: 5.2% (224)
User: 5.96% (257) | User talk: 29.16% (1257)
Wikipedia: 21.46% (925) | Wikipedia talk: 0.65% (28)
Image: 1% (43)
Template: 0.26% (11)
Category: 0.07% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (6)
Username WAvegetarian
Total edits 4311
Distinct pages edited 2057
Average edits/page 2.096
First edit 05:08, 31 May 2005
 
(main) 1557
Talk 224
User 253
User talk 1257
Image 43
Image talk 1
Template 11
Template talk 3
Category 3
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 929
Wikipedia talk 28

Taken from Interiot's Tool2. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: I have found that much of my time on Wikipedia is spent doing new page patrol. As it is now, I can tag articles for speedy deletion, but that just adds to the back log. I would like to be able to lessen that backlog. I also have gotten fairly good at recognizing copyright violations. I have tagged many articles as such, but would like to work on the other end to reduce this massive backlog. I have experience with images having uploaded a number of main illustrations myself and would probably help out at the image csd backlog as well. I also have been active working on countervandalism through computer assisted recent changes patrol. Having the rollback button would make my vandalism patrolling easier and more efficient. I also would be able to block persistent vandals rather than trying to figure out what {{test4.2}} is while I wait for someone else deal with my alerts on WP:AIV or IRC. Instead, I could be working on that backlog. There is lots written here about "the backlog" because we have a lot of it and I know I helped to create it. It is especially noticeable to me when doing new page patrol and it takes forever for attack articles to be deleted. In my work on the help desk/{{helpme}} patrol I have come across instances where admin assisted page moving/history merging was necessary to fix a duplicate article, someone needed to have the text of a deleted article to rewrite to an acceptable state and other instances where I had to refer them to someone else. I have a background in establishing consensus in discussions in real life. I was elected to the position of a consensus discussion moderator/arbiter at my cooperative, which is a part of the Oberlin Student Cooperative Association (the third largest student cooperative association in N. America). I would make use of this and my experience with Wikipedia to close XfDs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I know that there are users who will hold it against me, but the single article I have contributed to the most is Garfield High School (Seattle). The early history of the article got corrupted during a string of page moves, but you can see most (I think) of my uncorrupted changes by looking at my early contributions. This article wasn’t even a legitimate stub when I found it. Since I’m not of the opinion that every accredited educational institution teaching people age 14 and up is notable, I probably would have marked it as having no claim of notability and sent it to VfD, however this article is about ‘‘my’’ high school. I got involved with Wikipedia because User:CAPS LOCK told me to one day in our high school philosophy class. Having grown up in the neighborhood and spent four years there, I figured I was well qualified to write about it. Garfield is by no means ready to be featured article, but it is quite good, IMO. I didn’t create it, but I’m fairly certain the majority of the content is mine. The source research was by me, at least. The best start to an article I’ve made is at Power Pete. Other than some mention of a community of Power Pete players, which did/doesn’t exist AFAIK, I think the article covers everything it should/could.
Most of my contributions haven’t been creating content but instead new page and recent change patrolling and answering on Ref desk, Help desk and helpdesk-l before it closed in February. As it was a mailing list, my contributions to helpdesk-l don’t show up in Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian or my edit count. I would refer you to the archives, but the link on the meta info site doesn’t work. It seems that the only record I was there are the BJAODN I added to the helpdesk page.
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: Of course. Most recently (today) while responding to {{helpme}}s on #wikipedia-bootcamp I ran into a disgruntled newbie who wanted help figuring out where his article had been moved to after it stopped being at Credit Card in favor of a redirect to Credit card. I patiently worked resolving his problems while removing helpme templates over and over. It was pointed out to me by another editor trying to help the author that the article was likely to be deleted as it was related to a current AfD. I agreed with them, but continued to help the author. It was at this point that the author decided we were conspiring against them and proceeded to have a fit across my talk page, the other helper’s talk page, their own talk page, the AfD, and the talk page of at least one person from the AfD. This included personal attacks, gross civility violations and blackmail using threats to troll if I didn’t make sure the article got kept. I responded in a calm, civil and collected manner. I pointed out the relevant policies, explained my actions and tried to deescalate the situation. The calmed down significantly after my first message in response to their rant and left a civil question for me on their talk page. I answered it, giving the reasoning behind my actions. I feel that open communication and civil discussion are the best ways to deescalate conflict and stress. If stress is cumulative rather than stemming from an individual conflict I find that short wikibreaks can be very rejuvenative.
I flipped out once in what I feel is the distant past during the AfD for REMAGINE. I felt that the author was being bitten for not understanding Wikipedia policies. I was out of line and have not had anything even close to that occur since. JzG gave a great example of deescalation technique and a lesson I took to heart [2]: clear and early communication avoids problems. In general my wikistress levels have been relatively low other than during the time I was involved in this dispute. I did get into it with User:Mike Nobody over edits to the George W. Bush article and the addition of a 238 pixel wide image to his signature. It eventually became clear to him that the insertion of his POV using out of context photos was unacceptable as was the oversize fair use image in his signature. I explained how to avoid inserting your own POV into articles and explained the fair use criteria. I finished the exchange with a compliment and didn't have any problems there after.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. You listed Garfield High School (Seattle) as one of the articles that you are most proud of. However, there is a section that appears not exactly be encylopedic[3].Do you believe the section should still be inculded? If so, why? Thank you very much in advance and good luck! Yanksox 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that section. I agree that the section will not be there in its current form if/when the article gets to featured status. It appears that more of the edits got lost in the various moves and history merge crap than I realized. I know that I have made many edits to this section to clean it up. The only one I found in the history is this. I guess this is one area where I am an eventualist. While I agree that the current style of this section is unencyclopedic, I think that the culture of the school is an encyclopedic topic worth covering. The painting of the stack and culture surrounding activities on Alder Street are, now with the remodel "were", an integral part of the Garfield student culture. I didn't create this section, but feel that it will and has served as a spot to draw in new editors where they will feel like they can make a positive contribution. Eventually I would like to see this section become a nice paragraph detailing the changing culture of the school through the years as evidenced by the words students at the time used to describe it. I realize this may be somewhat of a pipe dream. Currently I feel that the section is doing less harm than good so I haven't deleted it. There have been no concerns raised over it on the article's talk page so there hasn't been any consensus created one way or the other. I don't think this is quite the right forum to discuss article content, but will definitely take that into consideration. I urge anyone with a viewpoint on this matter to discuss it at Talk:Garfield High School (Seattle) and to post an article content RfC if they feel so inclined.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WAvegetarian&oldid=65528179"