Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WOSlinker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

WOSlinker[edit]

Final (83/4/1); ended 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination[edit]

WOSlinker (talk · contribs) – Having edited on Wikipedia for quite a long time now and read the Signpost article about Rfa, I though I might give it a go. Even if I don't pass, at least I can say I had an attempt.

My main focus has been work on templates and hence a lot of my edits are in the template space. I have however also edited articles with most of those edits being smaller changes rather than major ones. As I've done a lot of template editing, I've had to make extensive use of {{editprotected}} and being able to make the changes myself would be the most useful feature of the admin role for me. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Would mainly be involved with Protected Edits, Page Protection and Page Moves. May also look at WP:TFD, having nominated some templates occasionally before.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My main focus is templates and it's nice when I spot a set of articles using a common section that would be better suited to moving into a template which then makes the article maintenance simpler.
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: I haven't really had any conflicts. Nothing memorable that stands out. I have had discussions about things with other editors but I'm usually not too bothered about getting things all my own way and will work to arrive at a compromise.
Additional optional question from King of Hearts
4. Which article would you say you have made the greatest contribution to?
A: This would be a a set of articles about the Postcode areas of the United Kingdom.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
5. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: No I wouldn't. It's much better to discuss things and try to persuade someone to see your own point of view, but that doesn't always work and we will end up with different opinions. In those cases it's best to wait for the input of a few other editors so that a consensus can be built instead. I can sometimes be persuaded to change may point of view as well if the arguments are compelling. The only bans I would consider doing are for accounts that have only been used for vandalism. The other thing I would try not to do is hide behind page protection as an excuse not to implement requested changes.
Additional optional question from Bejinhan
6 Are you planning to branch out into other areas outside of the template-related ones? If so, which areas?
A: I already do some non-template related edits. These are mainly smaller improvements to articles rather that bigger ones though. Other things I do now and again are updating links to that point to disambig pages to point to the correct articles and fixing external links.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • I seriously thought you were a bot. That's just my ignorance, though, not a statement that you make too many automated edits or anything. I think it was just the name that made me think that. —Soap— 12:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My name was due to the original purpose for joining, as described on my userpage. After that, I just got hit by the Wikipedia bug and it snowballed from there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - extremely productive and trustworthy user. Claritas § 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Experienced editor (clean block log over 3 years exp). Im not a template man myself, but i like the dedication and patience. I see only a net benefit here at adding the additional tools. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support... very prolific user. -- Mentifisto 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems fine to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Sure. ThemFromSpace 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Trusted, experienced, and wants to help in admin-short areas. The protected edit requests could certainly use the help of someone with WOSlinker's template knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support linky linky linky Diego Grez what's up? 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - dedicated and knowledgable user who will benefit from the tools. Best of luck, Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Another wonderful and helpful user in the recent string of RfAs. His experience dealing with templates will benefit the project greatly. No other issues; user has over 100,000 edits and clearly knows what is going on. —fetch·comms 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support experienced, knowledgeable, specialist admin candidate who will benefit the project. Dlohcierekim 00:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No issues here. I'm amazed that you have not lost it after doing over 120,000 edits!--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 00:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 00:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know fastily, you could probably save yourself a lot of typing by just assigning "Why not?" to a hot key... ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Templates are a time consuming, yet important part of Wikipedia. This project could use an administrator devoted to template development. Don4of4 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Looking forward to your help with the editprotected templates. Connormah 01:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - a template specialist with > 100,000 edits; appears knowledgeable & trustworthy--Hokeman (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - it must be frustrating to make so many edits and so many contributions without the ease of the admin tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seems sane enough for the job. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Extremely productive and does not appear to be at risk of misusing tools. bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Risker (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support because I can, but more importantly, because he can. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support obviously qualified. Pichpich (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support no problem suporting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support This would appear to be a "slam dunk". Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. RfA is broken. There are too many high quality RfAs open at the moment. In all seriousness, an easy support for me. Looks like the Signpost article had some success.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. WOSlinker is an excellent editor and the answers give no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools. Rje (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support per WOSlinker's template syntax knowledge. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. WOSlinker would be an extremely valuable administrator, with his strong technical expertise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Quiet, helpful, dedicated editor. Plenty of clue, great with templates. No cause for concern. –xenotalk 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support longterm useful editor with a clean block log, deleted contributions look good to me as well. Just the sort of good candidate I was hoping to tempt forth with that signpost article. ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. We seem to be having a slew of fantastic candidates. This one is highly prolific and would be very helpful as an admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - don't see any issues with this candidate at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Templates are not an area I know much about, but I'm sure he or she will be of help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Tommy! [message] 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Absolutely. SwarmTalk 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support – Very good contributions, long-term editor, will make a great administrator. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I despise editcountitis but any editor who has nearly 130,000 contributions and zero blocks is impressive. Excellent answers to questions and an admin focused on templates would be nice to have (WP:TFD can get backed up sometimes). -- Atama頭 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Okay, the tree shaking is working. We seem full of good candidates lately! Courcelles 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Looks fine. ceranthor 21:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support - This is refreshing, I hope this softens the hard driving "you must be an Author" to be an Admin. I also dabble with templates hope to see you around and the best of luck. Mlpearc powwow 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - No concerns from me. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Varied and lengthy experience? Yes. Empty block log/no civility issues? Yes. Wants to work in heavy-backlog area? Yes. What more can we ask for? GDonato (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support It seems that giving the candidate admin tools would enable them to contribute more, and more easily - given the already impressive contributions, this can only be a positive for the candidate, and for the project.  Begoontalk 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, have experienced firsthand lots of positive contributions from this candidate over time. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, Wikipedia will only benefit from having him as admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. No red flags. I respect Jclemen's oppose rationale, but respectfully disagree: I've messed up more than my fair share of {{editprotected}} requests on templates, and a template specialist like WOSlinker (40640 edits to templates alone! Blimey!) would be a welcome addition to Team Mop. TFOWR 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Template work == need for tools. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support – Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Esteffect (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Not only would do very well with adminship, but needs the flag to work with protected templates. Have worked with the candidate and have no reservations. --Rschen7754 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Some RfAs fail because of a low edit count. On that basis 128,000+ must be meaningful. Of these over one third are template related. This editor has got to be an asset to the project, and really, really should have the mop and bucket. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No probs here. Aiken ♫ 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I rest comfortably knowing the tools will be put to good use in his hands. -- Ϫ 00:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Easy decision. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - A fine editor with a clear commitment to making the encyclopedia a better place. Impressive work! (I find myself having to restrain harsh language regarding the reasoning of the first oppose.) Best wishes to you always, WO! Jusdafax 05:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Sure. Won't abuse the tools. BigDom 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I think JClemens makes a good point below - for any borderline candidates that ever wanted to run, this Chicken Little era is certainly the time. That said, I looked over this candidate's talk page and some other stuff, and I'm confident they will make a fine administrator. Pleased to support this candidacy. Townlake (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Among other reasons, as per Mlpearc (#42). Nothing to do with countitis, but anyone who has clocked up 40,000 edits on templates and posted a further 2,000 messages talking about it must know what they are doing. This is hardly a borderline case - at least not yet.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support no issues as far as I'm concerned, should be fine. BencherliteTalk 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support – Committed to the encyclopedia and the tools will make his work more productive. No reservations. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Jmlk17 03:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Always seems to be doing something to improve the encyclopedia, whether the task is large or small. —Eustress talk 19:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support as a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. The number of years as an editor and his sheer number of edits demonstrate that WOSlinker will be a good admin.--PinkBull 05:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I see no issues here. MBisanz talk 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I have seen many edits and never had a problem with any of them. WOSlinker's dedication to the project is well documented and tools will help make editing easier. Royalbroil 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: He's a solid editor, a fine template guy, lots of edits, clean block log, and so forth. Nor is he verbose, giving clear but minimalist responses to the questions so far. - A breath of fresh air. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, you don't need to be an artist to work in an art gallery. Salka (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  73. Support. I am sympathetic to the points raised by Chzz in neutral #1, but I'm satisfied with the record as it exists already. The opposes do not convince me, and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A helpful editor. Great with templates. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - and he's right, we do need more admins. Nolelover (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support wiooiw (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits (over 29,000!), four years' experience, Rollback rights, WikiGnome, etc. Only minus is the user page, but nobody's perfect. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Way over 29k edits :) Airplaneman ✈ 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Seems like a hardworking editor who understands what he's doing...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I changed my mind we need more specialist adminstrators. Secret account 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I was initially inclined to go neutral or even oppose based on WHY? But I think this is an exceptional case and "WHY?" is outweighed by WHY NOT? Polargeo (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Anyone with the Wikipedia bug can't be half bad for adminship. Bastique ☎ call me! 18:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Why not? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. miss the cutoff support Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I've seen no reasons given for adminship. Yes, he's a fine template guy, lots of edits, clean block log, and so forth. He's also been asked almost no questions, given entirely minimalist responses to the questions so far, and has little actual content creation. It is my considered opinion that too many of the "YESS!!!1!!!!" voters are swayed by recent grousing on WT:RFA and are abdicating their responsibilities to thoroughly investigate candidates. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... yes. I think the main reason he gave for adminship was so that he could bypass {{editprotected}} requests. Airplaneman ✈ 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But would he do a bad job if he becomes an administrator? If not, why are you opposing? Esteffect (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, it's was a most refreshing change to see an RfA without all those silly, unhelpful additional 'optional' questions posed by children and newbies.(missing verb tense added in bold)--Kudpung (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Until Jclemens mentioned it.--Kudpung (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You Jclemens most certainly have has a point, and it appears to have swayed me. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear pronoun reference there. NW (Talk) 23:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Uncertain content creation record YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I have to agree with YellowMonkey on this one, article writing is key to become an adminstrator. Secret account 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Why? AfD hero (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed as well but can you explain why you opposed? Secret account 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'd like to see some evidence of ability to discuss and evaluate the more difficult areas, either through examples from the past, or from questions raised in this RfA; I do appreciate the need re. template work, but with no unbundling, I need more dialogue to evaluate the candidate, in terms of their ability to apply reason and to comprehend policies, guidelines, consensus. Maybe some diffs / links to discussion would sway me to support; possibly I should do the digging myself, but the sheer number of contribs to look through puts me off a bit! I will try to revisit this later though, and see how things are going. I also dislike excessive questions in RfA, but at the moment, this one is too spartan...IMHO. Maybe I will add a q. myself later, if other discussions do not appear.  Chzz  ►  12:30, 23 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WOSlinker&oldid=1146518402"