Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley

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.

Wgfinley

[edit]

final (46/3/2) ended 00:39 11 January 2006 (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™[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]
  27. Support Guy is one of the best users that I've seen, and I'm astonished he's not already an admin. [[Sam Korn]] 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: --Bhadani 13:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support good editor and opposition's arguments (where there are any) are weak to be polite.Gator (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Totally nice guy... don't let the power corrupt ya. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - One of the few candidates I've seen recently who has a clue about the Tao of Wiki. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, of course. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. You mean he wasn't an admin already? Darn you Mindspillage for beating me to the punch. Kim Bruning 03:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Thought he was one --Wikiacc 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I sure hope I haven't voted here before. --Jay (Reply) 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rob Church Talk 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Boxero 07:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Sure. --Chris S. 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Mukadderat 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support for steady, well-considered work that maintains Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. CDC (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Great big support – ClockworkSoul 23:22, 10 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
  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]
  3. Oppose As per Varizer--God of War 00:38, 8 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]
  2. Neutral. While this user has obviously contributed a lot to the project, I have some concerns about his willingness to seek consensus, as described above in the Oppose section. If these concerns could be adequately addressed, I might be persuaded to change my vote to Support. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:48, 5 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


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]
5: Hi Wgfinley, I'd like to ask your view about admins changing each other's blocks. If someone is blocked for, say, disruption in the form of excessive personal attacks, and you disagree with the block, can you tell me what the blocking policy advises, and what your course of action would be? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and I think that this is a current problem and leads to wheel warring if not handled correctly. First I think you need to contact the admin who blocked that person and try to discuss it with them. If that admin is not available then, as a new admin, I would probably try to discuss it with another admin or post a notice about it on AN/I before I took action on it. Only after I had made attempts to contact the admin who did the block and obtained other input would I unblock that person. I don't think that's usually the case, I see some instances of one admin reviewing another admin's call and not liking it and then immediately unblocking the person. The policy clearly states that this is any individual admin's call for "disruption" so I think that needs to be taken into account because even if one may not believe the personal attacks are "not that bad" or "excessive" the question is, are they disruptive? --Wgfinley 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Guy. I don't want to labour the point, but it's just that these issues have arisen a lot recently. Can you say what the blocking policy recommends you do? Also, how about respecting the blocking admin's decision, even if you don't agree with it (having consulted and been given an explanation)? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I don't mind responding. The blocking policy is pretty clear on this, your specific question refers to the disruption section of that policy. It has a few conditions I'd like to note, first, the block is the admin's judgment and as such I would take overturning another admin's block very seriously. I think the section outlines most of the reasons why you would block someone for disruption but I think that is open to judgment as well. What is specific is that the user should be warned first and that the block is typically 24 hours first offense but can be extended up to a month for repeat offenders and even longer for other situations, including permanently. The final note is that blocks for disruption can be controversial and that it should be posted on AN/I. I can tell you that I would definitely list any block for this reason on AN/I.
Now, we have the subject of overturning something that admin's have been given broad discretion with. I would consider overturning a block immediately if the requirements hadn't been met: i.e. the user had not been warned and a notice wasn't place on AN/I. If all conditions were met and I didn't believe the behavior merited a block I would post a note on that admin's talk page and comment on the AN/I entry. I would then consult with other admins on if they thought the block wasn't merited. Whatever the case, I would not unblock someone if the procedures had been followed and until I had made some attempts to get that admin's side of the story. Say you have a situation where an admin blocks someone, didn't follow the procedure and then notes on their user page they are going on a wikibreak then I would probably unblock the user, advise the user that he/she better be on their best behavior and note what I was doing on the admin's talk page and AN/I. Hope that answers your question and if not feel free to ask away. --Wgfinley 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I'd like to note now that I think about it, someone above also asked about this. It concerns when I was trying to nominate a template for deletion, I felt it should be a speedy deletion. The comment this user left was that my actions were close to vandalism [13] and an anon even put me on the vandalism watch list both of which, of course, I think that are complete baloney. The vandalism policy clearly states:
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
So even if I made a mistake in the method I used to nominate the template and even if I was just plain wrong whether the template could be nominated for speedy deletion that is not vandalism. I think a lot of folks would do the community a service by being much more familiar with the vandalism policy, particularly the section What Vandalism Is Not[14]. Unfounded allegations of vandalism are inappropriate and are much closer to a personal attack than accused vandalism itself. --Wgfinley 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean you're disputing the fact that you added a speedy template hoping that an admin would delete it without actually looking too carefully? Or do you just have a strange idea of what a good faith edit is? Doesn't matter, you've nominated yourself, that's usually enough to become an admin anyway, you really don't have to go out of your way to pretend you actually care about policy--172.161.148.14 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wgfinley&oldid=1142572318"