Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wafulz

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

Wafulz

Final (40/0/0); Ended Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:07:57 (UTC)

Wafulz (talk · contribs) - I have bumped into Wafulz couple months ago when he requested an editorial review. I took the opportunity to review him (see the entry in User talk:Wafulz#Hello. As a reviewer, we take deep research into the user's contributions and look for areas that are controversial, and should be criticized about. However, I could not find anything to criticize about Wafulz except that his Wikipedia talk is low. But he is a long-standing contributor to WP:AFD and WP:DRV, so his ability to communicate with other editors regarding the policies was unquestionable. Overall, Wafulz have shown consistency in his distribution of edits, and displays appreciation and understanding of policies (per his long-standing contributions to AFD discussions and deletion reviews). He is also a capable encyclopedia contributor, with great quality on articles such as Dominik Hašek and Sidney Crosby , which both have FA potential. I truly believe Wafulz will make a good addition to the admin team. Cheers!AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Wafulz 06:45, 15 March 2007 (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 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: Primarily, I would deal with the areas with which I have the most experience, so vandalism and deletion are the main priorities. In particular, article deletions, so WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, and WP:DRV are the big ones. I'm confident I can use the tools because I understand that every legitimate entry into Wikipedia requires a not unsubstantial amount of effort from at least one editor- before making any decisions, I like to ask myself "What policies does this violate" and "Is this the proper avenue for deletion?" I understand that arguments on AFD and DRV must be rooted in policies and relevant guidelines, and not necessarily in brilliant rhetoric.
I'd really like to be available to help out at WP:AIV and WP:RPP, especially since I understand that the last thing we need is for people to be misinformed or to be greeted by "PENIS" when trying to read an article on Einstein. I've reverted a lot of forms of vandalism that might normally slip under the radar, primarily since one of the first things I do when I see the addition of a new chunk of text is try to find a source myself, or by verifying a provided source. In the end, I want to keep the encyclopedia clean of nonsense, vandalism, and misinformation, and I think it never hurts having a helping hand around for this.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, as mentioned in the nomination, Dominik Hasek and Sidney Crosby are two of the hockey articles that I've put a substantial effort into. Hasek's article was essentially a poorly formatted fanpage when I first stumbled onto it, but thanks to the efforts of myself and several other collaborators, we should have it to at least Good Article sometime soon, and potentially Featured Article status in the future. The article on Crosby is a bit more difficult to write because he's a young superstar, which means the article is in a very fluid state, so I don't think it'll have the stability to reach GA or FA, barring a sudden end to his career. I have also created and/or edited numerous other articles, particularly those in hockey- examples include Maggie the Macaque, Lloyd Turner, Cam Ward, and Marc-Andre Fleury. I find that hockey articles tend to be poorly written and unsourced, so I try to fix this whenever possible.
My future project will likely be Vladislav Tretiak, in addition to sourcing any of the articles listed on my user page (some of those that I've listed were primarily cleanup and not sourcing). I'm especially proud about the fact that I was reading an online news source about Sidney Crosby, which at one point included "according to his Wikipedia article...." It's really neat knowing that something you worked on is being cited, which kind of emphasizes the importance of proper sourcing.
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: Yes, several. The conflicts have ranged from deletion discussions to neutrality to the most mundane and trivial segments of articles. Something Awful is the most recent one I can think of, where we had to spend some time addressing the addition of questionably sourced criticism. I ended up being stalked over the outcome of the General Mayhem deletion discussion, though luckily they were really bad at it and didn't get anything close to my real information. I have skirmished through conflicts in Marc Lepine, where it appeared that an anti-feminist was posting information. I was also involved in the removal of KGB allegations from Romano Prodi's article, where I had to bring up issues of undue weight, weak sourcing, and WP:BLP.
Ultimately, I make sure not to let arguments get to me, and I remember to address the issue and not the editor and attempt to use the most neutral language available. I also make sure to try and see from the other person's perspective, and I keep in mind that potentially thousands of people could be reading these articles, so a delicate balance is required sometimes. Of course, I also keep in mind that core issues like WP:NPOV and WP:ATT should override opinions- after all, this isn't a democracy. I think WP:PROCESS sums up how I feel about conflict the best: "Process. Painful to watch, but sixty years without a world war."
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support - As nominator, per reasons stated above. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Good experience and good answers to questions! Kukini hablame aqui 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support seems very well suited to the mop. MLA 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, wafflecopters, and good responses too —dgiestc 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SupportThis user seems to know how Wikipedia works well and has enough experience already. --Meno25 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a good balanced editor. The Rambling Man 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support one of my first interactions in Wikipedia were with Wafulz. He is definitely admin material. - Anas Talk? 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good edits coupled w/ a good understanding of NPOV. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. A solid contributor, with whom I've only had positive and constructive interaction. Plus a nicely realistic answer to question 1 (I just find the image of "being greeted by PENIS" inherently amusing at this time of night). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support looks alright. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 11:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Terence 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Experienced, well-balanced candidate. Xoloz 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I see no problems here. >Radiant< 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support all Cubo-Belarusso-Canadians - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I don't see a problem here. (aeropagitica) 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SupportSeems like the kind of experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Michael 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nominator. Yuser31415 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Is there any Doubts??I dont think so..--Cometstyles 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - good answers to the questions. Looks like a good user and a worthy candidate. Johntex\talk 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Great user, great admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Go Pens ~ trialsanderrors 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 07:31Z
  28. Support Civil editor. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Kinda embarrassing considering I hang around RfA a fair bit, but I coulda sworn that... – riana_dzasta 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, we could do with some help, and this editor obviously can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Excellent candidate, excellent answers, excellent civility. My spidey sense is tingling. Pigmandialogue 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Can be trusted with the tools. -- Jreferee 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support semper fictilis 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. WjBscribe 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Exactly what I look for in an administrator candidate. --Deskana (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support → I think he'll be a good admin. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good, experienced contributor. utcursch | talk 04:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/Wafulz&oldid=1090624983"