Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kevin B12 (talk | contribs)
6,614 edits
I used a wrong word, entirely.
Line 44: Line 44:
#'''Support'''. Works for me. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Works for me. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I really looked at this editor history. Hardly any problems at all, fair and civil and productive. I think he has good judgement. --[[User:HResearcher|HResearcher]] 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I really looked at this editor history. Hardly any problems at all, fair and civil and productive. I think he has good judgement. --[[User:HResearcher|HResearcher]] 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
#[[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


;Oppose
;Oppose

Revision as of 06:15, 24 June 2006

Winhunter

Discuss here (34/10/5) ending 18:59, 26 June, 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia since April 2005, but between then and now there was a couple months of inactive period because of personal reasons. I was active again earlier this year and remained active ever since. Other than my role as an editor I also joined the never ending fight of fighting vandalism, joined RC patrol, Untagged Images Wikiproject and particpat in *fDs and DRV discussions. After I go through the administrator readings and realizing that there is a help desk, I also joined it recently. --WinHunter (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept the nomination. --WinHunter (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. A little to soon for me. 2 1/2 months of activity hardly seems like enough time. I would prefer if you had waited until maybe late July/early August before running for adminship. — The King of Kings 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Support I feel stupid, I thought you said you joined in April 2006, sorry. If you've been here for that long, you deserve it by now. — The King of Kings 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Looks good to me. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Please use edit summaries more. --Shizane 22:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Nominee has now accepted and I believe this editor will make a fine admin. Agent 86 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support great vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Meets all my critera. The Halo (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, one more member for the Chinese Admin Cabal. Please maintain a good ratio of personal-to-wiki (ie. User: to everything else) ratio. -- Миборовский 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support contribs look good. Please use edit summaries more. Kimchi.sg 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support per a little too few non-GUS edits and the edit summary thing, provided you please click the mandatory edit summary box. Reserve the right to withdraw if you don't report you've clicked it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn per other concerns. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support but work on those edit summaries :D --james(lets talk) 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Looks like the project would benefit from Winhunter having admin tools. Nephron  T|C 04:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like a great user and will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per question 1, I agree with.--Andeh 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions. Busy and civil. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - He needs the tools. Afonso Silva 11:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per his reply on my talk page affirming that he will work on his edit summary usage. Λυδαcιτγ 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support. You would be great as an admin, but I noticed the low use of edit summaries and the various spelling mistakes. Roy A.A. 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, looks good.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Would be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; a positive influence on the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Merovingian {T C @} 07:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Unlikely to abuse the tools --digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support user has everything I look for in an admin candidate, be sure to use edit summaries and you will make an excellent admin. Eluchil404 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Meets my criteria other than the edit summary usage, and I'll buy Voice of All's explanation of that below. Be sure to use edit summaries more in the future. BryanG(talk) 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good, hard-working, conscientious editor at the coal-face, dealing with vandalism. Let's help him to deal with them a bit more. Tyrenius 12:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support good at combating those who ruin all of our hard work!Abcdefghijklm 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Anonymous__Anonymous 18:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Seems to have the right attitude to adminship, with good answers to questions. If you haven't already you might be interested in the option in your preferences to make wikipedia prompt you if you don't enter an edit summary. Also why do you have so many images at the top of your talk page... Those are fairly minor points, and I don't think they'll stop you being a good admin. See also my RfA criteria. Petros471 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak support. Good user with a good background. Edit summaries are the only worrie for me. ---J.S (t|c) 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Works for me. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I really looked at this editor history. Hardly any problems at all, fair and civil and productive. I think he has good judgement. --HResearcher 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Jaranda wat's sup 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose; very low use of edit summaries for major edits (as of now 27%); would also like to see a few more project edits--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Beyond edit summary issues, this user has too few WP: edits. Also, I just don't see enough motivation or demonstration of policy to warrant promotion (in spite of those) at this time.Voice-of-All 03:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose Just passes my edit standards, but the 27% summary use is a bit too low. I'd support after seeing that rise over 50%. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, fails my criteria. NSLE 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, shortage of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests a low level of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for low usage of major edit summaries--Jusjih 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, too many concerns about project involvement, editing habits and attention to detail. Deizio talk 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, but I do oppose when edit summary use is this low. Jonathunder 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Edit summaries are a demonstration of common courtesy toward other Wikipedians, and one of the most basic elements of editing.—Perceval 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose fails My RFA criteria Anonymous__Anonymous 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote to Support Anonymous__Anonymous 18:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose edit summary use is just way, way to low. I'd also like to see more major edits. We're here writing an encyclopedia, and this user does not seem to contribute much text to the project. -Mask 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per some of the above reasons and my own review of the user's history. --HResearcher 04:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you find in the user's history? --Rory096 05:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw some edits about Taiwan, but now I see they were not POV. Taiwan is controversial. Let me look again, I may change my vote as this thing about Taiwan was the only reason I voted oppose. --HResearcher 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Im changing my vote, sorry I was wrong about you Winhunter. It looks to me that you are a fair person and I didn't see anything anywhere with you causing problems or treating anyone unfairly. In my own opinion how one treats others is a major factor (but not the only factor) in determining if someone should be an admin. I already see you are very productive. And some of the encounters with others showed Winhunter to be very fair. It's not hard to find things like this when you know to filter :) --HResearcher 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm sorry I must say oppose, but the lack of usage of edit summaries is rather troubling, esspecially after the removal of RC patrol stuff. I have gravitated toward a belief that all edit summaries, short of reversion of pure vandalism, should have clear and useful edit summaries(with vandalism having a simple or scripted note about revert). Please use more edit summaries and make them more consciseas clear as possible. (wrong word entirely there). Using them makes reading the history all the more easier. Last, there's more than WP:AIV, have you seen the administrative backlog on images? Kevin_b_er 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the low edit summary usage for major edits means only that he didn't use edit summaries twice. Also, admins don't have to do everything that needs doing, they can do whatever they want, so I don't see how not mentioning one thing in his answer to a question is a reason to oppose. --Rory096 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral, willing to consider support, but nomination has not yet been accepted. Agent 86 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Now it has. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Now I change my comment to Support. Agent 86 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. You are well-intentioned and have a very specific idea of what you want to do (in your answer to question one.) You also have the necessary experience and I see a lot of vandal-fighting in your contributions. However, 27% edit summary usage is simply too low (as I greatly value contributors who explain their actions well.) Also, the very overwhelming number of Userspace edits leaves me scratching my head, and I would prefer to see a little bit more contributing to WP-space. Grandmasterka 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the high number of userspace edits is because the user has been moving Template space userboxes to User space per WP:GUS. Kimchi.sg 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Grandmasterka 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Edit summaries are extremely useful tools, and nom should learn to use them before he is entrusted with the admin tools. The summary is very helpful when you are looking through a watchlist, and is also good for explaining controversial edits. This edit, for example, looks like vandalism at first sight - deletion of text, with no explanation. However, nom is otherwise great, and has been doing tons of vandal-fighting recently. I will change to support if nom promises to boost his edit summary usage up to 95% for major edits by 19 September 2006. Λυδαcιτγ 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Support. Λυδαcιτγ 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. More namespace edits, a biggie in my criteria, would be a plus. SushiGeek 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Wiki-space edits and edit summaries are both below acceptable levels for me; but, I've had positive personal experiences with this editor, so I can neither support nor oppose. Xoloz 15:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Edit summaries are key, because I am very picky about admins who use rollback for non-vandalism purposes. Edit summary should be used for all edits (with a 5 percent margin for error). I'm not an evil person, I've just become very picky about edit summaries, because admins who use rollback for everything often embarrass other users and show unprofessional behavior. If you can prove that you can use edit summaries well, you'll have my strong support. — Deckiller 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Seems like a great vandal fighter...but...his response to a question indicates that he values mainspace edits above other types as our aim here is to build an encyclopaedia. But his number of mainspace edits thus far have been rather smaller for my liking. Also would like to see more ES usage, I suggest check your preferences and make it so that you HAVE to provide an edit summary each edit. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

NOTE: further analysis of namespace edits (last 500) reveals the following:

  • Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 0.8% (4 edit(s))
  • Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.4% (167 edit(s))
  • Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 63% (315 edit(s))

So the 27% for the last 150, and 40% for the last 334 article edits (corresponds to 1000 edits total) are an exaggeration of the numbers as representative probabilities due to the user's main focus on RC patrol work. In other works, there are almost no edits marked as major, so that missing 1-2 summaries alone makes the percent go WAY down. I hope this clears things up.Voice-of-All 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these stat are from my lastest 500 edits, then it's true. There has been major DoS attack on Wikipedia these days, where during those periods I had to revert 1 time every 5 seconds just to clear the damage by a couple persistant vandals. It would not be surprised to result in this way. My report here and here. There should be more if you check WP:AN/I --WinHunter (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Winhunter (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 64 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 20, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 13hr (UTC) -- 16, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 31.45% Minor edits: 93.75%
Average edits per day: 559.01 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 334 edits) : Major article edits: 54.55% Minor article edits: 99.07%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.22% (11)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 12.4% (620)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 97.68%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3441 | Average edits per page: 1.45 | Edits on top: 34.82%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.16% (458 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 57.52% (2876 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 9.5% (475 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 19.34% (967 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 22.24% (1112) | Article talk: 2.32% (116)
User: 44.48% (2224) | User talk: 15.4% (770)
Wikipedia: 4.84% (242) | Wikipedia talk: 0.78% (39)
Image: 2.58% (129)
Template: 2.52% (126)
Category: 3.94% (197)
Portal: 0.06% (3)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.84% (42)
Username Winhunter
Total edits 5797
Distinct pages edited 3918
Average edits/page 1.480
First edit 01:19, 12 April 2005
 
(main) 1253
Talk 198
User 2322
User talk 987
Image 326
Image talk 9
Template 133
Template talk 34
Category 198
Wikipedia 295
Wikipedia talk 39
Portal 3
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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First and foremost, fighting vandalism. To get the continuous offenders (those who received the full range of vandal warnings in the last hour or so) banned in a timely manner. I still remember the frustration of kept reverting them and kept sending out T4 after reported to WP:AIV but powerless to do anything else. In one instance I have seen WP:AIV contains a backlog of at least an hour, therefore if I am made sysop I will definitely put the page into my watchlist to minimise the chances for such thing to happen when I am online.
Second, I will increase my participation in *fD (mainly AfD) and DRV. Currently I am only reviewing the evidence and put forth my vote and rational, but if I am made an sysop I will be able to become an neutral party (in *fD that I have not participated in) and close a debate, and perform the necessary actions (e.g. delete/undelete/relist).
Third is to serve as a neutural party to meditate in editing conflicts, and to protect/semi-protect any page as necessary to temporary halt any ongoing editing wars.
Besides these I will also monitor WP:AN, WP:AN/I, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and perform necessary actions as circumstances require.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Hong Kong: Since I have close ties with Hong Kong, I am trying to make the information about Hong Kong as accrucrate as possible. I also tried to make the contents "right", which in one instance when I reviewed the image in the article, I was shocked to see that many did not have either source or copyright information. Reluctantly I tagged them with the corresponding tag to reflect such status. The high standard of the article it is currently in makes me especially pleased.
Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China: I was shocked to learn that a country where apprixmately a quarter of the world's population live does not have an article about its nationality law. Not long after I discovered that I created this article, filling up the vacuum. Making the information on Wikipedia more complete this way makes me particularly pleased.
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. In most case the editors in conflict with me were pretty nice that we were able to resolve our differences through talking. Though sometimes this is not the case, at first I when I faced this kind of situation I was pretty irrational and keep on reverting (to the threshold of 3RR), but over time I have learned not to do that. From that point onwards I kinda regard this kind of conflicts as a blessing because it allows me to learn more about WP:DR and makes me able to advise other users the correct course of action should they be in an editing conflict.
In the future I will follow steps listed in WP:DR. No sysop power will be used since I am not an disinterested party.
Optional Question from Goldom:
Q: I see you have over 2,000 edits in the user namespace, almost twice as many as to articles. Just wondering what you've been doing with that many? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - No, really, why? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I userfied a few userboxes using AWB per WP:GUS, they are listed in User:Winhunter/Userboxes. (e.g. {{User vote}} & {{User recycling}}) Although this is a highly repetitive job but I see this as the solution to end the userbox war. So far, the comments I received after userfying userboxes are rather positive. Also, a few of the userspace edits came from reverting IP vandals vandalising userpage.
Question from TBC (optional)
It seems that your use of edit summaries is relatively low, currently only 27% for major edits. Could you please comment on this?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Some of those edits are actually minor one which I forgot to mark it as minor (e.g. [1], [2]), they usually took place when I am using VandalProof in vandalism fighting (as part of RC patrol), but came a across articles with needs to be tagged. Sometimes I just omitted to mark them as minor and enter edit summary and hurried to move on. (esp. when I see those "red" recent changes popping up) There are other times where I literally forgot to use summaries. I promise to be more aware of adding editing summaries in my future edits.

--WinHunter (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Nobleeagle (Talk)

  1. Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
A: The most frustration comes from vandalsim. I need to keep reverting persistant vandals and keep sending out T4 (after reporting to WP:AIV and sometimes WP:AN/I) but powerless to do anything else. This especially hurts in major DoS attacks where I have to revert once every 5 seconds.
The other is the WP:AIV backlog, which can be anywhere from 2 mins to an hour. This allows some vandals to "survive" for longer than they should have, and diverting attentions from Recent changes patrol from other Wiki activities. Sysop power would allow me to temporary/permanent (where appliable) block the user/IP concerned in a timely manner after full range of warnings were given, minimizing the frustrations coming from vandalism for me and other Wikipedians.
Also, sometimes overly broad interpretation of some policy (e.g. T1/T2) by some admins also makes me frustraing. In some instances I believe some of the action have violated WP:POINT. Though sysop power will not help me in this, because administrative actions should be reviewed in the appropriate places (e.g. talk pages, meditation, ArbCom) rather than engaing in WP:WHEEL with the admin concerned.

--WinHunter (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
A: The most important is my main namespace edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, everything here is built to support that purpose. The mainspace edits shows my efforts in putting knowledge into this great (& free!) encyclopedia and the will to maintain it (e.g. fighting vandalisms). The other is my WP and image namespace edits which shows my efforts in keeping Wikipedia to the highest quality possible. (Though I have to say that the image edits stat is understated because in many instances I have to tag image with tags that would lead to their deletions later.) Lastly is the talk page comments. This is important because it shows my ability and willingness to communicate with other users when required, which is especially important when being an admin.
3. Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
A: My criterias are as follows:
1. Candidate show signs that he/she won't abuse sysop tools.
2. Candidate possess enough editing experience.
3. Show sufficient understanding of Wikipedia policies.
4. Wikipedia would benefit if the candidate becomes admin.
So these would be looked at first:
1. 1000+ mainspace edits
2. On Wikipedia for at least 3 months.
3. Participation in Wikipedia maintenance. These include WP edits and others not on WP space. (e.g. WP:UI)
4. Their answers to questions, which would show their understandings on the role of admin and their need for the sysop tools.
5. Their list of contributions.
Though of course I will examine the candidates on a case by case basis. Statistics show something but not everything. Relying only on statistics is always very dangerous. I am looking for good Wikipedians with the need of sysop tools who will be a good admin.

--WinHunter (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Winhunter&oldid=60298587"