Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whouk

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Whouk

edit

Final (71/2/0) ended 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Whouk (talk · contribs) – User:Whouk has an exceptional record of contributions to Wikipedia. Starting last August, he really got going in December 2005, since when he has made significant contributions, mainly to UK-related television and politics articles but with a very good range and showing remarkable attention to detail. His participation includes vandal-fighting, AFD comment, and a big wodge of cleanup work. His edits include well over a thousand on Talk and Project pages. In all of this he has been very civil and acted in accord with Wikipedia policy. He will be a great Wikipedia Administrator and I am sure this nomination will succeed no matter how ludicrously high RfA standards may have become. The Land 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I humbly accept. —Whouk (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. The Land 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I see no problems. I have noticed this user's civility on AfD. -- Samir   (the scope) धर्म 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seems like a fantastic user that will make a fantastic admin. I also agree with the nominator that RfA standards have become ludicrously high. DarthVader 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support every indication he will make a find admin. Gwernol 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Trustworthy editor, possesses good judgment. Xoloz 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A great user and I see no problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cliché support. I thought he was one :/ --Syrthiss 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I've had a mooch about his user page, talk and a few random edits, and it all looks good. Support! --kingboyk 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support User_talk:Dlohcierekim 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak support more project edits, please. Computerjoe's talk 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--Jusjih 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, looks good. Kimchi.sg 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I have no doubt that he will use the buttons wisely. Rje 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Good, well-rounded candidate. All I see about him points towards a good Admin. Redux 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. RadioKirk talk to me 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Very civil in AFD's & will use admin tools well. BTW was just seeing CSCWEM archived record breaking RFA & was surprised at some of the opposes including one that said "not enough page moves"!! Some people really do have quite ridiculous RFA standards. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That RfA took place over April Fools' Day. Those were joke votes. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 21:01 UTC
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I followed his RFA quite closely & saw that all the joke opposes were removed after April Fools. This vote (no. 5 oppose) seems genuine & was also counted in the final tally. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Will make a good admin OSU80 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. No reason not to. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 21:01 UTC
  23. Support Rama's Arrow 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Pile on support -- Tawker 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Whoukouldn't support a great contributor like this one for adminship? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That gets my vote for direst RfA vote of all time. The Land 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Direst? Punniest maybe. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Typo of "driest"? —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 01:44 UTC
  26. support Damm a clown beat me ^_^ Benon 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Sean Black (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, of course --Primate#101 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per above abakharev 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per insomniac clown Bucketsofg✐ 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support for as many reverts done, only 13 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I like the friendliness of the user and user:talk space. A person who keeps a nice yard can be trusted to take care of the public park. Ted 02:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SupportLooks good.--Eva db 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good user. --Tone 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--blue520 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --Bhadani 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Question answers are kind of short by my standards, and I see no portal talk edits! But this user's record speaks volumes... Support, will make a fine admin. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support; does good work, is familiar with policy, and keeps his cool (see this AfD for an example). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good friendly candidate, should make a great admin --Scott 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support will be a great admin. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, echoing DarthVader's comments above. Guinnog 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per all above. Royboycrashfan   18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Doctor Whoooo, HEY! Doctor Who! Will (E@) T 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support excellent potential, good luck! gidonb 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - per all above. Good contributor. Afonso Silva 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - fantastic user —Mets501talk 21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - good user Canderous 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]
  48. Support everything looks good. Mopper Speak! 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Suppot for the same reasons as the above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Fantastic record, definitely great admin material. Good luck with that mop, my friend! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. No reason at all to oppose. Grandmasterka 00:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Support. Too late... Nah, just kidding, he'll be fine. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 02:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support™ --Rory096 07:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Support. Support. Support. Support. Support. Can that be counted as six supports? LOL --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Enjoy your mop! Brisvegas 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Sure, why not? With the vandalism happening to featured articles these days, we sure would welcome more help.—G.He 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Why not? He agrees with me below. --Doc ask? 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Don't see any issues. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Very Strong Support, Whouk is a great Wikipedian. He has done a variety of things on Wikipedia, such as reverting vandalism and VfD. As an admin, he will be able to take things a step further and be able to delete pages, which can be very useful, especially on those "vandal articles" (you know, "articles" that say stuff like "Vandals of Wikipedia! Read this!.) Lastly, Whouk has many excellent edits regarding to the UK. Excellent work! --Evan Robidoux 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, I trust him from what I have seen in Doctor Who articles on wikipedia. Tim! 11:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Joe I 13:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Jaranda wat's sup 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Tom Harris 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Looks good! Mr. Turcottetalk 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Definite support --Deville (Talk) 01:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following contributions were added after the deadline.
  71. SupportGood, wide range of edits. Steveo2 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose don't need more admins. Ardenn 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, In my opinion, "don't need more admins" doesn't seem to a valid reason for opposing an RfA nomination. After all, Wikipedia needs all the help it can get! :)--☆TBC☆ 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I don't agree that we should cap admins, Ardenn's vote and rationale are perfectly valid. To say they aren't because 'wikipedia needs help' is like saying 'you can't vote that way, because I don't agree with you'.--Doc ask? 17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for the record, I agree with Doc glasgow. —Whouk (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a valid reason if he explained WHY we don't need more admins. Afonso Silva 09:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He had had some problems with people who requested him to remove an image from his signature. Since then, he had been voting against new administrator. Before that problem, he had only voted once ever. -- ReyBrujo 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, I was simply offering my opinion, nothing more.--☆TBC☆ 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Shortsightedness. --Masssiveego 05:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Example? Grandmasterka 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I unserstand Whouk wears glasses. I'm not sure whether that was the intended rationale for opposing him. The Land 20:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be nearsightedness. I'm not sure what Masssiveego means. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 00:20 UTC
    Apparently short-sightedness is also used for myopia. I've never heard that before. That's why I love Wikipedia: it never ceases to teach me. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 00:21 UTC
    I was missing Masssiveego's constructive comments. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments User contributions (last 2000 edits) shown below.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Whouk (over the 2000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 50 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 08, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 19, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 99.68% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 99.5% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day (current): 39.99
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 15.15%
Unique pages edited: 1125 | Average edits per page: 1.78 | Edits on top: 19.3%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 40.9%
Minor edits (non reverts): 43.25%
Marked reverts: 15.7%
Unmarked edits: 0.15%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 64.3% | Article talk: 6.95%
User: 3.45% | User talk: 11.45%
Wikipedia: 10% | Wikipedia talk: 1.65%
Image: 0.35%
Template: 0.6%
Category: 0.2%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.9%
Total edits	5623
Distinct pages edited	3083
Average edits/page	1.824
First edit      13:32, 24 August 2005
(main)          3865
Talk            316
User            240
User talk       641
Image           11
Image talk      3
Template        23
Template talk   17
Category        14
Category talk   16
Wikipedia       392
Wikipedia talk  85

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: My nature as a Wikipedian is that I flit about from area to area and I would envisage myself doing the same as an admin. I would particularly anticipate helping with the copyright problems backlog as I work in information management and have an interest in copyright generally. I would work on reviewing and deleting where appropriate speedy deletion and PROD candidates, and closing XfD debates. Having flagged vandalism in progress in the past only to see it continue for some time before the miscreant was blocked (and no criticism of current admins is intended by that :-), I would keep an eye on WP:AIAV. I do recent changes patrolling and have a number of regularly-vandalised pages in my watchlist, so the rollback button would assist this work. Just as I have spent my time as an active Wikipedian growing as an editor, I would hope to grow as an admin over time and expand my involvement into other areas.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of my work ensuring that some recent election-related articles are properly referenced. In particular, I did a lot of work on Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 and Moray by-election, 2006, trying to keep them objective and well-sourced. I visit WP:FAC from time to time and have helped out some subsequently successful FAC candidates with a bit of copy-editing. I was pleased to successfully lobby for Template:Imdb title and Template:Imdb name to be formatted consistently - a very minor change to the template, but with an impact on many articles.
I'm pleased to report that Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 is now a featured article, the first that I've piloted through the approval process. —Whouk (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 have pretty much avoided any unpleasantness by remaining civil and open-minded. The only time I have been approached confrontationally - when another editor complained about some fictional character stubs I'd changed to redirects - I successfully talked him round by staying calm and referring him to the Manual of Style guidelines I'd been following. He then helped me make the remaining changes. I don't get stressed by WP, although I did recently get annoyed at what I saw as dismissiveness and newbie-biting on the part of an editor (naming no names), but rather than be rude in return I dealt with this by explaining on the Talk page why I thought the issues raised were valid, and a sensible debate followed.
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 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/Whouk&oldid=1089037930"