Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johann Wolfgang


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

Johann Wolfgang
Final (37/12/2) ended 17:54 13 November (UTC)

– So, what can we say about Johann Wolfagang? Well, he has 3000ish edits and 4 months experience not that that's important. The best quality I think he has is his willingness to learn. He's always willing to learn something new. If he doesn't know something, he'll ask. He's also a great vandal-whacker. A member of the The Counter-Vandalism Unit, he's avid and would most certainly benefit from that rollback button and block tool. Finally, he's very civil. He doesn't get stressed at vandals, just quietly warns them. I see no reason not to throw him the mop but, as to not violate WP:BEANS, I didn't just say that. --Cel e stianpower háblame 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Johann Wolfgang 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - I've always trusted the nominator. --Cel e stianpower háblame 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support - Great guy. Fir  e  Fo  x  20:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 20:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - nice and works hard. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support - All interactions have been positive. Great vandalism whacker and faithful shows Wikipedians the Way of the Almighty Jimbo. -- Psy guy (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support, I trust the nominator, and I support vandal-whackers. Tito xd (?!?) 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support. Great editor and overall a really nice guy.  Rob e  rt  T 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, confident that he will not abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, four months is plenty :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support four months are more than enough --JAranda'' | watz sup 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per silly oppose vote. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support your local vandal-whacker! Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. "four months is not long enough". Why dont we just make a policy that says we need atleast 2 years experience! Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  00:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support--Sean|Bla ck 00:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Great vandal figher, 4 months is plenty. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per freestylefrappe's oppose. Just kidding.  Solid record, seems like good match. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support  Grue  05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I'm wary of this being Yet Another CVU-inspired RfA, but Johann looks like a top bloke, so why not, eh? Journalist: ideally we'd want 2 years experience, 15k edits, at least one edit war over whether or not George Bush became a Muslim, and a signed note from the user's mum promising that, as far as she's aware, he's never kicked puppies. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, four months is plenty enough in my books. I have seen some users with half the time on Wikipedia who would be ready for AdministrativePower® almost straight away. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, I've seen enough to trust this editor will use admin tools wisely. -- M P er el ( talk 06:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support would be a great admin.Gator(talk) 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support --Rogerd 03:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Enthusiastic and shows initiative.   Joe I  03:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support --VileRage (  Talk  |  Cont  )  05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 27)  Support Need more people to fight the invading hordes of vandals.--Alabamaboy 16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support glad to have you! Tedernst 16:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) support Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. No Big Deal. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Shy cute lesbian support... The only reason I can see not to is the lack of AfD participation, but I have no reason to believe that Johann will misuse his powers in that regard. The Land 10:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Appears to have done plenty of good work. I don't find the opposition convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. If you succeed then read carefully up on policies before applying admin options. And if you don't succeed then come back in a couple of months 'cause we need more admins and I think you'd do fine :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Need more admins. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-12 04:59
 * 35) Thought-I-had-already-voted-support. --JoanneB 19:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Privat  e   Butcher  00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Great user. Support with extreme prejudice. Sasquatch  t|c 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Weak Oppose four months is not long enough. freestylefrappe 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose just not been here long enough, your on the right track though, support if there is a next time.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Time is too short, and even after multiple edits to your questions, they are still not formatted correctly. Reinforces the shortness: you need to learn better editing skills first. Turnstep 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose. Although you have 3000-odd edits, it seems that you're still badly inexperienced policy-wise. As far as I can tell (by looking at your edits manually) most of your talk pg edits are welcoming other users (not a bad thing, but something that inflates the edit count without actually giving you a lot of experience interacting with others).  You don't seem to have contributed to AfD discussions at all, and from the tone of your answer to question 1, you don't seem to realize that lots of non-admins can contribute to AfD (and even close consensus keeps after 5 days).  Your difficulty formatting your answers implies to me that you simply don't have enough policy understanding to be an effective admin.  Your answer to question 3 especially makes me wonder (would you go running to a mediator to solve problems?).  This is nothing against you, as you seem like a good contributer, but I haven't seen your judgement in action enough to know that you'd be a good admin.--Scïmïłar  parley 22:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, and conversation with Johann Wolfgang, I'm switching to a weak oppose. He's definitely polite and civil, but I still have some concerns about policy experience.--Scïmïłar  parley 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, still too soon. --Sn0wflake 01:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. My oppose vote is not related to time issues, as I have seen editors with less time on WP, with an excellent grasp of policy. My concern is one of maturity. From what I have seen, this editor as good potential but needs more time in which by participating in the wikipedia namespace, he can develop a better sense of the project. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I only found about 10 edits in the last 1000 that weren't either a revert, a welcome message or related to RFA. Needs a lot more experience of other facets of Wikipedia. Proto t c 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And what are we giving the powers for, exactly? Writing articles? --Cel e stianpower háblame 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you see me questioning your support votes? Proto t c 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides, the point could be made that an administrator with extremely limited experience writing articles (especially collaborative work) would have difficulty with certain administrative jobs; i.e. factual dispute vs. vandalism determinations on the 3RR rule.--Scïmïłar parley 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To Proto, yes I do in you voting oppose, I'm the nominator ;). Even if I wasn't, however, I wouldn't mind in the slightest. I prefer RfA to be more of a consensus-building excersize rather than a vote and asking for extra rationale/challenging others' opinions is the way I think that, within our current system, we can achieve this.
 * As to Scimitar's point, I agree. Personally, with my experience with this user, I think that he is unlikely to be rash in his use of powers. I however take your point and, as presumably you know little of the user, I can understand fully that viewpoint. --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Scimitar and time concerns. "Better safe than sorry" vote, and I'll be happy to support after there is more of a record. Xoloz 02:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While the number of edits in so short a time is spectacular, what concerns me is the answer to the third question. In my honest opinion, until you've actually been "tested in the fires" of Wikipedia, be it through even a mild conflict with an editor, we have no real way of knowing how you may or may not handle it.  (It's really more a lack-of-experience thing than anything else, sorry)  As other Opposes have said, once you get a bit more experience under your belt, I'll be more than happy to support! Best of luck! --Martin Osterman 14:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose per Scimitar. Editor appears to be well meaning, but I have reservations about his current level of experience.  --Alan Au 19:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to lack of experience, needs more time. Silensor 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Scimitar and others. --Kefalonia 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak oppose I'll commend you on your good work welcoming ppl, but your experience in wikipedia is a bit limited. Spend a month or so visiting other parts of wikipedia (see Directory) for a guide of places to go) and you'll be a shoo-in :) Borisblue 04:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Use the preview button more, it took you like 7 edits to answer the questions. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. He is not ready yet (only four months in Wikipedia). Carioca 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments I use edit summaries every time, in fact I used edit summaries 997 times out of the past 1000 edits. I hope that is suitable. Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ] 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Kate's edit counter is incorrect. You can manually view my contributions here. Johann Wolfgang 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have three requests (strike out once they're done):
 * Set an email in your preferences
 * Use previews more I will try to use previews more in the future.
 * Install the fascist edit summary helper to remind you to use edit summaries!
 * Thanks, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like a really valuable editor, and I'm not remotely bothered by the 4 months, but for the last month or two I can't see anything from this user that's deletion-related: hence question below. The Land 15:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Using the new add-on to Kate's tool I can see a fair number of speedy tags to deleted articles, which is good: but still little AfD, hence a slight modification of the question. The Land 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would plan on participating in Articles for Deletion, Redirects for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, Templates for Deletion, Images for Deletion, Miscellany for Deletion, Stub types for Deletion, New Page Patrol, RC Patrol, aswell as merging, speedy deleting and removing copyright violations. Being an administrator would allow me to participate in AfD, RfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, MfD, and SfD. I enjoy New page patrol and RC Patrol. The block capability would be useful for blocking persistent vandals (A.K.A. Vandal Whacking). I will continue reverting malicious edits aswell as nominating articles for deletion.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am very pleased with Palazzo Vecchio, it is my favourite article and by far the most researched. I am also pleased with my work on gerbil-related articles, (a full list is here) and have also written plenty of short articles and numerous stubs. I have uploaded a small number (33) of images to accompany my articles. I am also content in how many users I have welcomed (I am always glad to answer any questions to the best of my ability).


 * 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. No, I have never been in any conflict with another editor, been in an edit war, or any dispute whatsoever. I however, if any situation should arise, will be civil and calm, and would not let the situation get out of control. If it did get out of hand, I would contact a mediator.


 * 4. What AfD activity have you engaged in? And under what circumstances would you close an AfD vote as Delete?
 * A. Not much, I have labeled articles for AfD, but haven't voted in very many. I generally will try to improve an article first. About closing an AfD, I would look for 70% and up support for keeping the article. I would close an AfD as delete with as low as 60-65% support for deleting the article.


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