Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qwghlm


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

Qwghlm
Final (50/1/1); Ended Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:42:36 UTC

- Qwghlm has been a major contributor to WikiProject Football where I first encountered him. His contributions range from wikifying articles, categorization, and cleanup, to major article edits, including helping to drive Arsenal F.C. and FA Premier League to featured status and maintaining them vigilantly. Always civil in his discussions, whether they be article talk pages, Afd or WikiProject talk. Large amount of experience in all namespaces. Administrator status would simply improve Qwghlm's ability to contribute to and improve the Wikipedia project. Nominate and support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QmunkE (talk • contribs).


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I think I would work a lot on image backlogs - when tagging images for deletion because they are copyvios or have no source/licence I've noticed there is often a backlog of images that have passed the seven-day limit and not yet been deleted. Similarly, I'd also work on speedy deletions - especially early morning UK time when it is still the middle of the night in North America, candidates for speedy deletion can take some time before an admin gets round to removing them. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Getting Arsenal F.C. to WP:FA status and as the day's featured article is no doubt my proudest contribution - getting something which is held up as an example in other PRs and FACs was very pleasing. I'm also pleased that I have assisted others in producing football (soccer)-related FAs and GAs through the peer review and FAC processes such as Manchester City F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Also, I'm quite pleased with the photograph currently used in is:Lofsöngur (an FA on the Icelandic Wikipedia), which I took after a request from an Icelandic Wikipedia member at Talk:Edinburgh - the photo's not a great one, but the process was a nice example of how collaboration between people who would never otherwise meet can work. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: Once or twice I have had very heated discussions with other Wikipedians; I recall one very early on in my experience here at the (since-deleted) page Chinkies which I thought was unsourced and mildly racist opinion masquerading as fact. With no compromise possible straight away, I just did what I thought the sensible thing was and walked away from it before it got out of hand; eventually it was uncontroversially deleted anyway. Often (though not always) very heated discussions can be defused by the passage of time - Wikipedia's going to be round for some time to come, so you can afford to let things be for a few weeks and then revisit them when tempers have cooled, and get other members of the community involved if need be. By and large I've stuck by that guideline since, and I hope to keep on sticking to it. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from 
 * 4. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW?
 * A. I preferred it when IAR was a concept or philosophy to be borne in mind, rather than a guideline, which is to be conformed to. In my view IAR is a way of saying we can choose to abide by the spirit rather than the letter of the law on Wikipedia in difficult circumstances; that said, life is much easier when we have a set of rules to work with, and use of IAR should only be sparing and if there is no alternative.
 * As for SNOW, I see it should only be used when there are only two irreconcilable outcomes and one is highly improbable. In a situation where compromise is at all possible, or a third way of solving it, even if it hasn't been mentioned yet in discussion, I would not invoke it; its usage is best restricted to debates over issues such as keep/delete. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Do you have a history in working with Images for Deletion?
 * A. I haven't worked much with IfD - my image-related work has generally been to do with copyright violations, unsourced images and misuse of Fair Use tags, rather than nominating or discussing images that are redundant or poor-quality. Therefore my image-related contributions have usually been over at WP:CV instead of WP:IfD. That said I am at least familiar with the process and more than willing to work with it. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from 
 * 6. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
 * A: Aside from welcoming them to Wikipedia, I wouldn't do a lot else, until they did anything that breached WP policies. If they were editing it to whitewash or make misleading statements then I would courteously inform them of WP:V and WP:NPOV, or if they were behaving disruptively I would remind them of WP:3RR and WP:VAND, and if they continued to break those rules I'd take the appropriate admin action. In short, I would treat them like any other editor here. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 7. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
 * A: When it's not being vandalised. :) Or, if it is being vandalised, then if the vandalism is coming from one user or one IP, in which case an appropriate ban is far more judicious and refined way of dealing with the problem. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 8. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I would ask myself several questions, including: "Does this look like a cut 'n paste job?"; "Is the tone encyclopaedic?"; "Is it at all wikified?"; "If it is wikified, then are there lots of redlinks?"; "Do any other articles link to this article?"; "Does it repeatedly link out to the business's website?" The vast majority of speediable promo or business vanity articles would fail more than one and usually the majority of these simple tests. And if in any real doubt, then I would prod it or even AfD it. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Qwghlm's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * This RFA was announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. QmunkE 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Conscious 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support this candidate is all things good, run into him a few times in Wikiproject Football and have no worries about him receiving the extra buttons. The Rambling Man 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support no problems here. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom and looking through contribs- a solid mainspace editor and no visible issues. No doubt can be trusted with the tools. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per history and answers above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. S .D. ¿п?  § 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Would make good use of the tools - good luck :) --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support With the amount of edits you've got...there's jsut no way to oppose. Gan fon  00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Seems fine-- SU  IT  42 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - good experience, no real reason not to.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems a goodie. --Dweller 09:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good answers, good contributions &mdash; Lost (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom – PeaceNT 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, thought he was one. Punkmorten 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Terence Ong 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, seems good to me. Diez2 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good edits, answers, has an FA, etc.-- Wizardman 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support: Nice contributions, Keep it up. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, I have no problem with giving this user the tools. Trebor 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support with enthusiasm. A fantastic Wikipedian. Oldelpaso 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support an excellent, helpful Wikipedian who's done great work with the football WikiProject. HornetMike 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support fully. A very helpful Wikipedian. WikiGull 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Thorough, civil, helpful. I don't remember ever giving a support vote on an RfA before, so perhaps this shows how highly I respect this editor's contributions. - fchd 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Only had positive experiences with this particular Gooner, though he does need to buy a vowel. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) I've worked with Qwghlm since mid 2005 when he signed up for the football WikiProject that I had just started, and I do not have a single negative thing to say about him. Very committed, level-headed editor, with a lot of mainspace experience (very important to me). I could continue to praise him but I won't, because I believe, and hope, he already knows how much I appreciate his work. Support. – Elisson • T • C • 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support You mean you aren't an admin?  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) No concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Has demonstrated a solid committment to the project --Infrangible 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support a committed and qualified user.-- danntm T C 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Can't find a single reason to object. A model Wikipedian. SteveO 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support, yes. Proto ::  ►  12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support - the candidate has identified areas that really need additional admins to help on, and is clearly capable of doing this work. Plus his response below to an edit identified as problematical was exemplary - acknowledge a mistake, provide details for better understanding of the situation, put the matter in the larger context of many other edits.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support--Rudjek 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support, although you still haven't answered (that I can find) the most important question. Inner or Outer? --Quiddity 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Has contributed much to soocer-related articles. A very good editor as well. It is time for him to be a admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support this random batch of letters that I will forget. Jor <font color="#600">co <font color="#000">ga <font color="#f00">Hi!04:22, Saturday, January 27 2007
 * 42) Support per nomination.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per my own impressions when doing Qwghlm's editor review. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inverted as duplicate vote. Jor co ga  <sup style="color:#FF0000;">Hi! 00:13, Monday, January 29 2007
 * 1) Support. I think this user has made many contributions as well adding quality to the encyclopedia. I think it will only make Wikipedia better if this user becomes an administrator! I also think this user would make good judgement in using the tools, take responsibility for mistakes maken, as we all make them. I agree with the canadate that she/he uses good faith, and that is very important! I don't see why this canadate wouldn't be a great sysop!--Wikipedier 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier--Wikipedier 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier
 * 2) Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67)talk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The candidate helped produce two featured articles, and his answers demonstrate that he "gets it." YechielMan 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support was actually gonna nominate him myself. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Good user, would make good use of the mop. | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">O</b> Talk · Sign Here 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support We need admins who do lots of editing.--Newport 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support As per nom. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose &bull;  I am not entirely convinced you need the tools, and the area you express a desire in using the tools in is outside of your expertise.  I have somewhat of a fear that you wish the tools more for the fact of having them, over the desire to actually use them.  No person "has a right" or "deserves" to be an administrator- it is not a status symbol nor some milestone to be achieved.  We are all equal on Wikipedia, even bureaucrats and arbitrators, administrators simply take on different duties, and I do not feel that you are really offering to take on duties that you are suited to.  Try again in a few months when you have more experience with images.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#669966">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#669966">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#669966">Neutrality Project  ) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, I have never stated anywhere that I believe I "deserve" adminship automatically (I was nominated by another user, not myself) not do I believe it a mere status symbol; I would like to strongly clarify that point. Secondly, as per my comments below, many of my edits to images - chasing up copyvios or labelling as unsourced/unlicenced/mistagged - do not show up in edit counts as they would have since been deleted, and I have much more experience than the initial impression the editcount tools would suggest. Interiot's tool states I have 951 deleted edits, I can't say how many are Image namespace only but I am sure a sizeable proportion of them are. Qwghlm 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral (moved from Oppose) You express interest in working on image backlogs, but your experience in image namespace is extremeley limited (18 image, 1 image talk, about 10 image uploads, no WP:IFD involvement, about 20 posts at WP:CV over a year). I also noticed the latest entry in your upload log, Image:James.jpg, you reverted the image from a self-authored image with a free licence to an obvious book cover, but didn't change the licence tag to Book cover. The image was later deleted for incorrect tagging. That doesn't instill much confidence in me that you have enough experience in Wikipedia's Byzantine image policies. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No one should ever feel obliged to make a fair use claim, even on something as innocuous as a book cover.  Jkelly 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood my point. After reverting the image the old tag certainly does not apply anymore, since the images had nothing in common. Whether the book tag applies can usually be determined by a quick Google search, but keeping the old tag up is certainly not proper process and indicative of lack of experience. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did minsunderstand, but am now clear on what the real problem was. Thanks for the explanation. Jkelly 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In my defence, I have tagged many more images as copyvios or mistagged fair use, but as they have since been deleted, they will not show up when you inspect my contributions to the Image namespace, which only covers images that still exist right now; secondly many of my posts on WP:CV have covered multiple infractions at once (e.g.   ).
 * However, with Image:James.jpg, you are right; I did indeed revert the image binary but failed to update the accompanying tag, and have only just realised that. It was a genuine mistake and I regret it - I promise to be more careful in future, but I feel it was a rare single error amongst many other successful good-faith edits. Qwghlm 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.