Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whpq: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]]. Please do not modify it.''[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]

===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whpq|Whpq]]===

'''Final: (213/9/0) - Closed as successful by [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] at 03:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)'''

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whpq|action=edit&section=4}} Voice your opinion on this candidate] ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Whpq|talk page]])

'''{{RfA tally|Whpq}}; Scheduled to end 04:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)'''

====Nomination====

Line 30 ⟶ 32:

:'''4.''' Will you be open to recall? If so, under what conditions?

::'''A:''' No, not as such. The addition of more avenues for drama is not a good thing. Having said that, if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 15:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

:::Would you clarify this answer [[User:Whpq|Whpq]]. You foreground your response with a "No", then go on to outline your criteria for a [[WP:RECALL]], so it looks like you're saying yes. Being open to recall means that you'd be willing to resign without going through an avenue of drama such as ArbCom or ANI if editors you trust and respect say you should resign - and that's what you've said in your response. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

::::What I have promised looks very close to criteria that many might use when saying yes to recall. But I am not saying yes to recall. The recall question is being used as some sort of promise of accountability from the candidate. The fact that I, or any other candidate has stepped up to an RFA is a promise of accountability. A recall process which in which the rules for recall are made up, not uniform, can be changed at any time, and then are also non-binding anyways is just window dressing. I'm not signing up for window dressing. The question is also being used as a bulwark against insufficient procedures for desysop. I can understand that position. But the answer is to get a uniform process that is binding, and applies to all admins. [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

;Optional question from [[User:Idoghor Melody|Idoghor Melody]]

:'''5.''' As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?

Line 58 ⟶ 62:

:'''13.''' Thanks for volunteering! I agree in full with your answer to Q3—we should all definitely take a step back whenever we're feeling stressed ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is stressful|shameless plug for my essay on this]]). As a follow-up to that question, were there any specific disputes or stressful situations that came to mind when you were answering this question? I'd be interested in learning more about a specific example.

::'''A:''' I don't really recall any incidents that upped the stress level too high. I just try to never let get that far. Earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whpq/Archive_16#Damn_you. this] was mentioned. I must admit, my immediate reaction was "Well, F*** you too!". But that is obviously not the right thing to do. That sort of thing is not acceptable, but it is understandable. Editors can get upset when their work is deleted, and I try to understand that and respond to the issue and not the insult. So I switch tabs on my browser to Youtube, watch some squirrels run a ninja obstacle course, and then I'm in a much better place to respond. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 17:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

;Optional question from [[User:Saturnrises|Saturnrises]]

:'''14.''' Can a user remove a CSD tag from a page he has created?

::'''A:''' No, but they can contest it with a message on the talk page. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 13:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

;Optional question from [[User:Saturnrises|Saturnrises]]

:'''15.''' What is the difference between a indef block and ban

::'''A:''' A block is a technical restriction on editing placed against an account. A ban is a community sanction against an editor restricting their editing priveleges. A block may be used as a means to enforce a ban. Indefinite refers to the block or ban having no specific duration, and does noy mean permanent. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

====Discussion====

Line 83 ⟶ 93:

#'''Support''' More important than their edits is the amount of clean up they've done, which is a LOT. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|Dr vulpes]]''' ([[User talk:Dr_vulpes|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dr_vulpes|📝]]) 05:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Good-natured, very knowledgeable, and likely to be a huge net positive. I'd normally look more closely at content creation, but I think their work at FfD is so important that a lack of GAs wouldn't change my opinion. [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 05:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

#: '''''Withdrawn.''''' <s>'''Support.''' I don't know the nominee and I've never written a Good or Featured article in my life, I'm just happy to welcome people aboard who will shoulder a share of the administrative load in good spirits and be happy to serve our encyclopedic purposes. – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 06:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)</s>

#'''Support''' I don't have a problem supporting this nomination based on the above and nominator statements. Wishing you the best of luck with this application, {{re|Whpq}}! --[[User:TheSandDoctor|TheSandDoctor]] [[User talk:TheSandDoctor|Talk]] 06:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - This user nominated some of the images I uploaded on commons sometime ago for deletion due to copyright issues that I wasn't aware of and I think some of the files I uploaded here on en.wiki too. At first I was so unhappy and felt very bad, but as time goes on, I'm happy they did what they did. I'm sure they'll perform well as an administrator. Goodluck to them. '''''[[user:Idoghor Melody|Comr Melody Idoghor]]''''' [[User talk:Idoghor Melody|'''''(talk)''''']] 07:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Line 264 ⟶ 274:

#'''Support''' as a matter of form, because (for the second time in a row) I find the opposition rationales to be completely unconvincing. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 20:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Decent candidate who can do real work well. '''[[User:scope_creep|scope_creep]][[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]''' 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Very qualified and seems to be a very good candidate particularly for working in copyvio. [[User:Duonaut|Duonaut]] ''([[User talk:Duonaut|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Duonaut|contribs]])'' 21:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - I've seen Whpq around forever, and consider them a valuable and devoted contributor to our project. Their skills in file copyright issues is key - this area of the encylopedia is confusing to a lot of users, and another admin with those skills would truly be a positive addition. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 23:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' -Editor understands copyright as much as anyone can in what is a complicated and contested area. I wouldn't have even gone so far as to say "Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously" without qualification (as Robert McClenon did, not the candidate). FFD can use their talent and experience. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)]] 23:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support'''- Seen this editor around Wikipedia and I trust them to utilize administrator tools wisely. [[User:Helloheart| Helloheart ]] [[User talk:Helloheart|(talk)]] 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' I understand the "elitist attitude" issue that others have raised. I'm not thrilled by an admin refusing recall. That being said and carefully considered, Whpq becoming an admin is still a clear net positive. [[User:GrammarDamner|GrammarDamner]] [[User talk:GrammarDamner|how are things?]] 05:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Hakuna Matata '''- Yours Faithfully, [[User:GA Melbourne|GA Melbourne]] ( [[User talk:GA Melbourne|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/GA Melbourne|C]] )''' 10:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''', a candidate cannot be faulted for refusing to go through a recall process that has never been granted consensus by the community, indeed I applaud their bravery in taking a principled stand on this matter, even if I disagree with it. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Wish the candidate was open to recall but given the fact that process doesn't formally exist its not a huge issue for me.Thanks,[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|◊distænt write◊]] 14:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' I was a little hesitant because I feel some GA or FA are definitely desirable for an admin; but I feel the tremendous amount of good work in (tricky) areas outweighs these shortcomings. Has need for the tools, and will likely use them wisely. –[[User:LordPeterII|LordPeterII]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|talk]]) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Candidate clearly has sufficient experience, and good answers to questions. Despite no GAs or FAs, I believe the quantity of article creations is sufficient to show familiarity with content. Not really concerned about recall. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Experienced and has understanding in copyright. from yours truly, [[User:Harobouri|Harobouri]] [[User talk:Harobouri|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Harobouri|C]] 22:27, 30 September 2022‎ (UTC)

# No concerns; opposition unconvincing. — [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]] 01:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Appears competent -- [[User:Dolotta|Dolotta]] ([[User talk:Dolotta|talk]]) 01:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

# '''Support'''. I like that he has been involved in and understaffed part of the project, and I'm eager to support candidates with some proficiency in such areas. I like to see familiarity with content creation and Whpq passes my (low) bar. I've seen multiple ArbCom desysops this year and am not concerned about add-on avenues for pulling the mop. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''', trusted contributor, no red lights. By the way, none of the opposes is based on the candidate's merits, while here it's merits that matter. — [[User:Kashmiri|kashmīrī]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|TALK]] 11:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' per excellent answer to Q4. I'm thrilled that the candidate has stood up to the borderline bullying of candidates over recall, and that this RFA has made it abundantly clear that recall is in no way, shape, or form a requirement for new admins going forward. Hopedully those that keep trying to make this a ''de facto'' requirement can finally see that it very much is not and will stop pushing recall at every RFA. It's time to stop pretending we have a recall process. --[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' looks good, oppose reasons are unconvincing to me. [[User:JesseW|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - Already thought they were an admin, Experienced and trusted editor who will make a great admin!, The opposes are laughable and should be ignored in their entirety (RECALL should be down to the individual and imho shouldn't really be asked at RFAs as it's sort of irrelevant in some ways), Anyway easy support. No red flags. –[[User:Davey2010|'''Davey''''''2010''']][[User talk:Davey2010|Talk]] 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#Seems to have the appropriate experience and temperament to make a good admin. If the biggest thing against him is that he won't do voluntary recall - when the community has rejected forcing recall on admin - that says there isn't much to argue against. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with this candidate, but they appear to have all the necessary qualifications, and given that this is one of the least convincing RfA oppose sections in recent memory, I see no reason to deny Whpq the extra buttons in their interface. Q4 was merely about whether the candidate would be open to [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall|this archaic procedure]]; it was not a question about whether the candidate would be open to feedback from the broader community about their administrative actions. In fact, they specifically stated they ''would'' resign if they felt that they lost the confidence of the community. Editors in the oppose section are tunnel-visioning on the phrase "editors I trust and respect" and interpreting it to mean that they would ignore the views of people not within that subset of the community, but that's not what the candidate is saying. Determining whether you have lost the confidence of the community can be vague and subjective, but one big red flag is when editors you respect (e.g. perhaps because you have worked with them on projects in the past) are telling you to resign. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 18:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. No further comment. [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' as we need more copyright admins. I respect the right of other editors to oppose based on recall though. [[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) (please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - Reliable user.[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|'''CAPTAIN RAJU''']][[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]] 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - I like his user name. [[User:T. Mammothy|T. Mammothy]] ([[User talk:T. Mammothy|talk]]) 21:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

# has a clue, not a jerk. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support''' If needed, there are ways to desysop.--[[User:Loriendrew|☾Loriendrew☽]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|☏''(ring-ring)'']] 01:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. I have run across Whpq's work here in the past, and I have no objections, despite what others may say about the response to Q4. --[[User:Kinu|Kinu]] [[User_talk:Kinu|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Kinu|c]] 03:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

=====Oppose=====

Line 287 ⟶ 325:

#'''Weak oppose'''. While recall is (and should be) optional, I am concerned that this users sees accountability as drama. I am aware that the user's statement has a second part where they say they would resign if editors whom they respect call for it, but the answer to "Who does the calling?" would be subjective. Thanks, [[User:NotReallySoroka|NotReallySoroka]] ([[User talk:NotReallySoroka|talk]]) 05:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' per answer to 4, seeing accountability to the community as a mere avenue for drama. //[[User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|Lollipoplollipoplollipop]]::[[User talk:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|talk]] 15:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''', regretfully. The candidate's tenure is certainly something worthy of recognition, but the fact they have refused to be open to recall also worries me, given that I believe it is necessary in the interests of transparency and accountability. [[User:Patient Zero|'''Patient Zero''']][[User talk:Patient Zero|'''talk''']] 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

=====Neutral=====

Line 301 ⟶ 340:

*::::Non-AfD XfDs (as well as RMs) are my lifeblood in Wikipedia editing. The fact that these processes have poor bus factors hits me dearly. — ''Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung'', ''[[User:Mellohi!|mello]]'''''[[User talk:Mellohi!|hi!]]''' ([[Special:Contributions/Mellohi!|投稿]]) 23:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

*:::::We already don't have enough people to help with splits or removing tags if no consensus or consensus against. That proposed splits are scattered between [[:Category:Articles to be split]] and [[Wikipedia:Proposed article splits]] instead of being centralized like RMs doesn't help. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 20:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

*::::::So article splits shouldn't be split? :) ~~~~ – [[User:FlyingAce|FlyingAce]][[User talk:FlyingAce|✈hello]] 00:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Apologies to the clerks, but this pun is too good for me to ''not'' respond. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

----

Line 311 ⟶ 350:

*{{u|Whpq}} I was just wondering how your username is pronounced? I've been saying it the way I would spell it (W-h-p-q), but I could be mistaken. ◇'''[[User:HelenDegenerate|Helen]]''''''[[User talk:HelenDegenerate|Degenerate]]'''◆ 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

*:Correct. [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

*::Oh. So not with a weird swooshing and guttural sound...? Eh, fine with me. –[[User:LordPeterII|LordPeterII]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|talk]]) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (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 [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>