Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiglaf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiglaf

[edit]

final (25/1/1) ending 09:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What can I say, he bribed me with a barnstar :op — seriously, Wiglaf is one of the best editors in "my" corner of Wikipedia, I come across him often, and we've been involved a couple of troll fights together. Excellent admin material, the only reason I haven't nominated him earlier is that he was finishing a thesis or something and tried to reduce his wiki time, but he seems to have increased his daily dose again, now. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well, thanks Dab! I am flattered by the nomination, and would do my best to live up to the expectations of an admin.--Wiglaf 10:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. sysop subito! dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Of course! Uppland 10:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thue | talk 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Michael Snow 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mike H 16:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sure. I've only seen good work from him, and he is cool-headed. Lupo 18:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sure. – ugen64 22:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sean Curtin 22:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  10. support Kingturtle 01:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. El_C 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. support Down with the trolls!--Jondel 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Dan Koehl 12:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yupsiree. Wiglaf's worthy. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cool. JuntungWu 15:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A fine editor.--Bishonen | talk 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. PedanticallySpeaking 17:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. --Canderson7 22:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. --Silversmith 11:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. A prolific and versatile editor who demonstrates a satisfying ability to learn. --Theo (Talk) 09:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- JCarriker 09:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Sietse 19:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Unqualified Support. I've worked with Wiglaf and have always found him reasonable and pleasant, even when we have (temporarily) disagreed. Fire Star 05:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Wiglaf had a couple of troll fights, becorse he been a troll if he been angry. He make a many pages, but often dictionary pages in Wikipedia.
  • example: East Danes is omly a synonym of Swedes/Geats.
  • He had removed dubious Danish kings becorse they was dubious and not historical fact.
  • He had removed my question from a Discussion-page, becorse it was vandalism as make question to he on a discussion-page.

Haabet 22:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

excellent example of what I was referring to above, thank you Haabet :) dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Wiglaf has a tendency to lose his temper when he is faced with opposition which makes it difficult for administrators to mediate. Calling opponents "amateur historians" is not helpful. Thuresson 13:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I said that about a heated argument with one contributor. And admins shouldn't protect pages they're involved in an edit dispute about, right? Are you trying to get back at me for stating that you have done so? And I can not remember ever having had a discussion where someone has mediated, so your comment is quite below the belt.--Wiglaf 13:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the edit war, you and another user was. The page was locked after you reverted the article for a third time in 90 minutes. It is my opinion, and I believe that others will agree, that the chief virtue of a wikipedia administrator is patience. It is far better to discuss matters on the talk pages instead of reverting and name calling. Thuresson 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I apologize from the bottom of my heart.--Wiglaf 15:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Wiglaf did not call the involved party, 213.101 of Swedish Wikipedia in a dispute over the articles götar and svear, an "amateur historian". He merely pointed out that his edits were amatörforskning, which in my opinion is the most appropriate Swedish translation of original research and was entirely justified in that context; 213's edits and argumentation were blatantly POV, often erroneous and his general behavior was obstructive and uncivil. The only reason that Thuresson did not seem to grasp this is that there is no policy for this at Swedish Wikipedia and that he himself was unambiguously supportive of 213's unqualified edits (see this [[:sv:Anv%E4ndardiskussion:Thuresson#Om_g.F6tar_mm|talk page section]]). That he chooses to comment here while withholding details of his own unwholesome involvement reflects poorly on him, not Wiglaf.
Peter Isotalo 07:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is not directed specifically at Wiglaf although I think it pertinent: Asking for sources must be done gently if it is not to be seen as the club with which some editors have been beaten in edit wars. I prefer to make a reasonable Google search and share the search string if it yields no appropriate hits. --Theo (Talk) 09:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sure, google is a good tool to start an article. But if a point is disputed by other editors, the credibility of sources must be evaluated, and then "I found it on google" will just not be good enough. Of course the disputing should be done in a gentle manner, but sometimes you come across incredible arrogance, to remain perfectly gentle in the face of which would require angelic serenity. dab (ᛏ) 06:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Helping out with various chores, such as unlocking pages, and reverting vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Some archaeology articles, such as stone ship and mythology/history articles such as the expansion of temple at Uppsala.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. During editing conflicts, I ask the other user to cite his sources, but sometimes, I just leave the article for a while, as you can always come back later. In Haabet's case, he became upset when I found out that he lied about his sources, see Talk:List of dubious Danish kings, and he's tried to get back at me several times. I then asked dab for advice and together we have tried to convince Haabet that it is not a wise idea to add bogus information, redirect and rename pages without first trying to establish a consensus on the relevant talkpages. In the future, I will continue to deal with edit conflicts by asking for sources, and by consulting other users.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wiglaf&oldid=1088816945"