Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nwwaew 2


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

Nwwaew
(talk page) (1/5/4); Scheduled to end 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate  Enigma  message 04:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

- I'm self-nominating after a snowball self-nom that failed in July of 2007. Since then, I've done work with finding open proxies, and done some more mainspace work. However, I am a Wikignome- in two years of being here, I have around 450 mainspace contributions, compared to about 1100 talk page contributions. To note, those number is inflated because of a period in 2006 where I was doing almost nothing but warning and reporting vandals.

Other than that, I can't really think of anything to say at the moment that I'm answering in the questions below. I'm also going to add a few questions I see people asking all the time, to show some of my views on issues.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing, since this is probably going to be closed per WP:SNOW. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Blocking open proxies and vandals, and deleting speedy deletion candidates.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Yesterday, I rewrote and cleaned up the Eastern Glow article, which was pretty much a speedy deletion candidate before I worked on it. I also rewrote Fenton Art Glass Company, after it was found to be a copyright violation.


 * 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: There was the MarkAnthony incident, and the User:Johnjoecavanagh incident. Both involved indef blocked editors coming back to harass me (and another editor) using sockpuppets and IP addresses. In that case, I kept getting them blocked with the help of Alison, until I proposed community bans for both of them.

Self asked (and answered) questions
1. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: A block is a technical measure that disables editing for an account. A ban is to revoke the editing privileges of the person behind the account in question.

2. When should cool-off blocks be used?
 * A: Very sparingly to never at all. Using a block to cool someone off is the same as pouring gas on a fire- it's just going to make the situation hotter and more intense.

3. Will you add yourself to Admins open to recall?
 * A: Yes. If the community feels I should not have the sysop bit, then they should be able to desysop me easily.

4. If you found a case of admin abuse, how would you deal with it?
 * A: It depends on the severity of the case. One thing I would do immediately would be to notify the Arbitration Committee by e-mail, so that they would know what is going on. I would then proceed based on the situation in question, and work from there.

General comments

 * Links for Nwwaew:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nwwaew before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Moral Support It looks like the weather's getting a bit choppy, so I'll be quick. You've got excellent WP:AIV work (astounding would be a better word), but it seems like you just need to read up on policy a little more, so you can understand how this place works. I'd still love to see this RfA pass, though.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, but I have to oppose as per your responses to Q1 and Q2 of your self-asked questions. The short answers there imply that you might just as easily think that much about blocks, protections etc..., and with only 500 mainspace edits, you just aren't quite ready yet.  Sorry, Razorflame 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - "Self" answers to Q3 and Q4 indicate lack of policy knowledge, or rather, forethought. Reporting admin abuse should probably be brought to WP:AN or WP:ANI first. And WP:AOR is a reconfirmation..not a quick desysoping. The answers to your other questions are lackluster and unremarkable. There also seems to be experience issues here.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure about this .  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the candidate just posted the notice, as another user was the one tagging the article for speedy deletion, here. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that helps. However, a person working in CSD should know that schools never meet the criteria for speedy deletion, unless it's a blatant hoax or disparaging. The tag should have been removed.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. If your cite as your best contribution an article on an unsourced Myspace band with no releases I don't believe you understand WP:N; since you explicitly say you want to work in deletion, this is the one policy you need to know inside-out. (I've refrained from prodding the article for the duration of this RFA.) —  iride  scent  03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment here. I just looked closely at said article. The WP:MOS for music isn't adhered to properly at all. Also, you place a myspace link under a references section? That would be more suitable for external links, although they are discouraged altogether so it doesn't belong in the article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) SA3 and SA4 show that the user is not familiar with policy.  m ir a nd a   03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, I'm not really an edit counter, but you don't seem to have enough experience yet. Keep editing and come back in a few months! Aleta  Sing 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral Support, as I think the candidate would be a good admin overall, but I'm not entirely confident that their time has come just yet, based on the answers to the questions thusfar. Let me think on this one. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral "No big deal" says you're okay, but more experience would be preferable. I would strongly disagree with your answer to Q5 about contacting the Arbitration Committee by email.  I've done that myself recently, and as cooperative as they try to be, they are massively overworked and should not be contacted unless you really, really need to bother them.  Try other methods first. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral advise withdrawing nom.Balloonman (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Sorry - Less than 3,000 edits and a majority of them to your User page and Sandbox, cannot support at this time.  However, that is problem easily fixed!  Just branch out a bit and would be happy to review in another 3 months.  You have done nice work to this point, your contributions are appreciated. ShoesssS Talk 03:51, 5 May 2008 (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.