Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 4


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

Nomination
Final (16/13/0); Ended 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

– This will be my fourth self-nomination for adminship on Wikipedia, however, it is effectively only my second serious attempt. The first two, which are linked to below, were certainly too hasty. I have spent some time away from Wikipedia because of work commitments but do try to edit where I can. I always maintain a positive, friendly and polite personna as best I can, since I believe this is the best way forward. I have involved myself in WikiProjects that have taken my fancy and was deputy co-ordinator of the AMA until 2007, shortly before the Association was wound up. I believe I have gained plenty of experience working on Wikipedia, and would very much like to serve the community and have your trust to do so. I would urge you to look through my contributions, to see that I am civil and polite, and that I work hard on articles. I would like to help more on Wikipedia, to make a positive impact and a change along with you. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the light of questions of trust raised in this RfA, and a frankly offensive comment in the 13th oppose vote, I have decided to withdraw my self-nomination early. It is obvious that the community does not think I am ready to become an admin and now I don't particularly think I want to be one. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept as this was a self-nomination. Wikiwoohoo (talk)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would more than likely work towards eliminating some of the backlogs that form, especially in the deletion categories. In the past I have contributed to these backlogs myself by nominating (mainly my own) images for deletion, so would work to cut down on these, especially to take some of the workload away from established admins. I would also monitor for vandalism but would use blocks as a last resort.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I enjoy cleaning up an article considerably, either by cutting down on some of the unnecessary content or by expanding it and adding more facts and references. I have done a lot of this on the BBC News and BBC World News articles and improved upon Project MoDEL recently. I have worked hard on articles to get them to a good standard. In particular I have focused a lot of effort on BBC One, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to get them up to good article standard. I have recently looked for articles tagged for needing references, or which sound like advertisements, and tidying them up sufficiently (BBC Weather, Red Bee Media). I have also improved some articles from stubs to larger (First Quench Retailing). I also look to update articles that may otherwise be overlooked (The Co-operative Group, Woolworths Group). I also put a lot of work into History of BBC television idents, after it was nominated for deletion under the name BBC Television Idents for effectively being a repository of fair use images. I believe that article is now in much better shape.


 * 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: I can't think of any times that I have come into conflict over editing personally. If I did ever, I would take time away from the situation - for example not editing that article for a day or so to see how it develops. It's always best though to try to stop the situation from getting out of hand quickly, so I would work to come to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. However, if tempers were rising, continiuing on the same course that created such a level of disruption would be unproductive. I have worked as an advocate with the defunct Association of Members' Advocates, where I worked to alleviate disputes between other users.

'''Optional question from Keepscases


 * 4. After how many beers is it time to stop editing Wikipedia?
 * A: I'd say it's probably best not to edit Wikipedia under the influence!


 * Additional questions from  Simon KSK :
 * 5. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
 * A: I don't think I would. I'd prefer to issue a warning in good faith.


 * 6. Under what circumstances, should you speedy delete a page, despite a Hangon tag?
 * A: If the page was blatent nonsense or vandalism, and the page had been tagged by the single editor. Otherwise I would leave the page to see if it was improved.


 * Question from Seddon
 * 7. What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?
 * A: Holst's The Planets is my favourite piece, and it brings back memories of listening to Mars at school.


 * Questions from Fastily
 * 8. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: A block is a method to stop a registered user from editing Wikipedia. A ban on the other hand is usually refined to certain pages and is most often temporary, though this depends on the severity.


 * 9. An IP is vandalizing pages and you give them a final warning on their talk page. If the IP then vandalizes your userpage, would you block the IP, or report the IP to WP:AIV? Basically, would you consider blocking the IP a conflict of interest?
 * A: Although it could be said that blocking an IP that had vandalised my userpage would be a conflict of interest, it would have still been their last chance. If they had been editing solely with the purpose of vandalising pages, whether they vandalised my userpage or anothers, it would still be vandalism.

General comments

 * Links for Wikiwoohoo:
 * Edit summary usage for Wikiwoohoo can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * I don't really like the answer to question #1 - "I have contributed to these backlogs myself by nominating (mainly my own) images for deletion". - why would you want to be mainly deleting your own images? - Fastily (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was because I uploaded several images again under more descriptive filenames. I then listed the originals as IfDs, and later used the orphaned fair use tag. I have also removed images in articles added by others. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Appears to have a clue, and failed the last RfA years ago. I see no threat to the project. We already trust him with rollback, and his contribution history clearly indicates someone working well in admin areas. Clean block log, and history of civil interactions. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - per PhilKnight. I think it's about time that the user should be admin. Don't see any problems for awhile. Versus22 talk 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I did a review of this Wikiwoohoo's recent edits, and I couldn't find any problems. His deleted edits and file-space edits reveal knowledge of the image policy; he has rollback, and his content edits look good. I think that "need" is irrelevant, but if he did base adminship on whether the candidate needs it or not, Wikiwoohoo's image work shows that giving him the tools would be useful there, and we need more image admins. I also don't see why short (and honest, in my opinion) answers translates into this not being a "serious" nomination and to not putting any effort towards the nomination. I have no problems in giving Wikiwoohoo the tools. Acalamari 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems to be a serious user, with at least adequate knowledge of policy and a more than adequate edit count and edit spread. His last RfA, which was only a failure on marginal no consensus, was two years ago, and the previous one a year before that. I do not consider a short answer or a short nomination as in any way superficial, and have no hesitation in supporting. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, no big deal.  Majorly  talk  20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly!  iMatthew  //  talk  //  23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Good answers, very reasonable, a bit short, though. Seems like a good editor to me!  Simon KSK  01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support You could consider working in more collaborative areas in the future, such as WP:XfD.  - down  load  |  sign!  01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I just don't find anything wrong in the contributions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I see no problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No problems here. Good luck.-- Giants27 T/  C  02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Answers seem solid as does the editor. Dean B (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support An editor for over three years, backlog rights, clean block log, and a history of civil interactions. Adminship is no big deal, and there is nothing to suggest that Wikiwoohoo will abuse the tools, regardless of whether he needs them. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Clean block log, Long experience and over two years since the last RFA  Were Spiel  Chequers  08:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I need more reasons, more justifications, and the rest. If this is going to be a serious attempt, please put more into it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sorry, but Question is not clear. I just don't see a need. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NONEED, but I agree otherwise. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Opppose I have a general lack of trust, hard to explain but I do not feel you have the necessary experience, nor do I feel you have placed enough effort into this nomination. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Agree with above (other than "need"). I just don't see a lot of effort put into this.  Perhaps another time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Admittedly I haven't looked through this user's contribs as much as I should, though I just don't think this user would make a good admin, and I can't quite explain why. His answer to question 3 makes me uneasy. he should have experience with disputes, even dispute resolution. As an admin there are many situations where it will literally be impossible to walk away from a dispute because people will follow you, nagging and hastling. This isn't the whole reason for it. Basically, go away for a bit, solve (or even just get involved) involved some drama and then see if you want adminship. Basically, per Cyclonenim.-- Patton t / c 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not much recent talk page activity (bots excepted) + stated desire to avoid conflict in Q3 + stated desire to work in deletion categories in Q1 = me uncomfortable with this. I have no civility concerns, and I have no doubt you mean well, this just doesn't seem like the right time.  Thank you for volunteering all the same. Townlake (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose -- I also don't see the effort or encouragement to be an admin.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Tentative oppose - Something throws me off with this candidate, but I don't know if I could pin it down to not seeing 'effort' or 'lack of need'. If I had to put it down to one defining attribute, I guess that the answers to the questions are unsatisfactory, and leave me feeling uncertain and uneasy, but that is not my main issue, which I am having a bit of trouble expressing. Other than on the 'effort' and 'need' comments, I tend to agree with what people have wrote above. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Q5. Any user who has had 4 RfA's should have been around the block enough to know there are plenty of times where one would block without a warning.  You're going to warn a Grawp sock?  Combine that with Q6 and Q3 and it paints the picture of an editor who has no experience dealing with controversy and so I don't believe that there is a demonstration of the temperament or judgment to handle tough situations.  Any good admin will piss someone off sooner or later, and it's important to me that someone has seen at least some type of conflict. Oren0 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Sorry, but the answers to Questions 5 and 6 are missing too much to give me enough confidence. Has certainly been around a good while, but no clear demonstration to me of understanding and involvement in WP namespace edits/contributions. -- Ged  UK  08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I just recently (approx. two days ago) closed not one but two, three, four, five, six, and seven MfD's filed by this user (excluding 4 valid MfD's I rightfully left available for comments). This tells me that the user is a bit quick on such matters, and makes me question their judgment when it comes to the wikipedia namespace. My overall point, is that with something as simple as which venue to seek for deletion, I'm left wondering what else this user has ignored. If you haven't understood the basics, you're more likely to not understand the complexities of the tasks for which you seek. Conclusion: I believe you lack the experience needed (which is surprising since this is your fourth RfA). Some of the answers to the questions show this; as noted above.  Syn  ergy 08:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I added the articles, category and redirects as MfD's was because I wanted to keep all the nominations together. It is not that I don't understand Wikipedia policy, far from it, but more that I wanted to establish more of a debate on what to keep from a project now marked as historical. In my mind there is quite a lot from the AMA that does not need to remain on Wikipedia and won't impact on how inactive projects are marked as historical. I have initiated a request for comment on the WP:AMA talk page because of this. It might have been better if you had contacted me with your concerns when I put up the listings, as one other user did, and I explained my reasons to which he agreed. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I fully understand why they were all nominated in the same area. The problem was that they were in the wrong forum completely. I didn't feel that a talk page message was needed in this case, since there was nothing else to say besides the message on all of the closed MfDs (figuring you would have noticed had you checked on them). It is simply not within MfD's purview to decide the outcome of redirects and categories, and this lack of knowledge within project namespace is something I cannot overlook.  Syn  ergy 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Wants to work in deletion but seems to have no experience at all with WP:CSD. While I usually "complain" about people being overeager, the opposite is not necessarily better. One needs to understand when to use what and I simply see no grasp of policy if one does nominate such an redirect for WP:RFD instead of using R3. Also, per above. Regards  So Why  14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Q5. We have enough mush-brained admins who can't determine when it's a good idea to block without warnings. Sockpuppets do not require warnings. Aside from that, I just get a general feeling of uneasiness reading over this nomination. I have a feeling this user does not have a strong grasp of admin-related functions. Trusilver  16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral



 * 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.