Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 5


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

Wikiwoohoo
Final tally: (29/27/12) (Non-bureaucrat closure) Frank  |  talk  17:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– This is my 5th self nomination, which obviously won't look good. Please consider it my 4th proper nomination as my first was far too early. I have worked hard here to improve articles alongside everyone else. I have worked with various WikiProjects and the ill-fated Association of Members' Advocates and have learnt plenty over the past few years. I feel however that I have reached the stage where I could do more useful tasks if I had the tools. If the community decides to entrust them to me then I intend to honour that trust. I feel I am ready, but that is for you to decide. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would spend a lot of time working on the various backlogs that there are around Wikipedia. I would review the speedy delete and XfD pages predominantly but not just be confined to these. I wouldn't completely limit myself to files - I'm also quite interested in Admin Coaching once I'd got some time as an admin under my belt. Helping other users like that appeals to me.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I enjoy looking at articles that need updating or cleaning up and spending time getting these up to scratch. I like to be able to make a big change to an article that improves it positively. This could be just updating an article or fixing the sections or something as simple as adding an infobox. I created the Santander UK article for use once Abbey (bank) and Bradford & Bingley began operating under that brand name and I have also worked to update TalkTalk since they acquired the UK branch of Tiscali in 2009. I have recently been working on ABN AMRO updating the article following a major split up of the company. I have suggested the article split in two to represent these organisational changes and await what others have to say on this proposal listed on the article talk page.


 * 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 have had perhaps a couple of times where myself and another editor have disagreed over the direction an article should take. When this has happened, I have tried to include as many other people as I could to create a wider discussion so as to be able to come to a consensus that way. These have been very rare, so I don't have that much to say personably about being in conflicts. I can say though that I have taken steps to avoid it becoming a serious dispute. It doesn't help anyone to get into arguments on Wikipedia so I avoid them.


 * Additional optional questions from Shirik
 * 4. As reviewing administrator, how would you respond to this and this CSD nomination?
 * A: Looking at the two I don't think the second CSD nomination needs to be made. This could be redirected to the Acme Corporation unless it is an article name that is too similar to others that are already in use. The first article nominated states ' John Doe is a brilliant guitar player that has won many awards ' and is too vague for use. I would probably delete this as it does not credibly indicate the importance of the subject as the nomination states. I'd prefer a redirect for the second nomination first of all, but would consider deletion since it also does not suggest the importance.

Please note that I have removed question 5 --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve


 * 6. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
 * A. I would make sure the information I put into the article was sourced with reliable references if anything I had added that was not referenced was removed. I would also get in contact with the user who had removed my edits, to establish that I would be adding the information again with references.


 * 7. In an AfD, what would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?
 * A: I wouldn't discount !votes unless they were obvious sock puppets or anonymous IP addresses. I'd prefer not to discount !votes in most cases, but it would depend on the situation. If I were to discount a !vote it would be if made by an obvious sock puppet but if I was unsure of anything I would ask another admin for a second opinion. I did say anonymous IP but this could have been an editor whose login time expired while they were editing, so it's difficult but I would ask for help if I needed it.


 * Additional optional questions from 7
 * 8 Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
 * A. To be honest, having had no experience of blocking, I don't know when I would block a user without a warning. I'd prefer not to but it would depend on the situation, which I would review and seek to take the most appropriate action.


 * Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee
 * 9. Could you give us some examples of what you think are your best contributions to XfD discussions?
 * A: I'm not sure I have a best contribution to any XfD discussions, in as far as I don't really rate them. I nominated BBC One 'Circle' idents and BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents for deletion and several of the images in History of BBC television idents and took part in the discussion about these. Where these discussions came to a halt I removed the listings to see if something could be done that didn't involve deletion. I also worked to keep ITV television presentation so it could be kept, which it has been. tghe-retford originally nominated that article and several similar ones for deletion. When myself and other editors had worked hard on it, it did not seem as though anything else could be done and I nominated it for deletion. The decision was made to keep the article and I spent some time working on it, renaming it History of ITV television idents. I'd say it was now in a much better state.


 * Additional optional questions from Kraftlos
 * 10. I couldn't really tell from your edits and userpage, are you involved with any WikiProjects?
 * A: Yes, over the past couple of years I have worked with WikiProject British TV channels and WikiProject BBC. I left both projects recently to concentrate on other topics but still look in on them both from time to time. I spent quite a while finishing off Portal:BBC and getting it up and running. Before I began work on it, it was only about half complete.


 * Questions from  F ASTILY 
 * 11. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
 * A. If a free alternative image is available then I would prefer to use it if it was suitable and showed the subject as the main focus of the image. Sorry, misread the question. In my own experience many fair use images of living people have been removed from articlesand not replaced with free images. I think the priority with adding images to biographical articles should be that they are free for use.


 * 12. Say for instance, on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a user adds 25 images (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) which illustrate gameplay. Detail every step you would take to address the situation.
 * A. I would first of all be bold, and remove some of the images that serve to illustrate the article the least. These could be images that are not largely dissimilar from others in the article, and those that illustrate parts of the subject that aren't as important as others. If this was reverted by another user I would raise the issue of what to do with the images on the talk page. I have had a similar case with History of BBC television idents. I originally created the article and uploaded many of the images that are still used within it. However, I realised that there were too many images there, and removed some of those I felt were less essential but these edits were reverted. I then took some of the images to Ffd and discussed the situation on the article talk page and with another interested user.


 * 13. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere.  In a detailed, manner, explain your course of action.
 * A. I would remove the image from the article, tag it (most likely on Ffd), and inform the uploader that it is inappropriate.


 * 14. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies?  Explain.
 * A. Non-free content that is used on Wikipedia under fair use claims is used where images are of a low resolution to illustrate something that would not have a free image of it in existence. This could be a television programme, where the titles are shown on screen and so would require a television screenshot, or perhaps even an event that was caught on television but no free images were able to be taken. As an example BBC Television Centre and 4 March 2001 BBC bombing include File:BBC TV Centre IRA Bomb Damage.jpg which is a fair use television screenshot of the IRA bomb attack on the building, taken from a news report. It is very unlikely that there will be many accessible free use images of this event (if any) so in this case the event can be illustrated using this type of image.


 * 15. Just out of curiosity, are you above or below the Age of Majority where you live? (Please bear in mind that this is purely an optional question and you are absolutely not required to answer should you choose not to.)
 * A. I am very much above.


 * Questions from Shadowjams
 * 16. What is your opinion of New Page patrolling? My question includes similar functions, like new image and new category patrolling. Are there any criteria or suggestions that should be heeded by new page patrollers, or any undue restrictions that should be rethought?
 * A: This and the other functions you have mentioned are very useful tools for monitoring what's being added to Wikipedia. It should be used with care however, and there can be the danger that stubs are deleted quickly by admins who do not know about their subject, and images that can be tagged for deletion before the uploader has a chance to come back and add licensing information or correct mistakes. I think it is worth thinking about what is created before considering tagging it for deletion and just applying common sense when making decisions. If I was an admin patrolling the new pages and uploads I would not rush in and want to delete straight away but consider what I was presented with. Obvious copyright violations or unencyclopedic content can be caught quickly and removed from Wikipedia but the rest should be given a chance.


 * Additional optional questions from Lambanog
 * 17. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
 * A: I have checked the tools and can see I have created 119 so far, though this includes redirects and page moves. The article I am most pleased with for the level of activity it has generated is History of BBC television idents. However, the number of fair use images in that article has at times become a little too excessive and I have tried to cut down on some of these. At one point I considered merging the sections into their respective BBC television channel articles but have now been convinced that this is a bad idea.
 * 18. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news
 * A: The links in question were shorthand links to template pages already in use on Wikipedia. It seems as though they were created by one user to make it easier for them to get to the main pages, but were of no real use to others on the project. I wouldn't say they were interfering with the encyclopedia as the nominator was claiming, and from what I can see, these redirects were harmless. Personally I don't think I would create my own shortcuts for Wikipedia but it could be worth looking at the style used for all types of pages.

You might also want to look at the RfD's Deletion Review on the 1st Feb.
 * Addition to Lambanog's question by Phantomsteve

Generally I can look and tell if I support or oppose a candidate, but I'm stuck in the middle here. The fact that you have had 5 4 nominations concerns me. Why do you feel your past nominations have failed, and based on that- what have you done to eliminate those concerns raised?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 10:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question from  D u s t i SPEAK!! '''
 * All my nominations have been self-nominations, and I would say the first two were much too early. My third nomination was very close, ending with more supports than opposes and neutrals but consensus could not be reached. Essjay who closed the nomination told me he had considered striking out some of the votes, but I'm glad he didn't. A lot of the concerns were about experience and I have worked hard since then and gained plenty of it. What got to me on my 4th nomination and led to me withdrawing it early was the comments about the lack of trust some users said they had in me based on some of my answers to questions. I felt I couldn't stand for nomination if people couldn't trust me.


 * Additional optional questions from Arctic Night
 * 19. I noticed that just over a month ago you retired from Wikipedia. Why did you retire, and why did you return?
 * A: I chose to retire as I felt my time on Wikipedia had run its course. I was convinced that I should give it a rest. However, I then came across some mistakes and articles that needed updating when I was browsing Wikipedia and decided to come back and help sort things out where I could.


 * Additional optional questions from NativeForeigner
 * 20. Firstly, I feel really really really really really sorry for asking the twentieth question on the first day. Stuff like this shouldn't happen.  This is a truly optional question, and do not feel obligated to answer it. What is your view on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship  Do you see this as being a real problem, and do you agree with the proposal to support long time (12 month) respected mainspace contributors?
 * A: No it's no trouble. I believe that too much emphasis can be placed on edit counts and the number of years someone has been active on Wikipedia, and threatens to undermine the work they have done. In the past I have had oppose votes go against me because of my lower number of edits, my level of experience or even my username sounding too much like Wikipedia. I agree that the level of experience someone has on Wikipedia is important, but 12 months of solid contributing should be considered seriously in the same way two years might be. Anyone with a request for adminship should have their edits examined first and foremost, and be judged on what they have done on Wikipedia rather than how long they've been around. I'd personally set below consider around 8 or 9 months as the threshold, before that would be too early to stand for adminship, but it would depend on the person each and every time. I've had four previous RfAs, two far too early, a third which came close but did not reach consensus and a fourth I withdrew early. I've seen where I've gone wrong through the experience of those RfAs and through the time I've spent editing, but that's not to say that I'm ready now, it's for the community to decide. I'd like that to be decided on based on my edits, the same way as I'd like someone with 12 months of contributions to be judged on the strength of theirs. As has been stated in several !votes below, there is still time once a user is voted as an admin to learn and know what to do. I don't think there's been any user standing for adminship who has known exactly what they would do in every situation they later get into as an admin.


 * Question from SlimVirgin
 * 21. Hi, sorry if this has been answered already. You said in your first edit that you were a previously well-known Wikipedian. Can you tell us which account that was?  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A. To be completely honest, 'previously well-known Wikipedian' was meant to be a humorous exaggeration. It was foolish of me to write that - I can see that now. I did have another account however, which I don't remember the username of or the password, and despite previous attempts by others to help me find it, I'd written off as gone. With this account I have my username and password on a post-it next to the PC screen so that it won't happen again. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful but it's the truth.
 * Following concerns over security I have shredded the aforementioned post-it. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Suomi Finland 2009
 * 22.. An editor asks for your help.  Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute infobox has a USA flag but it is not the 1831 version, but the 1960 version.  Do you reply "fuck off", give an answer, don't give an answer?


 * A. I would give that editor help. I'd look into what had been done to the article and who had added the incorrect flag for the time, and get in contact with them. Unless it had already been changed I may change it and add a note in my edit summary and on the article talkpage to explain my actions. I would monitor the page too to check that no dispute arouse as a result. I'd never use profanities on Wikipedia.


 * 23.. What should an administrator do if notified of someone else's alleged improper conduct?  For example, if an administrator A votes for a delete in an AFD which is eventually decided as a keep by another admin, is it a conflict of interest if that same admin A opens a merge/redirect discussion, decides on that discussion, redirects but not merges, and page protects the redirect?  If not, no further question for you.  If so, what would you do?  If the admin A says maybe he shouldn't have done it, who should correct the conflict of interest (should uninvolved editor X, who really doesn't have any interest in the matter except in discovering it do something?  Who you as a new admin notified of this do anything?)?


 * A. I think it would be a conflict of interest to decide on the outcome for a discussion into an article you have tried to delete. If I was notified of this happening or noticed it myself I would get in contact with admin A and discuss what to do. This way I would hear from them why they chose to take that action and they would then tell me whether or not they felt it was appropriate or not. This is a hypothetical situation of course, but I would believe it to be the role of the admin who either discovered the matter themself or was directed to it would should correct the conflict of interest, while maintaining a discussion with all the interested parties (including admin A).


 * Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana


 * 24 What's your definition of IAR?


 * A Ignoring all rules is sometimes to be considered if a positive change can be made to Wikipedia which requires going against a set rule to achieve it. It would not involve making a change that could be considered disruptive or even vandalism, but one that could be argued was held back by bureaucracy.

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

 * Edit stats on the talk page.  7  01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, you know that you can see how many articles, etc, the candidate has created by using SoxRed93's tool? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does the candidate? In any event, it aids the process and gives an idea of what the candidate feels is important or representative of their work.  Soxred's tools give good quantitative but not necessarily qualitative information. Lambanog (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can a sysop give an approximation of how many of Wikiwoohoo's 2,523 deleted edits are CSD related, and how many were in User: namespace?  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would also be good if an indication can be given of how many are CSD related within the last 2 years and some general indication of what these are for. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have looked at the deleted contributions:
 * There are a lot of files which were tagged for WP:IfD (FfD) - some of these are images which the candidate uploaded and requested deleted; some are other files which the candidate requested to be deleted, and these almost all were deleted. Quite a few are "orphaned fair use".
 * There are a few CSD requests using G6 - basically asking for a current article to be deleted to allow another article to be moved to the name. All of these appear to have been accepted - I didn't see any that weren't.
 * I didn't see any other CSD requests where the article was deleted.
 * The only other deleted contributions I can see are a couple of RfDs and MfDs and two Editor reviews - which the candidate requested to be deleted, as they had not received any reviews. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look at the deleted contribs.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My goodness, 19 questions. Are those really all necessary? NW ( Talk ) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And its only one day too....Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am keen to work on backlogs but this wouldn't be all I would do. I'm quite interested in Admin Coaching in the future once (or if) I've been in the role for a while. But I would never do anything I wasn't sure about. I would never rush in without knowing what to do, I'd always ask for help where I need it. I'm sorry if my short replies have not been up to the standard you would prefer, but I believe in the idea of 'why use three lines when one will do?' but if you would prefer me to look at my answers again then I would be happy to. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, 22 questions? Are they that necessary? Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they that necessary? "An editor asks for your help ... Do you reply "fuck off", give an answer, don't give an answer?" I would venture to say no.    S warm  ( Talk ) 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really get that question. Why wouldn't you give an answer? Plus, is the asker of the question seeking just 'yes, I would answer them' or 'yes, I would answer them in this way: ...' ?  Arctic   Night  05:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now 24 questions...I think this is going out of whack. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To those of you who feel I am not ready for adminship, I'm ready to learn. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I've seen him around and he's always been helpful. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I have no problems with this request. Warrah (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA as candidate has never been blocked, has edited for over 4 years, and has received multiple stars. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The time spent in the project is enough to earn my trust. I have a few concerns, but nothing severe enough that requires me to go neutral or oppose at this stage. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Candidate was asked too many questions, Support. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Although there are a few issues, at the end of the day, I think you can be trusted. Just ask for help when you need it and don't delete the Main Page! HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   17:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support No concerns, and per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Judging by the number of Deleted Contributions, he seems to have a lot of knowledge of the deletion process. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Competent and obviously, willing.  ceran  thor 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Looks okay to me. Shereth 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Has been around 4+ years, and is well motivated. Even if there are issues with this editor's understanding of deletion policies, I think he'll get it right within a reasonable amount of time. RadManCF (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I see no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support There are certainly concerns, but I see this user as exhibiting common sense. I'll support unless there is real solid evidence they would harm Wikipedia. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Is this user perfect? No. Will they be a good responsible admin? Yes. I see nothing from the questions above that this user will abuse the mop or venture into portions of the wiki where they are inexperienced without learning first. --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: Yes, there are areas of weak policy knowledge, but I'm confident the candidate will not make any judgments in such areas without learning the ropes first -- Boing!   said Zebedee  06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - does the candidate understand every policy cold? Nope.  Is he willing to learn?  Yes.  Trustworthy?  Seems it to me.  Question 7's response seems to be representative of a lack of understanding of specific lingo, and I'm confident that he understands that consensus is based on the strength of arguments.  The response looks to me to be answering a different question than I believe was being asked - specifically the answer was to, "When should comments at an AfD be completely ignored?"  Candidate will do fine once through new admin school, I'm sure.--otherlleft 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support – Although some of the concerns brought up by the opposers are valid, I'm still confident that this candidate will be a good and trustworthy admin. The opposers bring up the concern that they don't see much work with CSD. If I had the deleted contributions logs, I might be able to verify whether that was true or not, but I'll base my opinion on current facts. Given his excellent work in WP:FfD, I would not be terribly worried about his work if he stayed within the range of images/files and not to articles. And even if he did, he could still learn more about the area if he worked more in the area, a point brought up by many of the supporters above. Yes, question 7 was a bit off, but given some more experience in the area, I assume that he would be able to answer the question right. And about question 8: He answers that he doesn't know much about blocking and wouldn't participate in the area very much. Although his answer to question 4 was a bit off, it still has the correct general idea. Though he may not know policy as best as an adminship candidate could, because this editor is willing to learn from mistakes, and also seems to be a very civil editor, I support his request for adminship. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. He's clearly qualified to do the thing. Give him the shot. Ezratrumpet (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Content creator. Many years with the project. Possesses relevant XfD experience I'm looking for. Displays ability to perform independent analysis leading to clearly understandable logical conclusion.  Lambanog (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. I did consider the concerns brought up... but at the end of the day, this is simply a user I would trust with the tools. They've shown enough dedication towards the project and have a good background.   S warm  ( Talk ) 08:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. May be weak in some areas, but he's an experienced editor.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak support - on the issue of trust, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe there would be an intentional abuse of the tools. Answers to some the questions, etc. produce some concern, but I weakly support this candidate on good faith and perseverance.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  02:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) no hay problema. -Atmoz (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Weak support. While the issues raised below are legitimate, I feel that this user is a good editor overall and would benefit from use of the tools; I trust that he'll learn from the opposes as he has before. (Besides, the more RfAs, the more stigma; I think he's pretty brave to keep trying.) SS  ✞(Kay) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - admins can learn on the job. The only question is whether or not they will abuse the tools. ugen64 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Sure. Won't break wikipedia if this user is made an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Support The candidate is a longtime editor who seems trustworthy to me. The lack of XfD and CSD experience outside of images is a bit concerning, as are the incorrect answers to the second part of Shirik's question (would not be eligible for A7) and Q7 (IPs most certainly are allowed to vote at AfD). However, based on the answers to Q14 and Q23, among others, I think the candidate would be a fine admin. With a decent amount of content work and a tendency to ask questions when unsure about what to do, Wikiwoohoo has earned my support. "Number of retirements" seems like a trivial reason to oppose; burnout is not uncommon, and use of the "retired" template rather than one of those "wikibreak" ones hardly matters. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I know this is going to sound harsh. I was about to give a support because of persistence but the candidate has suggested that the two main reasons for adminship are XfD and speedy deletion. Yet I cannot see anything in the last two years of this candidate's edits that show any real clue in the area of AfD, in fact quite the opposite. Giving the tools to someone lacking the basic level of competence needed in an area they are suggesting that they work in is not a good way to go. Polargeo (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Still you can not be effective at using tools until you have them. I am inclined to let him have a chance. Being a five time loser, he seemed motivated to prove you wrong...by being a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire your positivity but the user has also demonstrated a lack of clue in running for admin yet again with no clear demonstration of clue in a major area they are suggesting they wish to work in. I urge anyone wishing to vote to look through the XfD history of this user. More admins are good but only ones who show they will be a positive benefit to the project when given the mop and not a potential liability. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also where is the clue in the other area this candidate wishes to work in of speedy deletion? I cannot see it. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The candidate's first 500 deleted contributions date back to mid-2007 and are overwhelmingly red links. Many of them appear to have been nominated by the candidate for deletion, for example: di-orphaned fair use on [[File:BBCRMMusicVideo.png]]. Most are files rather than article pages. Some were uploaded by candidate, such as [[File:Reuters.png]] (nominated for deletion the day after it was uploaded) and [[File:BBC World 2003.jpg]], nominated about three years after uploading. I don't have an opinion yet, but I do see a concerted effort focused in the area of image deletion. Frank  |  talk  12:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary Frank. I won't add the question at the top because the candidate has enough to be getting on with but can anyone tell me how many speedy deletion nominations the candidate has for the last year (or even the last 2 years)? Discounting content that the user has actually created. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)\
 * I would also like to know this, as it may consider me to reevaluate my neutral !vote.  Arctic   Night  14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When a page is nominated for deletion (CSD or otherwise) by an editor and the page is then deleted (for any reason, at any later date), that becomes a "deleted contribution" for that editor. When I say that the user's deleted contributions are overwhelmingly red links, it indicates to me that they stayed deleted. Sometimes pages are recreated and the deleted contributions remain deleted, such as when a page is deleted and then a redirect is created with that name. That would be a blue link in an editor's deleted contributions but no cause for concern. (In other words, the page exists again but the deleted contribution remains deleted.)
 * Having said all that, I think the analysis you appear to be looking for might be difficult. To see the nature of the page that was deleted, and whether the editor who nominated it for deletion was also the creator, would require visiting each page individually. I didn't (and can't) do that; I took a sampling and found some that were created by the candidate and some that were not. Someone else with more knowledge of tools on the toolserver (or, indeed, of the tools available here) might be able to do this or tell me how to do it easily. My cursory glance at the list shows a large number with the comment: Orphaned fair use as described above. Some others are blue links, such as The Mall Romford, which has 8 deleted revisions. Frank  |  talk  15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can explain many of these if you would like me to? Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My oppose will stand whatever. I will summarize your AfD activity over the last 2 years as all to do with TV. Four articles nominated for deletion and then all non-admin closed by you as merge proposals, another nominated by you and closed by you as keep, then others nominated by you and closed as no consensus (two different articles) and another nominated and closed as keep. That is it, I cannot find a single AfD you have nominated in the last two years (and those are the only ones you have participated in) that has been deleted and yet you are requesting the tools for XfD. A clear demonstration of a lack of clue exists in your XfD work. Even the files for deletion area is lacking in a clear demonstration of the clue that is needed for adminship. Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles I have nominated for deletion have subsequently been kept and worked on to improve them. Surely this is a better outcome than deletion? Many of my own images I nominated for deletion had been replaced by myself with clearer more descriptive filenames. This can explain a sizeable chunk of my deleted edits. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is better to improve articles if that is possible. However, the question here isn't "was the article improved?", but "was it correctly nominated for deletion?" The concern is that if you aren't able to nominate for deletion correctly as you might not be too clear on the policies, would you be able to judge consensus correctly? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles were nominated correctly for deletion, but the consensus was to keep the articles and improve them, which was done. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Looking through your contributions, I don't see much good with CSD, and that is looking back five months. Saying you will backlog SD, I don't see any removing of bad templates, and not one nomination with a notification to the author (which is flat out unfair to them). I can't support somebody who hasn't had proper CSD experience in 5 months; it could be dangerous. Sorry.  smithers  - talk  16:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Unfortunately.  Like smithers here, I see little to no CSD work in the last few months (see here - admin only), which is the area you have stated you wish to work in.  I'm sorry, but this combined with your relatively low level of activity these past few months and your runabout answers to the questions raises a red flag for me.  Sorry,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Mostly per above, but also the answers to some of the questions are just perfunctory, terse and vague. Lastly, I don't feel you communicate your thoughts very well.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - While I realise that Wikiwoohoo is a dedicated editor and that he has been somewhat overloaded with questions, the answers to questions 7 and 8 in particular do not fill me with confidence about the candidate's readiness for adminship. I share the concerns expressed above about Wikiwoohoo's experience with XfD and the answer to question 7 does little to reassure me about their ability to determine consensus in line with policy. I would support in future if Wikiwoohoo demonstrates greater experience in XfD and CSD and a greater knowledge of the blocking policy. Rje (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. No doubt this candidate is trustworthy in terms of motive. However, I don't see nearly enough policy knowledge to indicate trustworthiness by competence. Too much potential for inadvertent misuse of the tool, and in sensitive areas of the project like CSD. Like Wisdom, I also see communication issues (your fifth RfA is not the place to give one-line answers to questions designed to ferret out your expertise). Tan   &#124;   39  22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per this. I don't think that editors who retire and then return at the drop of a hat have the required maturity to take on the administrator role.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
 * 7) Oppose per answers (or lack there off) to most of the questions. You would assume that after about 5 years on this project and 5 RFA's that someone would know how to answer admin-related questions.....-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, concerns about breadth of level of experience. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, candidate still misses the point of question 11, despite a second try, and answer to question 7 is just wrong.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose (changed from Neutral) - Although I can see many edits working in this user's favour, some stick out to me that I would like to see addressed. Firstly, Wikiwoohoo states that they would like to participate in XfDs, but I can only see 22 pages contributed to across all XfDs, (excluding the Association of Members' Advocates MfD contributions). In addition, for a candidate that wants to work on the SD backlog, their lack CSD tagging is a concern to me. That's what caused me to change neutral -> oppose.  Arctic   Night  02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per the concerns raised above. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 10:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose given that one of the user's main contributions to Wikipedia is this collection of NFCC-violating image abuse, giving them admin tools is not a clever idea. Apart from that, answers to quite a few of the questions are shaky or just plain wrong.  No. Black Kite 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's unfair since you seem not to have taken into account the work I have done over the past few months to remove some of those images in the article and increase the amount of referenced text. While I accept quite a few of those images were uploaded by myself, I have seen that not all of them are needed to enhance the article and have tried having some deleted. My edits are generally all reverted. Fastily will testify I'm sure that this happens - just take a look at the very recent history of the page. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you opposing me, that's your decision, but I'd appreciate if you looked at the whole picture. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Polargeo's points pushed unhappily to a reluctant oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I find the answers to the questions a little vague. Do not understand for example: "I like to be able to make a big change". This implies future tense?  Would appreciate diffs / links of significant contributions.  The main topic area is the BBC would be useful for this editor to branch out. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It seems like you've been a lot more active in editing in the past than now, would like to see a higher and/or more consistent level edits. I'd like to see more engagement with the community (Wikipedia space, talk pages, Wikiprojects, etc.) as that sort of interaction is important to admin work.  It doesn't bother me that you keep trying RfA, persistence is a good trait.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose You know, my normal auto-fail criterion (4th or subsequent nomination) needn't even apply here, because all the above !voters make pretty compelling arguments that you're not well aligned with the project's expectations and goals. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I have been unsure, mainly because of some of the reasons given above (lack of non-file-CSD experience, lack of xfD experience, answers which I don't find authoritative enough), but when I read With this account I have my username and password on a post-it next to the PC screen so that it won't happen again, my mind was made up. This may well be on their home PC, and so presumed to be safe - but I couldn't support anyone with such a large potential security risk. Unless the candidate never has anyone visiting them (or the PC is in a room which is always locked unless the candidate is actually in there), then the potential for someone else being able to obtain these account details makes me unable to support, and too concerned to be neutral. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't mind me saying that when I saw this I felt it was slightly exaggerating the situation. I edit Wikipedia while at home, where I live with my partner and young son. Neither of them will ever try logging on to Wikipedia as me. Whenever we have had visitors to the house while the post-it note existed none of them ever expressed any kind of interest in the note. I would not edit Wikipedia from any computer other than my home one, so the large potential security risk you speak of was never really there. When I lived in a shared house a couple of years ago I did have a problem with that happening. One of my friends logged on, added information to February 23 which was not vandalism but not particularly necessary and this was removed. He then contacted the user, Koavf who removed the information, and I got in contact with Koavf recently to explain what had happened. After that case until I moved into my current family home I destroyed the note then too. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. However, I should point out that when you mentioned the post-it originally, there was no indication of the situation in which you are living. Also, playing devil's advocate, saying "none of them expressed any kind of interest in the note" tells me that it was possible for them to see the note. If I was to see such a note and want to use the username/password, do you think I would mention it to you ("Oh, I saw your user name and password - is that your email? Wikipedia? Do you mind if I use it to hack into your account?"). OK, it may be that it is secure in your current set up (although that begs the question of why you felt the need to destroy it). However, I did say that I had been unsure before for various reasons, and I still feel that you are not ready for adminship for the reasons I mentioned. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant that none of them expressed any interest in terms of how none of them made any reaction to it. These were family and friends, and none of them would have gone anywhere near it, and by virtue of being members of the family and friends, I trust that none of them ever would have hacked in had they had the details. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am sorry to pile on, especially after you answered my question above (I think it is fine to say you have no experience with blocks and plan not to use the tools for that), but I am concerned by your rationale for wanting to be an admin. I am specifically referring to the fact that you have retired at least 4 times since 2007 from what I can count: Mar 2007, Jul 2007 , Mar 2009 , and one month ago .  My concern is that the frustration which has led you to retire so many times may also be driving you to think that you need these tools in order to edit or maintain the encyclopedia how you want it to be.  While it may be a tempting thought to use the tools that way - the admin bit is not a license to bend the rules or to shortcut procedures to get what you want, but rather it's a requirement to clean up the place and give the community what it wants (even when it differs with your opinion).  Please do keep contributing and don't stress to the point that you feel you need to retire.   7  08:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel I need the tools as you suggest, more that I could do more to help with them. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't stress that made me decide to leave, but rather I felt I had other things that needed my attention at the time. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I was actually planning to support but I find the answer to question 21 alarming and cannot support a candidate who keeps their username and password stuck next to their computer screen. Sarah 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Following your concerns I have destroyed the post-it note. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This nomination (4th, 5th, whatever) just gives me no confidence in you at all. I see you've responded to Sarah and destroyed the note, but dude, can you not see how totally foolish that was in the first place? It completely defeats the point of having a password. I'm sorry, but not everyone is suited to be an administrator. Aiken   &#9835;  12:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see it was foolish, but I did it because I had forgot my login details and wanted to avoid doing it again. With regard to the present security arrangements my PC is in my family home where only my partner and young child could access it. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Based on the numerous concerns mentioned in the oppose section above. Security problems, frequently "retiring", numerous self-noms at RfA, lack of CSD experience, vague answers to questions. Not one specific thing leads me to oppose, it's just the wide variety of valid oppose reasons that add up for me. --  At am a  頭 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting, but retiring in twice in 2007 and twice in 2009 isn't really frequent. Granted it is probably four times more than most people here but I don't think it's fair to call it frequent. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way... You've basically retired once for each year you've been editing Wikipedia (4 times in a bit more than 4 years). That's not much to inspire confidence. That alone wouldn't be enough to oppose you, but it's just one more stone on the pile. I do think you're a decent editor, I just don't know that you would be a reliable administrator, I'm sorry. --  At am a  頭 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many nagging concerns; your password security habits, Question 4; four retirements- though I don't care about 5 RFA's. I know you got hit with tons of questions, but some of them just don't look like you put a lot of thought into them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm sorry but I see way too many lapses in judgement and other concerns which have been raised above. Having a password written next to your computer is a really bad idea and after so many retirements does not leave me with any confidence. Valley</b>2 city ‽ 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The answers to shirik's CSD quiz reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of a popular CSD criteria, and CSD patrolling sounds like it is the main thing the candidate is interested in doing. I must say the concerns about the post-it are kind of silly, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per too many concerns raised above. I do however thank you for your work in service to the project. Jusdafax   09:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I simply do not have confidence in this candidate, mainly due to the lapses in judgment (particularly the whole having-a-Post-It-with-your-password-next-to-the-computer thing, which is a very poor decision, in my opinion), frequent retirement (an average of one per year), relatively low editing activity (an average of 124 edits per month), and incorrect answers to multiple questions. Laurinavicius (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Comment Switching to support - Just attempting to answer all those questions will go a long way towards demonstrating the resilience needed to be an admin! (My question is entirely optional - it won't affect my !vote if you're too overwhelmed to answer it) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps we're a little over-broad. I'll pare back my questions, perhaps others can too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidate unfazed by the number of questions, graciously added "will answer later" holding replies, and I like A19 - someone who just can't keep away. I'm swaying towards support, but will wait a few days and see how things go. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the actual percentage of people who say they are retired actually come back, would be an interesting number to know :). I too like A19 Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Changing to oppose Although I can see many edits working in this user's favour, some stick out to me that I would like to see addressed. Firstly, Wikiwoohoo states that they would like to participate in XfDs, but I can only see 22 pages contributed to across all XfDs, (excluding the Association of Members' Advocates MfD contributions). I may consider changing my position here if an admin can describe the nature of the 2000+ deleted edits of Wikiwoohoo's (i.e., if speedy deletion work is evident, I would consider switching to support).  Arctic   Night  12:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral holding pattern for now . Examined contribs back a few thou, saw no attacks or much drama. Seems to be good-faith editor. Waiting on some questions. Needs a bit more seasoning. Better luck in your next run. -- Stani Stani  19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning support. "I wouldn't discount !votes unless they were obvious sock puppets or anonymous IP addresses". Why should an IP address be discounted, unless it is a sock puppet?   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I simply don't feel confident supporting right now. I'm looking for more CSD work, and the IP remark as noted above—IPs cannot vote in RfAs or ArbCom elections, etc., but they sure can participate in deletion discussions, and their !votes should not be discounted.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral (moving to support) as I think this is overall a candidate who is trustworthy and willing to ask for help, but concerned by answer to 7 as they neither represent clear understanding nor a recognition of ignorance. That is to say, Wikiwoohoo would have more of my confidence if he or she said, "I'd like to close AfDs but I need more experience in that area first."  Not knowing is not a sin so long as you know you don't know, you know?  --otherlleft 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Not sure about "cooling" skills. Lots of experience (4+ years) is worth it, but I do agree with Fastily's decision on not taking part in any or many AfDs My mistake, CSDs. Minima  c  ( talk ) 07:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. The candidate is a long-term contributor but lacks much experience in admin-related areas such as XfDs. The candidate's nomination statements aren't particularly compelling. Majoreditor (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral – waiting for some more answers to come up, which I think will be relevant with regards to what he'll he doing as an admin (mainly working with images). I will note that he has had some fairly competent CSD work as far as images are concerned (assuming many users are just looking for mainspace CSD work). –MuZemike 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - I'm waiting for the responses to some questions before I make a final decision. Although I'm pleased with the candidate's long history and work in images, the lack of non-file CSD and XfD is somewhat concerning. I'm prepared to strike this and go either way on this one, I'm just waiting for a little more information. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided to stay neutral here; although the work in the file namespace is good, I still can't fully support you. Oversights like keeping your password in an obvious location are rarely isolated incidents, and reduce the possibility of trust. Further, like Shirik said, some of your answers are just incorrect. The work in files is good, but I just can't offer you my support, sorry. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - LedgendGamer actually voiced what I was going to say! Although I like the candidates file deletion tagging work, they didn't say that they'd be focussing on that, and I do not see enough evidence of CSD/xfD contributions. The answers to other questions may change this to a support, but at the moment I am veering towards oppose. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (Moved to oppose) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now. Your edits seem good (I'm only lightly basing this off of User:Buggie111/Rfa criteria), and I feel that you look ok. but, could you tell us the name of your old account (Sorry, I was diving into the archives). If your edits on that one are just like the ones here, then I will heavily think about supporting. Also, your file deletion tagging is good, as it is somthing most people that I know of do not do since it's boring. Good Luck! Buggie111 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now. Until you answer question #4, I cannot be sure of your CSD knowledge, sorry. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Remaining neutral: Some of the answers to questions are just wrong (such as the option to delete the second article in question #4, which does not meet A7, as products do not fall under that criterion) but the user is well-intentioned and I don't expect everyone to know everything perfectly. Also, the manner in which the stress of this RFA was dealt with is and admirable, and necessary, trait of an administrator. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I got that wrong but now you've told me I know. If I was ever unsure of anything I'd ask for help. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Bad answer to number 8, I was ok with the answer to my question. I'd say try again in a few months. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral After reviewing this editor & the questions, I don't think he is ready for adminship. I can see that he has a basic understanding of policy, but at the same time it might be to basic for an admin. He has my support in quite a few areas, but also my opposition in quite a few areas. This is a good editor overall, but I don't see the full need for admin tools yet. (See User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Answering all 24 questions takes some guts. I don't want to pile up on the opposes too. Maybe you should take sometime to look through this RFA later and pick up from the advice here? Don't get discourage. Bejinhan  Talk   14:11, 26 February 2010 (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.