Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Woe90i


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

Woe90i
Final (2/11/2); ended 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) - WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW - Please come back in a few months, and take note of the advice given to you in the oppose section. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Hello, how goes it. I've been a proud member of Wikipedia for over 1 year 6 months and here for the long term. I have made just under 2,000 contributions to Wikipedia as a content editor first and foremost, but have considerable experience with vandalism to articles im involved with. I also have experience with Wikipedia Files, creating new articles and understand how it all works. Although im not the finished product I have a firm experienced footing and understanding of what it takes to be a responsible editor and an understanding of Wikipedia's policies.

Honestly, I suppose I make this request today to firstly better my self and come to identify and understand my weakness as a Wikipedian, but also to gain confidence that im doing many things right. &mdash; Woe  (talk with 90i)  16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Admin work in all areas of content editing, assisting other Admins and helping content editors new to Wikipedia. I have also noticed there seams to be a lack in the number of Admins in the topic areas im involved with.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: All contributions that are done in conjunction with fellow editors after resolving an issue or reaching a consensus. - These sorts of edits are the most beneficial to Wikipedia and I find most rewarding. It creates friendships which reduces stress (helpful in solving future issues) and most importantly hugely improves the article.


 * 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: Yes and yes. Initially as a young editor I did sometimes engage in a manner that would have been out-of-line with policy. However when pointed in the right direction by more experienced editors and shown the 'ropes' I swiftly made progress. Now I engage situations reasonably and inline with Wikipedia's policy's and continue to do so with constant improvement and growing confidence.

Additional question from Ioeth
 * 4. This is a two-parter: could you go into more detail about what administrative areas you'd like to take part in and also explain your take on IAR?
 * A:Well as a regular content editor I have experience dealing with vandalism and conflicts arising over controversial issues so allot of my potential admin work would continue to be dealing with these and putting into affect Wikipedia's guidelines and policy's, but with more authority. Further, with the small number of admins that are active on the articles and related articles I work on, much of my work would continue to be giving them much needed assistance.
 * I am also aware that eventually I will find myself involved in other aspects of admin work and intend on doing so. For example patrolling recent changes and new pages, getting involved in WP:AIV and WP:RPP, whereas before I would bring it to the attention of an Admin/Admins I regularly work with and have it out on the relevant user or article talk pages.
 * My take on IAR? In my opinion no set of rules or guidelines is faultless. Depending on the matter at hand and ensuring that one sticks the the general theme of the "rules" then my take is that IAR should be taken, it may also lead to the possibility of jump starting a debate with other users, reaching a consensus, thus naturally returning to the standard rules of Wikipedia. &mdash;  Woe  (talk with 90i)  18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz
 * 5. Are you at least 18 years old? (Eighteen years is the age of majority in the United States, where the Wikipedia servers and Wikipedia Media Foundation are located.)
 * A:Yep, i turned 23 September 10th.
 * Congratulations! Congratulations also on your graduation from the Academy! You must be a hard worker. Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Woe90i:
 * Edit summary usage for Woe90i can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) weak supportcompetent enough enough. Although edit waring at Indian Air Force is cause for concern especially given earlier issues on the same article in May 2010.©Geni 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support Candidate seems like a good editor, and in the future would likely make a good admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, regretfully, per WP:NOTNOW. Candidate has expressed interest in serving in all areas where the mop might be needed, but I don't see any activity at all at WP:AFD, and I don't recall seeing this username on WP:AIV, WP:UAA or WP:RFPP...three very-high-traffic noticeboards where admin action is exercised, both in the use of the tools and the decision when to use them (or not use them, as the case may be). Before I could support this candidate, I'd need to see contributions to discussions at least on AfD nominations, in order to evaluate both their judgment and their ability to apply policies. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Afd? for non tool assisted admins afd is either something they do all the time or something they are likely to almost ever do.©Geni 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No nominations, no discussions, no !votes. Those are all things a non-admin can do. And that doesn't even touch on non-admin closures. The "delete" button is part of the admin's toolset. A hopeful for the mop needs to know something about the job well before being given the toolset; there's way too much damage that can be done through well-meaning, but errant, OJT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry to join in opposing, but I would need to see either more content work or administrative work (e.g. reports to WP:AIV) before I could consider supporting. I see almost no project-space activity and only three created articles, one of which is entirely unreferenced. 28bytes (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but as above, WP:NOTNOW. See my RfA criteria for the things I would expect from a good RfA candidate.  Swarm   X 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, but as above, WP:NOTNOW. Dayewalker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose-Sorry, not enough experience for me to trust with the mop. Request this be closed per WP:Snow, however the Nominee should not be discouraged, a sampling of edits proves them to be an outstanding Wikipedia who just needs to give it time.-- SKATER  Is Back 17:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for the lack of experience in admin related areas. Also he doesn't need admin tools for the administrative work he wants to do with it. Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You may want to work on your grammar. Keepscases (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but its not laziness, with dyslexia im working twice as hard for half the quality.:rolleyes: &mdash; Woe  (talk with 90i)  19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but in the last 4 months only ~300 edits and before that nearly a year inactive. That is far too less for being called active. mabdul 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing out parade from Sandhurst Royal Military Academy was a short while ago, time spent inactive was due to military training. That's also the reason why I requested the name change a few days ago to Woe90i, so id didn't reflect my job.  &mdash;  Woe  (talk with 90i)  19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:RfA is not WP:Editor review. Not enough evidence of activity in admin areas and no apparent areas where the tools would need to be applied. Your (non-standard-definition type of) dyslexia (per your response to Keepscases) is also something you'll need to keep working on: an admin must be able to communicate in writing clearly, concisely and quickly. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not yet. I suggest you take a few months and broaden your areas of partication. Take part in some admin-related functions and get a better feel for the areas you are interested in participating in. Also, take part in every RfA and that comes up, because there is no better way to get a firm understanding of what is looked for in an admin candidate. Good luck to you. Trusilver  20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Please do not discouraged. Just get some experience under your belt (WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:AfD, etc.) and re-apply in a couple of months and I'll be sure to support you. --   Luke      (Talk)   21:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral Support Candidate seems like a good editor, and in the future would likely make a good admin, but they have not made it clear what type of admin work they intend to undertake. It is very hard to evaluate a candidate who just plans to engage in admin work generally. While admins are free to do that in practice, at RFA it is very helpful to have a specific area of interest (in admin work) so that !voters can analyze the candidates non-admin contributions in that area. Based on the somewhat limited history of the candidate and lack of involvement in specific quasi-admin areas or the Wikipedia namespace, I can't support at this time. Monty  845  17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) neutral Too few successful image or file uploads to get a support. Also deleted content shows no nominations for deletion of any kind. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (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.