Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wooyi 2


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

Wooyi
Final: (2/12/2); Ended 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

- This is my second self-nomination. My first nom was posted a long time ago and it was way too early (I'd say untimely). As of now, I have made a lot of edits on Wikipedia and participated in many discussions such as AFD, MFD, TFD, among others. I am nominating myself for adminship because I believe that, admin tools would make me improving this encyclopedia and this community more efficiently. Wooyi 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the self-nomination.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: As I've personally confronted egregious vandalism before, the admin chores that deal with combatting vandalism would be one of my priorities, especially WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and warning and blocking of vandals. Also I will try to clean up the backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (the backlog there is getting too big). Occasionally I will close the AFDs as well.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I've contributed in different types of articles. The ones I am particularly pleased including adding infoboxes to articles and adding references. I am also particularly pleased at my contribution to articles regarding to U.S. case laws and court system, including articles on some Supreme Court cases and federal judges. Also, I participated in the creation of WP:CRIME and contributed to many biographies of criminals. I am very interested in those topics involving law and crime. Regarding to the infoboxes, I think they are very important for the readers to get a summary of an article. In my early wiki days, I've editted articles on literature and arts, but I have not contributed significantly on those areas after that.


 * 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 not involved in many conflict. There were some image copyright problems in my early wiki days, and probably some AFD arguments could count as "conflict". Also I've confronted editors who assumed bad faith, which caused some stress. But these are all things of the past.


 * General comments


 * See Wooyi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Moral support. While I can't fully support myself, I can request that the opposers try to at least base their opposes on something to do with adminship. Having only gone through RfA ~two months ago, I can certify that the instructions were confusing. To Wooyi: I'd recommend several more months of active editing and participation in policy discussions, at which point I think you'll be ready for adminship. Picaroon 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not thrilled about this user's level of experience, but for that I need only to look in the mirror. :) I've seen him around; he helps out, has no problems that I know of, and is not likely to abuse the tools. YechielMan 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.
 * Comment -- Actually, far from "[having] no problems", Wooyi has quite recently engaged in some rather serious misconduct, namely, repeatedly inserting unreferenced negative information into the biography of a living person in blatant violation of Biographies of living persons using a javascript reversion tool    then issuing completely unjustified vandalism warnings to the editors removing the unreferenced negative information  .  I venture that this is conduct unbecoming an administrator. John254 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I regret that happened, and I state here that I personally do not know anything regarding to the article, and that day I thought I was only reverting a massive unexplained removal of content when I spotted it, using a semi-automatic script. Due to that nature, myself was even unaware that I reverted it multiple times. I promise I will pay more attention when using scripts. Wooyi 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support I think you mean well, so I'm offering a !vote that's inconsequential anyway. I sympathize with your BLP revert because I myself made a mistake - warning the wrong user after a revert - during my recent RfA. I still insist it was bad luck. Xiner (talk, email) 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose. It was two months, your last nomination. That's just too soon considering you only really started editing in late December/early January. The fact that you trascluded this onto RfA before answering the questions also leads me to think you're not experienced enough. You also put it in the wrong place and forgot the hr. --Deskana (talk)  01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that this user doesn't have enough experience, I hope your not basing all your opposition on a lack of technical knowledge. Gutworth 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not, that was merely fuel for the fire, so to speak. --Deskana (talk)  16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have to agree with Deskana. Two months is not a long time in between requests for adminship. Wait a few months longer than two and you will get more support votes. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Deskana Gutworth 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) What? You didn't answer the questions, nor make any sort of statement that you weren't going to. Two months is not a long time. You transcluded this pretty much right when you created it. And your nomination statement isn't even grammatical. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've just answered all the questions, and I will fix the grammar issue. Wooyi 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it's still too soon. And I'm a bit apprehensive about the fact that the grammatical issues you fixed were the ones I didn't notice, while you left the ones that actually interfere with my understanding. -Amarkov moo! 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize I forgot to make it clear why I care about grammar. The issue is that if people get a confusing reason as an answer to requests about why an admin did something, it's a problem, because they may not understand it. And misunderstandings in relation to admins are very bad. -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose -- Any editor who repeatedly inserts unreferenced negative information into the biography of a living person in blatant violation of Biographies of living persons using a javascript reversion tool    then issues completely unjustified vandalism warnings to the editors removing the unreferenced negative information   should wait several months, at least, before applying for administrative privileges, in order to demonstrate conduct more appropriate for an administrator. John254 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it should be pointed out that he didn't actually add the content, just reverted removals of it. That definitely affects how serious it is, since the latter could plausibly be interpreted as overzealous RC patrol. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Overzealous RC patrol" is precisely the problem. I, for one, do not want to grant administrative tools to a user who is likely disrupt Wikipedia by improperly blocking users who remove unreferenced negative information from biographies of living persons for "vandalism." John254 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, myself was unaware what the content was about, I simply spotted an unexplained removal and reverted it using semi-automatic scripts. I regret that happened, and it was not intentional edit warring (I didn't even realize I reverted the same article multiple times). I promise I will pay more attention when patrolling RCs. Wooyi 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Deskana. Michael 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose per all the previously mentioned hinkiness. You need a lot more experience before coming to RfA. And why do you have a note in the Neutral section when there are no other comments there? You should be leaving commennts in the discussion section above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose more experience needed for me I'm afraid. The Rambling Man 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per John254. I think that the concerns raised by him and others arise from some inexperience and hastiness on your part. I think you mean well, you should just try not to act so hastily in the future. -- Kyok  o  07:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. Per John254. - M s c h e l 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, lacks of experience, per Deskana. Terence 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per all of the above, the user does not have enough experience and this is too hasty after the last failed RfA.  Darth griz 98 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: When I posted it, the question wasn't answered yet, and it was displayed late partly because the computer slowness. Now all the questions are anwsered. Wooyi 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I will not oppose a candidate to whom I have offered a vote of support, but it is impossible to ignore John254's allegations of poor judgment within the past week. YechielMan 06:25, 29 March 2007 (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.