Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 3

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

[edit] Wikiwoohoo

Final (51/20/6) Ended Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:50:31 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk • contribs) – I have been active on Wikipedia (as Wikiwoohoo) since August 2005, with breaks due to my work. I try to maintain a friendly and polite attitude towards all users and have involved myself in several WikiProjects which have taken my fancy. I have also joined the AMA and have become deputy co-ordinator where I recently organised the current ongoing meeting. This is my third attempt at RFA, though I accept my previous attempts were foolhardy; I did not have the experience I have gained since then. I would love to be able to serve the community in the more advanced form that adminship brings and will always remain completely accountable. Wikiwoohoo 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The large amount of images and articles nominated for deletion either in the general way or through the speedy deletion channels grows more and more each day. I would work to alleviate some of this work away from the already established admins and work to reduce it. Admittedly, I have contributed to these backlogs in my nominations for the deletion of many images I have uploaded but that aside, I would like to help out much more. Recently I have also come into contact with several blatent vandals, as an admin I would be able to impose blocks on them and ensuring they are in fact vandals; currently I am only able to give warnings as a normal user.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My work on the BBC News, BBC News 24, BBC World and BBC One articles has made me particularly pleased but I would not take all the credit if these were to become good articles as I hope. I am merely part of a team that has worked, let's face it, extremely hard to get the articles were they are today. I have most recently devoted my efforts to the above articles in turn. My aim is to get these four to good article status followed by featured article status and then to move on to other related article. That would be very satisfying.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I would not say I have had any conflicts over editing. Recently I was accidentally accused of vandalism regarding the BBC News article by RoyBoy though this was accidental and was sorted out as quickly as it came about. I try to remain cool under pressure and pledge that I will never descend into making personal attacks, ever.

Optional question from (aeropagitica) (talk • contribs):

4. Can you provide some diffs for XfD discussions in which you have participated, so I can appreciate your applications of policies and guidelines?

A: The majority of my useage of the XfD pages has been with nominating images for deletion. I have also tagged images I have identified as copyright violations; informed the user and found the image on the internet to prove it violated copyright. Where possible, I have also replaced such images within their respective articles with generally fair use images. Some examples are here:

• [1] Copyright problem, from September 2005 regarding Image:Huwedwards.jpg.
• [2]Category deletion discussion for Category:Former BBC newsreaders and journalists.
• [3]Copyright problem from 14th August 2006 regarding Image:Markatbbc.jpg and Image:Markatbbc2.jpg.
• [4]Copyright problem, from 6th August 2006 with Image:RagehOmaar.jpg.
• I initiated the AfD for BBC Channels, an article I originally created. The discussion is here.
• [5]My most recent image nominations for deletion, from 2nd December 2006.

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs):

Hi, Wikiwoohoo, and thank you for submitting your RfA. I have taken the liberty of asking (after edit conflict) some optional questions that I lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE.

They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: I recall that Karmafist was found to have been using sockpuppets for vandalism and has since been blocked indefinitely. The first and most important thing would be to engage in discussion with the editor, questioning their motives but at the same time investigating what they have done with their sockpuppet accounts. It may be that at the very point of being caught out, they would apologise and make promises not to abuse the system as they had. This should be taken into consideration, but weighed against the harmful edits they have made and the context of such edits. In my view, if the editor was then found to have committed a wide range of harmful edits then they should be blocked, indefinitely at that. For the record, I can not understand why an editor would create harmful sockpuppets, communicating with some who do would help me to learn a little more about it all.

6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A: It is most important in these kinds of disputes to keep dialogue going between all parties. I would prefer that blocks were not imposed for as long as possible to be able to achieve this. If another admin were to block the two users concerned, I would contact them [the admin] to explain in the full the problem and my efforts up until that point to sort things. I would encourage the admin to unblock the users, possibly also to involve themselves in the process as well to provide another viewpoint. I would make sure the other admin who had initiated a block knew exactly what was happening, even if I were to begin contacting the users by email. It would be gong behind their back otherwise, in my opinion.

7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: That is a very hard question. It is very difficult to think of anything off-hand but I think although Wikipedia is a very good thing, there is always the problem that the moment somebody looks at an article, they may be looking instead at a vandalised version. A greater amount of anti-vandal techniques would be best to combat this.

8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A: Following confusion as to my stance on blocking, this is a my rewritten answer to the question. I find continued personal attacks to be extremely harmful to the community and rate them at the same level as continued vandalism in disruptiveness. Any user I discovered to be embarking on personal attacks or vandalism should be blocked, whether this be for a day or at the furthest point, indefinitely. I had stated that even an anonymous IP deliberately making personal attacks or vandalism should be blocked, even indefinitely, though I have been advised that this would be quite a heavy handed approach; the nature of IPs and how they are allocated to many users would mean many innocent people would be unable to edit Wikipedia. Showing a vandal that they have been noticed by adding test warnings to talk pages is good, and means that if they continue, we know they are not simply an innocent new user who does not know what their actions are leading to. Continued vandalism would require a block but possibly in my view beginning with the shortest amount and becoming progressively longer if vandalism continues. Showing a vandal that they have been noticed and that vandalism will not be tolerated by initiating such blocks could well discourage them from continuing. An indefinite block for vandalism should only be made after the use of all test warnings and several short duration blocks. It is extremely important to fully understand each situation to assess whether a block is really necessary, to prevent unnecessary blocks being handed out, innocent users being blocked, and extra work for admins to investigate.

9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A: Regardless of whether an AfD result was bordering on delete, keep or no consensus, the discussion should only involve actual users and not sockpuppets. I would leave a discussion as no consensus and make my concerns on the use of sockpuppets obvious on the discussion page. There can be no definite decision made if there is the risk of sockpuppets being used to further a vote one way or another. It is fraudulent and can mean an incorrect decision is made. I would not make any definitive changes to an article's state if there was the risk that this had happened.

10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A: I think at least three other users aside from the nominator and creator should be involved in an AfD discussion, preferably having had no other interaction with the article in question. They are then in a position to judge the quality of the article and the notability of the subject it addresses. The resulting discussion can then define whether the article is needed within Wikipedia, or possibly if it could be merged into another existing article. The five separate viewpoints are better than one or two.

11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: The fact that Wikipedia is a computer based volunteer project to me provides ample opportunity to take a break from what is going on and take time out if required. I have always remained calm as an editor and do not allow stress, either from work outside the project or in the course of my editing, to impede how I operate here. If I were feeling stress, I would take a break and would make it clear exactly why.

12. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A: I enjoy editing Wikipedia as a user and being part of this community but I feel that as an administrator I have so much more to offer the community. The additional facilities that would become available to me would be put to good use, making deletion and administering blocks where appropriate and not without considerations of what were about to happen. Rest assured I will never rush into anything and will not abuse the trust of the community.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk • contribs) lifted from Malber (talk • contribs)

13. How would you apply the policy WP:IAR in administrative tasks?

A:Wikipedia and its policies will need modernising as the project ages and expands as it is now at such a high speed. It may be that some rules may need to be broken to allow this to happen and depending on which rule that it, I may be willing to do so.I would not do anything that is ultimately harmful to the community or the project as a whole and would think through my actions clamly before committing any actions.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk • contribs) not lifted from anyone

14. In what circumstances is a block for vandalism justified, excluding the full sequence of test warnings consecutively without vandalism stopping?

A:Vandals should be blocked for continued disruptive behaviour though test warnings are sometimes forgotten. Personal attacks should not be tolerated and if an anonymous IP address partakes in this activity then they should be blocked indefinitely. AOL IP addresses should be approached differently; a block could lead to hundreds of legitimate users being able to edit Wikipedia.

Optional question from T-rex (talk • contribs) (sorry about asking so many extra questions)

15. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased besides those relating to the BBC?

A:Almost all of my edits are related to the BBC, though I have contributed a great deal to articles on individual presenters, some of whom hold freelance contracts with the BBC and can therefore appear elsewhere within the media. I have devoted the overwhelming majority of my mainspace edits to BBC related articles but rest assured, I do my upmost to remain impartial.

Optional question from CheNuevara (talk • contribs):

16. According to your edit count on the talk page, you have very few talk edits compared to non-talk edits (just over 1 talk edit per 10 regular edits in most namespaces). What does this trend say about you as an editor? What does it say about the type of admin you will be?

General comments

• See Wikiwoohoo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• The two previous RfAs are here (1) and here (2). I have also had an Editor review - here. Wikiwoohoo 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have also asked for a review by AMA members into my actions so far in the role of deputy co-ordinator there. The current discussion can be found here. Wikiwoohoo 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have rewritten my answer to question 8 to make my stance on blocking clearer. Wikiwoohoo 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks reasonable to me. I was hestitant given that this is a third nomination, but then I saw the second was about a year ago. (Radiant) 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2. BBC Support Everything checks out here. Great article-builder (especially to BBC-related articles), knows policy, is civil, participates in project namespace, and has a great deal of experience with images. Should be useful with those image backlogs. :-P Nishkid64 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Dedicated, responsible and friendly. Would make a fine admin. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Everything checks out. Sharkface217 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Meets all of my criteria- that is, he's a very good editor who has been around for a while and expresses a need for the tools. The little I've interacted with this user before, I have found him to be quite kind and intelligent. -- Kicking222 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Claims of not enough edits are extremely ridiculous. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support while the answers are a little short and the time you have been here is a ^{long time} little on the low side, I think you will be a fine amin.__Seadog ^♪ 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Err, he's been here since August 2005. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Wow...I must of read that wrong...I thought it was August 2006 my mistake.__Seadog ^♪ 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Support I have to say that I'm disappointed with the editors who have voted "oppose" because of a lack of edits; it's ridiculous, as the guy has over three thousand edits! And even though his answers to the mandatory (not optional) questions are short, they're sufficient. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support His edit count is fine, and although he could have given lengthier responses to the question given, I have no problem with his being concise. TSO1D 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Support per TSO1D. Meets my Standards. Lapses adequately explained-- we can benefit from his use of the tools when he can edit. I would caution the user to be cautious at first as there is not a lot of *fD or RCPatrolling history. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Increased support per AuburnPilot. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

11. good luck ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support You're on air in 5...4...3...2...1...action! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support fantastic work at AMA: shows the user can handle backlogs! :P Computerjoe's talk 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Three questions are generally enough for any candidate, and I'm assuming good faith he'll do fine. --Majorly 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. What the heck, I was promoted with little more than 3000 edits; and I am more than willing to take Computerjoe's word; which gives an ample indication of knowledge of policies and guidelines; and Nishkid has already vouched for his editing skills on BBC related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support adminship isn't a big deal and given that he hasn't been in any conflicts so far, I doubt he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Terrific user, has the qualities to become an administrator. Hello32020 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support But please don't indef block any IPs - yikes! :) Switch back to neutral. riana_dzasta 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Support Terence Ong 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support The only thing that really matters is if I believe this user will abuse the tools or help Wikipedia by using them. I see zero chance for abuse, so I must believe Wikiwoohoo will help. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I do not see anything to lead me to believe that Wikiwoohoo will be a negative impact as an administrator, and he meets my RFA|standards.-- danntm ^T _C 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'll support based upon answers to the questions above - adminship is no big deal, right? (aeropagitica) 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Wrong! - crz crztalk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

22. Support I have seen Wikiwoohoo around and he is an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools, absolutely no reason not to support. ~ Mike (Talk) 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good question answers, particularly with the non-itchy trigger finger on the block button. Just H 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. I see no reason why not, and we need admins doing images. Even though I don't agree completely with all answers (e.g., Q10) I have no qualms about giving my support; after all, I think there is hardly anybody whom I agree with on such a wide range of topics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak Support per Dlohcierekim. I don't see any reason why this user would abuse the tools, my only reservations are because of potentially controversial XfD closures and blockings. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I see no reason why Wikiwoohoo would abuse the tools. He will make a great admin! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good contributor, and answers to the questions look fine. utcursch | talk 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Agree...disruptive editors should be blocked always.--MONGO 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Sufficient experience for me. I hate it when candidates are picked apart by this many questions... Nobody's going to agree with you on everything. Maybe I'll support anyone who answers 10+ questions from now on! Grandmasterka 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. questions answered well, Gnangarra 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. There's some room for improvement, but who's perfect? I'm satisfied by the answers to the above questions. SuperMachine 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) #Neutral. I'm leaning towards support, but I'd like to see the rest of the questions answered first. SuperMachine 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm unconvinced by the oppose comments. The nominee appears ready for and in need of the tools, and there's no reason for concern they won't be used for anything other than their intended purpose. Agent 86 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t:
35. Support -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Suport -- I've read the votes that oppose, and am totally unimpressed by the reasons given - quibbles about the number of edits, and objections to an initial answers to a one of the hypothetical questions, above. If an editor has been around this long, and contributed this much, and hasn't caused problems, and wants to be an admin, then more power to him/her. John Broughton | Talk 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Weak Support Looks good, although a little more experience wouldn't hurt, either. Answers to the questions could be better, and I strongly advise the candidate to thoroughly research precedent and policy before participating in areas he's not familiar with. Other than that though... strong candidate who will zap image backlogs with a vengeance. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Lectonar 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, No expectation they will abuse the tools. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support I've seen some of his edits, good work. Seems like a good candidate. --Strothra 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support He has helped me with many problems and has great ideas. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support (Changed from neutral below.) Frankly I don't get the accumulating opposes here. OK, not the strongest candidate that's ever attempted to run the RfA gauntlet, but come on folks! Reasonable (not great, but generally good) answers to 15 questions (and counting), good demeanor here on this RfA despite being put under pressure, over 3,000 edits (maybe not the ideal mix, and an extended break, but still enough experience to judge). I just find it odd to have so much opposition. Mop-worthy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per Doug Bell Won't abuse the tools. As for the overload of questions, I remember when RFA had only three questions, this is getting silly frankly. edit posted by User:Jaranda
45. Support Must^TC 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Would Will make an excellent admin. –The Great Llama^moo? 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, was not going to vote, but this is mainly to balance out Anomo's ludicrous and unfair reason for opposing. Will make a good admin. Proto::► 11:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    What about the other reasons for opposing, do you believe they are invalid as well? Seems to me that with your "was not going to vote, but this is mainly to balance out" statement you should have voted neutral. Dionyseus 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    First, this is a discussion, not a vote. Second, it is perfectly reasonable to register disagreement with the rationale of another's position in the discussion by registering your opposite position. This makes Proto's position and argument clear for the closing bureaucrat to evaluate. The action here doesn't need to be explained any further than it has been. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

48. Support Per all above. The Mirror of the Sea 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Moderate support per John Broughton and Auburn and inasmuch as I think WWH's to be possessed of sufficient judgment to know whereof he is not well acquainted and where, in view of such non-conversance, he ought not perhaps to act prior to his gaining further observational experience, such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, and thus that I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Mahewa 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support -- Seems to have come a long way since the past nominations. Also, I'm disappointed in some particularly ridiculous oppose votes (too many similar usernames?) but encouraged by the nominee's calm and reasonable responses to such criticism. -- Renesis (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Just not enough edits. ... aa:talk 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   For those of you who insist on my putting an exact number of edits on this oppose, please have a look at where it was already answered. I hope that is clear enough. ... aa:talk 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   One difference is that, in addition to the total number of edits, most of Wikiwoohoo's edits are from long ago. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Well, almost 2000 edits are in the last 6 months. But the point of the question is that if you're going to oppose based only on edit count, then I think when the edit count is clearly above where most people are not going to have a concern with it then you should provide more explanation. Particularly now that two other oppose positions are citing this one as their reason to oppose. These two things together make it so that I would like to hear the explanation from the opposers. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I agree - 3000 edits is hardly so few edits that we cannot judge whether he'd do a good job or not. I can't see any other reason why edit count would be a problem. riana_dzasta 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Edit count shouldn't be a problem. There have been many administrators made with fewer edits than this. --Majorly 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose I disagree with aa's rationale, but his answers are awfully short. KazakhPol 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per aa. --SonicChao ^talk 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose as per aa. Michael 01:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Just a few days ago, we voted Renesis13 to adminship and he only had ~2000 edits. What's with all the oppose votes for a person with 3,000+ edits? Nishkid64 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Nish, I think they're just looking for a reason to oppose. Maybe some admins want to keep their club exclusive? Sharkface217 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Please don't turn into a flame war please don't turn into a flame war -Amarkov <;;;sup>blah_edits 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I used Occam's Razor and figured out the more likely theory: They were too lazy to see for themselves how many edits Wikiwoohoo had, so they just agreed. Nevermind, don't want this to blow into a flame war. Sharkface217 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'll bite. How many edits would be enough? —Doug Bell ^talk 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. IPs who use personal attacks should be indef-blocked? The answer to 12 is questionable, and 9 seems too much like vote-counting over arguments, but that really is the decision maker. You still seem a bit too eager to block people who commit personal attacks, and that question 9 answer is a problem. Also per below. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I have rewritten my answer to question 8 regarding blocking IPs to make my point clearer. Sorry if it made you think I would be throwing indefinite blocks at any IPs that were doing something wrong, that would be the last thing I would want to do. It is also hypothetical, I doubt I would ever impose an indefinite block as an administrator. Wikiwoohoo 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. Ignoring pre-long-break contributions, only 2000 recent edits. (Ignoring old contribs makes sense since so much new policy was changed/created since then!). Insufficient projectspace experience suggest lack of familiarity with policy. Nominee also uploaded Image:BBC Matthew Amroliwala.jpg yesterday in violation of the first fairuse criterion. And of course the indef-block IP's business is decidedly not good. - crz crztalk 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   I can assure you that I am familiar with Wikipedia policy, though as I have said in my message on your talkpage, the fair use issue with images is a mistake by myself. I should have made it clear that such fair use images of presenters are to only be used until a free use image becomes available. The indefinite blocking suggestion was also purely a suggestion for a hypothetical situation. I cannot see myself imposing an indefinite block on any IP. Wikiwoohoo 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   It might be helpful if you can elaborate as to your understanding of why indef blocking an anon would be a bad idea. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Your understanding of fair use in that case is still wrong then. The unavailability of a free image now makes no difference, No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.. The replaceable fair use criteria is such that if an image can be taken then it is unsuitable for use. Not to mention the tag you've put on the image for a tv screen shot says quite clearly "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", whereas you are using to show the presenter in question. Also see the counterexamples - Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: ... 8. An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like. --pgk 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   The issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, I'm afraid. I've seen different admins take different stances on how stricly FUC#1 should be applied. It's an item of hot dispute, and I don't find any fault on the part of Wikiwoohoo here. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   The issue is pretty black and white, if you are saying that this use doesn't understand it and rather than discuss with those actively doing this will just make an assumption, then I should run to oppose now. That aside, there is still the totally black and white issue of being tagged totally inappropriately, the image is being used to show the person not "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" as it has been tagged. --pgk 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per answer to question number eight and nine. Indefinitely blocking ips. Ips can't be blocked indefinitly unless they are proxies unless I'm mistaken. There are more reasons for permanent blocks than ip vandals.--John Lake 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I was referring to indefinitely blocking IPs hypothetically. I do not think I would ever block anyone indefinitely. I would however use a sliding scale beginning with the shortest duration. Wikiwoohoo 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   You don't think there is anyone so disruptive that they should be banned? That's not the reason why IPs are not blocked indefinitely. Also, by sliding scale do you mean you are going to start at some low block length for blatant vandalism and then slowly inch it up after continued vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I was thinking that the sliding scale could relate to the level of vandalism committed. I know I have worried some users by commenting on imposing indefinite blocks but in some cases that really is the best course of action. Otherwise I would exercise caution in who I would block. Wikiwoohoo 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   No one is worried about you imposing indefinite blocks on people, but they are worried about your lack of understanding of basic policy and apparent lack of simple research to find out the reasons for that policy, even in explicit questions related to it: a disruptive person may be banned indefinitely, but IPs are not blocked indefinitely because they are re-assigned to different people, whether tomorrow or next year; an indefinitely blocked IP is an IP that innocent people will not be able to edit through, and which another admin will need to take time to investigate and unblock. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose as above, copyright issues. Putting aside the issue of replaceable fair use the image is still tagged incorrectly, it is being used to illustrate the person not the program in question. I wouldn't be too worried about someone making a mistake or not understanding image issues fully (it seems to be one of those areas many find complex), what I am concerned about is representing (and I guess then truly believing) that your understanding is good, when clearly it isn't. Even something as simple as reading the generic tag attached has plain wording to say it is being used incorrectly. --pgk 07:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Switch to Neutral, issue with images appears to have been moved forward, it is important that admins are open to criticism and reasonable response to that, so withdrawing my opposition to the stance I'd have taken otherwise. --pgk 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose. This seems like a civil and helpful editor, but oddly ignorant of many policy issues. I'm afraid they might take misinformed administrative actions. Recommend getting more experience in project space and with policy issues, and try again in the future. --Ars Scriptor 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   I can assure you know that I would not take any administrative action lightly, and would think my actions through very carefully before committing to anything. Also, the only policy issue I have made an actual mistake with is the fair use policy towards images of living people. My ideas on blocking were just a thought, a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Wikiwoohoo 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose, does good work with image tagging, but not very many edits overall, and plus I would like to know why lied in the opening statement of his self-nomination. — CharlotteWebb 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   What did I say that you think I lied about? Wikiwoohoo 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Above, you said: "I have been active on Wikipedia since August 2005". In early August 2005, you claimed to have been active much earlier than that: "it's been some time since I last used Wikipedia (under a different name)" [6]. So at least one of these statements is deceptive. — CharlotteWebb 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Neither of these statements are deceptive. I am talking about my account now; Wikiwoohoo, which has been active since August 2005. In my first RfA, there was a great deal of investigating into my previous account, of which I cannot remember the username or password. At the time, Durin spent a great deal of time searching the lists of users to try to find a username that might match the sketchy points I could remember about it but to no avail. I did not mention any of this as I gave up trying to remember the old account, besides, all the communication regarding that can be found within my first RfA, linked to from here. I can assure you that I have not lied. Sorry for any confusion caused. Wikiwoohoo 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to change your statement to reflect the time that you actually began editing? How many active were you on the old account (rough number of edits)? And how does one forget a password? — CharlotteWebb 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   And your username too? That's too much for me to believe, sorry. — CharlotteWebb 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   If you feel it would clarify things then that's not a problem. I do not know what my rough number of edits were in my old account; it is very easy to forget a password. Many people do it. When you have no need to remember something like that then over a period of time with plenty of other work to do and many different things to remember, it is quite easy. To solve that problem with this account, I have had my username and password on a post-it note since I created it. Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   So if you don't remember the name of the name or password of the old account, or what time you were active on that account, or for how long, or the number of (or names of any) pages you might have edited... so I'm going to assume that you don't remember if you were ever blocked, put on probation, banned, etc. either. But you remembered Kelly Martin, and you remembered you wanted to nominate somebody's RFA. My head hurts. — CharlotteWebb 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to have to say this but you are confusing yourself unnecessarily with this. I did not remember Kelly Martin, I discovered her quite by chance. I also did not remember that I wanted to make somebody an admin, I was asking to find out where the RfA page was exactly. I think your accusation of lying was very much much extreme and unfounded, but if it was my fault by not clarifying the situation that made you feel that way then I can only apologise. Wikiwoohoo 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I fail to see the significance of the question or the need for an accusation of lying. A user can make a fresh start with a new ID. One can leave the old behind. Some of us have multi ID's. The only problem I can see would be if the user has multi accounts with admin tools. I could not tell you what my current edit count is without looking it up, let alone my alternate user, my ip's edits before I got a user acct, or my ip at work. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Re-read the above. Wikiwoohoo gave count for id seeking adminship. Admits to other ID. If he were hiding something, could just not mention other id. I don't see a problem. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Lack of wiki-space edits suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose partly per Crazy, partly per blocking concerns and partly experience. The edit count and spread does not impress me and I fear Wikiwoohoo may not have enough experience to be sufficiently familiar with policy (and just for the record, I opposed Renesis13 for the same reason). Also, I must say that I find the responses to Charlotte regarding the forgotten username rather bizarre and quite concerning. Sarah Ewart 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I would not have thought my answers to the questions put by CharlotteWebb were either bizarre or concerning, I was simply telling the truth. Sorry if this made you think otherwise. Wikiwoohoo 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I find it bizarre that you could forget roughly how long you used the account for, roughly how many edits you made under it (1 or 10,000?), roughly when you used it, all of the pages you may have edited (did you edit the BBC pages?) and not even be able to remember enough details of the username for Durin to narrow it down in the log. And I find it extremely concerning: if you could forget all this, what else will you forget as an administrator? There's an awful lot of damage you could inadvertently do just by "forgetting" important details. I'm sorry, but I'm quite resolute in my oppose. Just for the record, if you had abandoned the account for privacy reasons or to make a new start, I would have considered that a perfectly acceptable response. In fact, I defended Future Perfect's decision not to reveal his previous username during his RfA because it was his real name. Sarah Ewart 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    The only reason why I forgot my username and password was that I had not used them or had reason to for a while and so they went to the back of my mind. This would not be the case with being an administrator and I find that suggestion quite unfair. I could only forget Wikipedia related details by being away for another large amount of time, which I do not see happening at present. You are welcome to oppose me however, I welcome everyone's feedback on my actions and my suitability as an admin. Wikiwoohoo 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me, but unfortunately your replies only leave me increasingly dissatisfied. I can understand forgetting some details and I can understand forgetting specifics, but I cannot understand forgetting everything even in the most general terms. I guess, for me, the matter is black and white: we either have an admin candidate who has an unbelievably appalling memory or we have an admin candidate who is deceptive. And neither are qualities I find acceptable in a candidate. I know that sounds mean and I really don't intend it to, but I feel I have to be honest. Regardless of which way your RfA goes, I wish you well for the future. Thanks, Sarah Ewart 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    You are very welcome to your own opinions. Thank you for taking the time to vote and make your concerns heard. Wikiwoohoo 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose Been sitting on the fence on this one for some time but I'm now ready to vote. The answers to the questions are unimpressive. The whole confusion over indef blocking vs. not indef blocking seems to be a bit of muddled thinking about or understanding of policy. Also, I think I agree with Sarah Ewart. The accusation of lying made by CharlotteWeb was perhaps a bit extreme but as Sarah points out the failure to remember any details about the previous username are also a bit bizarre. Surely, Wikiwoohoo must have SOME recollection of what he did with the "lost username". What articles were edited, about how many edits, approximately when was the account created and approximately when the last edit was. How can you remember that you had a username but not any of the details? What brought you to Wikipedia in the first place? No recollection of this experience at all? It's a bit incredulous and leaves one with a lurking sense of disingenuousness. (yuh, it's a fancy word for "sort of lying" or at least "not telling the whole truth"). --Richard 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    It may seem bizarre but yes, I do not remember my old username or password, other than that the username had my first name in it. Looking back, and hazarding several guesses, the account was probably last used around two years ago from now; two years ago I was working at ITN so it is possible my edits are based on related articles to the organisation. All usernames checked with my first name in did not seem to be anything that would have been me. Apart from that, I can't help you I'm afraid. Wikiwoohoo 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the old username question and go back to "sitting on the fence". --Richard 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose The answer to question 14 disturbs me. You repeat that IP's should be blocked indefinitely. That does not show a basic understanding of policy. --Dakota 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    I will rewrite my answer to question 14 to clarify what I mean. Please read my answer to question 8 to see my stance on blocking; I am no longer in favour of IPs being indefinitely blocked having heard reasons why this would be an incorrect course of action regarding IPs. Users though are a different matter and if found to have used their account for solely malicious intent, they should be blocked. Wikiwoohoo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

13. Inexperience, per Xoloz. Not now, sorry. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Candidate does not have a strong grasp of the policies and the candidate's resposes to the oppose votes only made this clearer. I particularly have an issue with the candidate's claim that he thinks he would not indefinitely block anyone. [7] We don't need soft administrators, an administrator should be capable of indefinately blocking a user when it is necessary. Dionyseus 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    Well I can't say for sure as to whether I would ever be the one who indefinitely blocks anyone; if the situation required it then I would though. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose at this time, per inexperience. There are a lot of interesting things you can delve into without admin tools and which you should explore. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose due to inexperience/inability to communicate experience adequately. I'm not sure which it is, but I'm not comfortable enabling this person with additional tools until they can answer the concerns outlined above. -- nae'blis 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Too many admins already have corny names like Wikiwoo, Wikithis, MyWikiBiz (well not this exact name), etc. The candidate should file a request to rename their name. Anomo 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Of course everyone has the right to their own opinion. However, it seems to me that a "corny name" is a weak reason to oppose an RFA. Perhaps you have other reasons for opposing this RFA that you didn't take the opportunity to mention?--Richard 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    I like my username but won't rule out changing it in the future if I get bored of it. Thank you for giving your opinion though. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose, per concerns by Crz and Xolox. I am just not comfortable with the user having the tools at this time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I oppose because our paths have not crossed and I am unable to speak from firsthand knowledge. However, a wikipedian with barely 3500 edits to be making his 3rd RfA is a red flag. I am not sure how well you appreciate the responsibility you covet. Furthermore, all your mainspace experience seems related to the BBC. I would like to see more diversity. TonyTheTiger 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    I will diversify my edit topics as time goes on; my present target is getting BBC related articles to good article or featured article status. Consider this my first serious RfA, my previous two were much too early, as I mentioned in my paragraph at the top about my nomination. Wikiwoohoo 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to see the diversity before I support your adminship. TonyTheTiger 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose per above comments. teh tennisman 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

The answers to the standard questions weren't really very good, so Neutral pending replies to mine. (Maybe only half a neutral.) On another note, I've never heard of an edit count standard higher than 3000. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (Changed to oppose per answers)

Neutral pending answers. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Change to support. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral per Doug. Give me some good answers and I'll give you a shot. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral pending answers. Switched to support. Indef blocking IPs still doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. riana_dzasta 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per concerns about his blocking ideas. First he talked about indef blocking IPs, then says, "I do not think I would ever block anyone indefinitely." There are many reasons to block usernames indefinitely; this is a basic point of blocking policy which I feel should be fully understood before giving someone admin tools. I do however want to say that he has contributed much to Wikipedia, is civil, and is unlikely to abuse admin tools purposely, should he receive them. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   With regards to my ideas on blocking IPS, I have suggested that continued personal attacks on an editor by an anonymous IP could be considered to be worthy of an indefinite block. However, I would always be very cautious of imposing any block of any duration longer than 24 hours. As I said, I doubt I would ever impose an indefinite block, at least I hope I would never need to. If my answers to the questions are not clear, then I apologise. I will clarify them if that is wanted. Sorry for any confusion. Wikiwoohoo 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   If you are involved with any blocking you are likely to encounter user accounts that need to be blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   In cases that did require an indefinite block, I would impose one. I would not go throwing them around at any user though which is possibly what some people were worried about. Sorry if there was any confusion. Wikiwoohoo 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the answers to questions worries me. Not at the moment, may support later. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Suggesting indefinitely blocking IPs is pretty disconcerting. I bet Wikiwoohoo will be pretty careful about it from now on, and it's not as though we don't have a mechanism to reverse blocks. But the issue is not only whether he'll permablock IPs, but that he apparently didn't understand why not to do so until this RfA. Neutral.--Kchase T 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Probably would make a good admin although the "indef block" discussion is still troublesome. I'm going to study this RFA a while longer before committing. --Richard 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral—Not a clean enough basis for support at this time. Williamborg (Bill) 05:50, 7 December 2006 (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.