Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Wookieepedian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] The_Wookieepedian

Final (6/19/9) ending 17:44 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The_Wookieepedian (talk · contribs) – Generally speaking, I only nominate people who I feel have demonstrated an actual ability to handle themselves in a manner that would be becoming of an admin. The Wookieepedian can be seen zipping back and forth on Star Wars-related articles, greatly improving them and reverting vandalism. He seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject and has been around long enough to know how things are run here. He has 5627 edits, so I don't want to see anyone opposing him because Wikipedia:Editcountitis. Furthermore, he has been here since early September, so he has the experience (I myself was elected admin with less than 3 months experience). This guy deserves the tools to make his life (and consequently ours) easier. NOTE: Seeing that I am nominating The Wookieepedian, I will recuse myself from exercising bureaucratic discretion should that become necessary. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The Wookieepedian 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, Tireless and hard-working wikipedian that is one of the most civil and easy-to-work with users I've come across. Give him a mop and bucket so he can get some more work done. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Why would a The Wookiepedian, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this RfA? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this RfA! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a Wikipedian voting on an RfA, and I'm talkin' about The Wookieepedian! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you bureaucrats are deliberatin' and conjugatin' the consensus and populatiry, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If The Wookiepedian lives on Endor, you must promote! The defense rests. That's a Support, by the way Sceptre (Talk) 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    LOL! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    ........... -MegamanZero|Talk 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    The Wookieepedian Defense, I suppose? :P The Wookieepedian 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yep. Methinks MegamanZero doesn't get my humour though Sceptre (Talk) 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, I believe him. xerocs
  5. Support, Has contributed heaps to film based articles! Empty2005 13:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. (Extremely) Weak Support, trusting Linuxbeak on this one, but previous behaviour is hard to ignore. Jjjsixsix 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time justifying to myself this support; I've seen him around and everything, but reading through the the opposes and previous history makes me kind of squirmish. That said, much of this occured through the early teenager years, and he has seemed to grow and mature (even not touching the Bush page anymore!). Eh. I'll keep the vote here. But it's a very very very weak support. -- Jjjsixsix 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose was a key part of all the edit warring on the Star Wars articles recently, earning himself no fewer than 5 blocks in the process. Conduct entirely unbecoming. -Splashtalk 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    In the process of dealing with User:Copperchair's disruptive edits, might I add. The Wookieepedian 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Two wrongs ≠ a right. This is to say nothing of the editors history under his former username. There are too many chequers in the editor's recent past for me to support at present. -Splashtalk 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    If I may comment, I will say, copperchair is one of the least civil and hardest-to-deal with users on wikipedia. Even I found myself to lose it in my dealings with him; there's something about him that just makes people angry. That said, two wrongs don;t make a right, but The Wookieepedian did attempt peace with copperchair and he declined. Furthurmore, this was quite awhile ago, and The Wookieepedian has shown nothing but good behavior. Just my opinion. I suggest you see copperchair's talkpage, rfar, rfc for yourself. All this has to say something about a user. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with the Copperchair stuff, yes. I'm not going to rely on some other editor's misbehaviour to qualify this editor for adminship. And a declined offer of peace is not a licence for open warfare. WP:ISNOT a battleground. -Splashtalk 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I think it's too soon. Got into edit wars at Template:Starwars & Template:Expanded_Universe, for several days without using the talk pages. Not comfortable that he knows what constitutes vandalism vs. "user test" or "other view" - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Maybe give it a few more months. -- Netoholic @ 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, User:Philwelch and I did engage in talk page discussion, while we were in the process of the edit war. See his talk:[8]
  3. Weak Oppose. I feel horrible opposing, since Linuxbeak is completely correct about the quality of his recent work in the Star Wars area (which sorely needs it- curse all those who forced the fork that led to Wookiepedia!); but I'm not convinced he's fully moved beyond the sort of thing that led to Adamwankenobi being indef banned. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose demonstrated immature behavior recently.  Grue  19:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for now, due to edit warring. Friday (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Where, may I ask..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    MegamanZero, take a couple of moments to read through the oppose section of this RfA and follow a few links. -Splashtalk 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, way too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for now. I will support in the future if nominee refrains from edit warring and uses edit summaries more appropriately. --TantalumTelluride 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Lack of edit summaries is always a concern for me, but being blocked a number of times even as recently as just two months ago is even more worrisome. If there are no more similar problems in the future, I'd consider voting differently in 6+ months time. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Lack of edits summaries and involvement in nuemrous edit wars, along with being blocked numerous times in the recent past. Olorin28 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. User is too controversial right now. --King of All the Franks 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I'm sure he's a very nice person, but with most of his edits mainly focused on the Star Wars sections, I feel an admin should be more experienced and involved in other areas of the encyclopedia. Also, his ban history concerns me. Five times for not being able to control his temper wouldn't make a good candidate for admin. Eluchil 08:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Awkward oppose. I'd probably give my support if I was judging him by his current username alone, but his past history as User:Adamwankenobi casts a very long shadow. Still, I have to acknowledge his dedication to the project and the self-improvement he's made since his reincarnation as The_Wookieepedian. Coffee 15:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose. Way to much contraversy for now, and for a while.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Rob Church Talk 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - too much controversy in recent history -- Francs2000 16:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Very hard to deal with during content disputes over Star Wars. Marskell 00:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. While I won't say never, the wookipedian's edit warring is exactly the kind of behavior that would set a bad example to other editors. Having an administrator with this background so soon after would not be appropriate. Another six (non-warring) months down the line, perhaps it might be time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - I agree with Tony. Also, the low edit count usage is a problem. Johntex\talk 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong oppose. The history of edit warring, sockpuppetry, and abusive vandalism, makes this candidate completely unsuitable. I personally have wasted countless hours cleaning up the messes created by this user's sockpuppet vandals, and while I am all for giving second chances, I don't think adminship should be granted until we've seen a long, long history of positive contributing. The continued edit warring doesn't convince me that he's left his policy flaunting in the past. -- Essjay · Talk 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - The Wookieepedian does tend, in my experience, to jump in with both feet first when encountering something that runs counter to his views on how some Wikipedia pages should be run and seems to think he has aquired ownership of several pages, the Star Wars ones in particular. He has been involved in several nasty edit wars in recent times and often reverts without considering other viewpoints other than his own. He is a prolific Wikipedian and I believe the community is better with him, however he needs to mature slightly and settle down a bit before obtaining adminship. I believe that as the last six months or so have shown if he had Admin rights it would have gotten extremely nasty. Wait and while and see what happens. Ben W Bell 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Unless he can answer well my number 4 question. I am aware of the Wikipedia principle of not biting the newbies and understand that this trouble he has been having could just be mere newbie inexperience. However the concerns raised are nonetheless sufficient to render me unable to support the application. If there are no further incidents I would welcome an application in 3 months time. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I do like this user's attitude in general and his response to all this criticism. I also like the great improvement and maturing he's done since his last username. However, the issues at hand cannot be ignored, yet I do feel he would mop up without much water getting between the cracks. Come back in about two months when you've got more edits between yourself and controversy. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral If you use edit summaries more often, you will gain my support.--Alhutch 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Kind of torn between this, but maybe my feelings will change if you have a second RFA in a few months or so. --Chris S. 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Lack of edit summaries is a killer for me. Would like to see more activity in categories and project editing to get a better feel for things like deletion voting; currently only 2% of your edits are in those areas (and yes I know we are building an encylopedia of ARTICLES not of project talk, this is mostly to see see historical attitudes on issues you would face as an admin). xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Indecisive seems like a good contributor, but I'd like for him to go a bit longer without any edit wars. - Pureblade | Θ 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I've seen him around, and I was so about to support, but I feel I can't, in good faith, support an admin who edit wars like this. Please stick around, and then I'll support then. In all honesty, when I saw your name on the RfA ToC, I went to support, but read the oppose comments, and so I'm neutral. Please don't take this personally, and stick around for just a bit more. -Mysekurity 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. A good contributor and editor with a few black marks in his past. Adamwankenobi is not a concern to me, although the more recent issues with Copperchair are. It looked like a hectic situation, and although there were some attempts to defuse the situation by Wookepedian, his behaviour after these failed was not called for. I'd be happy to support him next time round, but think we need a little more time. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Experienced and valuable guy, needs to use the edit summaries and no longer take part in edit wars. DaGizzaChat (c) 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral Per above. ComputerJoe 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 35% for major edits and 67% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 142 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit summary report for The Wookieepedian and Adamwankenobi. --Interiot 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Having never run across this editor, I really can't judge as to his fitness for adminstrative office...but he's got one of the best & funniest usernames I've ever seen. KHM03 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Previously known as Adamwankenobi (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log), who was blocked indefinitely for "vandalism, disruption, edit warring, and incivility". See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adamwankenobi. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is news to me, and not encouraging news at that. However, perhaps Mr. Wookieepedian can show us how he's changed? Remember that every user is redeemable.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I'll always have that username haunting me in my history on Wikipedia. I suppose the best evidence of my improvement can be seen in all of my edits under my current username, as I have attempted to forget the immature edits I made under my former username. When I created my current userpage, I made a section for all to see of my not-so-great past under the account of Adamwankenobi. But that editor is gone now. He has been for a long time. I've tried ever since I was allowed back to redeem myself, as you say, and my edits reflect this. —the preceding unsigned comment is by The Wookieepedian (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 January 2006
        • If once you start down the dark path- forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume you it will, as it did Adamwankenobi's apprentice. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't know that there would be this much opposition. I'm sorry that it's not going too hot, Wookieepedian, but hopefully this will help you when you run again. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I didn't think it would turn out too hot. But when you offered the nominatuion, I thought, "Well, what the hell!" I'll try again in a couple of months. The Wookieepedian 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot oppose or support you. You are a valuable contributor and I admire your honesty on your user page about your former account. Linuxbreak is right, every editor is redeemable. If you maintain good contributions from this point on I will support you in 3 months.--Dakota ~ ε 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much the way I feel too; there's no shame in losing the first RFA- you'll get in sooner or later. No need to rush. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A.I would be willing to work on the counter vandalism unit.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.Of the articles that I work on, there are none that I am particularly happy with, as I see most of them as a work in progress, and lacking content. However, I am proud of the many contributions I have made to attempt to clean up and prevent the vandalism of, the many Star Wars related articles on the site. As User:Linuxbeak pointed out, I take my work on these very seriously, and am quite concerned about the quality and content, of which I have attempted to improve.
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.Yes. Unfortunately, I have been in several disputes with a disruptive editor (User:Copperchair) who has tested my patience in the past and, as User:Splash points out above, I have ended up in several 24 hour blocks as a result of my efforts to prevent the disruptive edits. My frustration with Copperchair was the result of a series of multi-month disruptions by Copperchair. I have attempted to not become involved in such disputes, as I am typically calm in my decisions. The Wookieepedian 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. It has been stated that you have been banned (at least 5 times) for disruptive editing. Is this true. And if so what makes you feel that you are eligible for adminship so soon after something like that? --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
A.Yes, this is true. I feel I am ready for adminship because I generally avoid such situations. My disputes with User:Copperchair, which led to my five bans was an anomoly to my typical behavior. We got a little hot-headed during that time, and the time off allowed us to cool off. That event was nearly two months ago. My primary goal in that situation was to prevent his disruptive edits, which occurred daily. The Wookieepedian 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.