Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo2

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] Wikiwoohoo

Closed (0/9/4) ending 20:44 November 19 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) – - I would like to apply to become an administrator, my second attempt. Having recently marked several images for deletion and found how long it has taken for them to be deleted, I feel it would be very helpful to have the powers to be able to delete them, to help clear the backlog that always happens. I love editing on Wikipedia and have so many more skills to offer this fantastic project.Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept.Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Support

#Support - having seen this user around and liked what I've seen, I have no trouble in supporting him (and being the first at that). --Celestianpower háblame 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, having read the other comments, I'm going to have to change to neutral. --Celestianpower háblame 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

#Support Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

After viewing the concerns about this user I have decided to withdraw my vote. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Without even checking how long he's been here, just judging by the hard time he had getting this RfA set up properly ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and linked to ([8], [9] and still wrong!) leads me to the conclusion that he's still not ready. I did not oppose Wikiwoohoo's previous nomination, but the dismissive way in which he refers to those who did ([10]) is a red flag. "Agecountis"?! Ten respectable Wikipedians opposed Wikiwoohoo for very valid reasons. At the very least he should treat them and their opinion with civility. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, too soon after previous nomination. No evidence of having addressed or ameliorated the issues presented there. Radiant_>|< 22:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose OwenX summed it up. Self-noms are usually a warning sign. Karmafist 22:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, lack of experience. First edit to an article (and fourth overall) was a month and a half ago on 25 September. Has only 163 total edits to articles (fewer than 500 overall), almost entirely focused on a very narrow range of subjects. Many of these may not be marked as minor, but still are not terribly substantial. No particular edit-counting or account age standard is required to tell that this user isn't nearly ready. --Michael Snow 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, needs more time and experience. Bahn Mi 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Not ready yet. I also note that people declaring "agecountitis" fail to mention that editing time standards have actually been dropping. While it was once rare (not too long ago) to see a user promoted to admin after only three months of editing, that happens quite often now. Carbonite | Talk 23:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose more time needed. Private Butcher 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. At least one more month of work should be sufficient. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose, needs more time and experience. But let's not pile it on, okay?--Sean|Black 01:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    Right! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Too soon after old nom and I needed to create this nomination for him so lack of RFA experience --JAranda | watz sup 20:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    JAranda, it's supposed to be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 2. Sorry! --Celestianpower háblame 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Almost a support, I know this user a little but I am certaint that if I knew them better it would be a support --Adam1213 Talk+ 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. You're doing fine. I look forward to supporting you in another month or two. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Perhaps give it a bit more time and wait for someone else to nom next time? --Celestianpower háblame 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • With respect to my previous forgotten account, I have completely the name of it and have therefore given up guessing :).Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I probably should have thought of this earlier, but if you remember what your previous account began with, you can go to Special:Listusers and adjust the limit on the url. It might take some time, but all accounts ever created are listed there. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 21:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "Agecountitis" was a phrase coined by Jtkiefer, not myself. I respect every user on Wikipedia apart from those out to vandalise it.Wikiwoohoo 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikiwoohoo's userpage from Aug. to Oct. [11] offered a different explanation: "Hi there. I'm a previously well know Wikipedian who decided to take a short vacation. I have returned but am not giving my identity for the time being". Not that it matters which way it happened, but offering different explanations ("I forgot" vs. "I'm keeping it secret") makes me wonder a bit about what the story actually is. --Tabor 23:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • By describing the situation as the case that I was not "giving my identity for the time being" was merely a joke. I had forgotten the name of the account and should really have stated that from the outset. I apologise for any confusion caused as a result.Wikiwoohoo 13:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would help the project by checking for errors, fixing broken links but most importantly, deleting articles and images that are copyright violations or have been marked for deletion for justifiable reasons.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My favourites articles are those that I have helped with regarding BBC television channels and programmes, of which I have a great interest. I am a member of the British TV Channels WikiProject which is a group where we combine efforts to enhance the articles of Britsh television channels. Our current collaboration of the moment is LIVINGtv2.
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 do not and have not. There has been one occasion where it could have descended into conflict but both myself and the other user who had only just joined the project acted well and calmly and nothing negative happened.
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.