Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWii: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:19, 4 November 2008

CWii

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/10/5); Scheduled to end 04:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CWii (talk · contribs) - In an effort to find new RfA noms (see WT:RFA), I thought of CWii. CWii is a user I have known for a long time. I have wanted to nominate him in the past, but have waited until the right time to do so. He runs multiple bots, most of them working on images. He has almost 20000 edits, and has been here since December 2006 (becoming active a year later). I believe that CWii is capable of civil, reasonable discussion. In addition, he is also able to stand under pressure, as most image bot operators have to deal with. While CWii may not be as active in article writing as other users, I believe that he is still qualified to be an admin. X clamation point 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my nomination for adminship. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As I have a tendency to not enjoy writing articles, I plan perform behind the scenes maintenance tasks. I want to respond to AIV, UAA and 3RR requests. I also want to be able to assist other users in in admin related tasks, and help out the Wikipedia in my own way, and the way I do it best. For example, after moving an image to the commons, John Bot II will tag the local image for Deletion for CSD-I8. I could complement this with admin tools by deleting the images after a run of the bot.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I best contributions are fighting vandalism, and other background tasks. If I haven't said it before, writing isn't something I enjoy, and I dread English Class. As I believe in Quality not Quantity, I have a record of marking both articles and images for speedy deletion and discussion. Occasionally I enjoy going around doing gnome like tasks, such as adding infoboxes, or the correct WikiProject and assessment on the talkpage.

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 been in conflicts. I have always tried to remain calm, but sometimes my emotions got the better of me. Recently I have handled such situations better, and have avoided unnecessary arguments, but I am whiling to step in if it escalates to the points of attacks and harassment.

Additional questions from So Why

4. Well, I am sure you read the opposes. What do you say to those problems named? Do you think you can handle criticism better now than it seems to have been the case few months back?

A:

5. Do you understand that as an admin you will be facing many newbie editors complaining to you and do you think you will always be able to respond to them in a kind and helpful manner?

A:

General comments

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

Links for CWii: CWii (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CWii before commenting.

Discussion

I see that the candidate has been blocked and then unblocked today with very strange explanations for both the block and the unblock. What is this all about? Something about losing and then agreeing not to play the "don't block my account" game. What the heck?? Nsk92 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He meant that game. Dammit. It was a joke. MER-C 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Just lost the game. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Me too! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Damn it! I was up too like two months..... Icewedge (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is on this page which is causing the Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report to show that this RfA will be ending "31 December 1999 00:00"? — Athaenara ✉ 10:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YaY, Amalthea fixed it. — Athaenara ✉ 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nom. X clamation point 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per "thought he already was" [ roux ] [x] 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, changing vote to weak oppose due to pattern of concerns raised in Oppose section.[reply]
Support Yep, good contributor. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good user, clueful, plays wierd games with block-happy admins on IRC, seems like a perfect user to me; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, can't see any problems. Has clue, will travel. Ironholds (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per "thought he already was as well." Seems like a great person to work with. VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 05:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've known him for a long time as a very useful contributor to Wikipedia, and I feel that he will make good use of adminship to further benefit Wikipedia. -- Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 05:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good natured, open to troutslapping, good contributions. --Terrillja _talk 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not the most active as of late, but a good contributor and sufficiently familiar with policy and procedures. Useight (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Moving to neutral per some items that I was previously unaware of being brought to light. Useight (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant as a jab (though it will no doubt come across as such) but my honest opinion: If Irpen is opposing, CWii must be doing something right. Default support unless and until anything of actual concern is brought up. Everyme 06:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) [Check; and change to neutral per Balloonman once more.][reply]
Support An editor im sure we can trust and will not misuse tools. No problems. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per lack of interest to content writing and evasive answer to question 3. --Irpen 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disinterest in article writing is a bad sign, especially when planning on policing articles by attempting to combat edit-warring. CWii has had the rollback privilege revoked on two occasions for misuse, specifically reverting constructive edits without explanation - this doesn't inspire confidence in future AIV work. Lastly, I have noticed them being particularly brusque towards newbies in the past (sorry, no diffs atm), and this unfortunately continued today with a rather ill-mannered interaction on IRC. Some people just can't change their stripes. east718 // talk // email // 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IRC is officially unofficial, and therefore utterly irrelevant here. Everyme 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it can provide witness to somebody's character. It is difficult for me to buy that one can remain polite in one medium when they are uncouth in another, especially when there is a significant overlap in the social circles of both. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'd still appreciate diffs of inappropriate on-wiki behaviour. You see, I beat up my wife and kids every day, which happens to be the secret recipe for my unwavering balance on-wiki, as most would agree. Everyme 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. OK, this is the sort of stuff I had in mind. (Rather than editorialize, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.) east718 // talk // email // 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Indeed. I was initially going to respond by pointing to the date (April), but in conjunction with Balloonman's points below, a rather unfavourable picture is beginning to emerge here. Sigh, so to speak. At least WP:NOTNOW. Everyme 07:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, NOTNOW is for noobs who stumble into RfA by mistake. CWii migth want to withdraw, or this might get snowed (although I don't think it's there yet.... I'm of the position that respected experienced editors (which CWII is) don't get snowed unless it is something like 2-1 or 3-1.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I am not inherently opposed to minors becoming admins, I want to see proof that they are the exception to the rule and that they are capable of handling the responsibility in a manner benefiting the project. My exposure to CWII is somewhat limited, but the incident that I know of stemmed from this summary of events that lead to an AN report against Giggy, and to CWii's leaving the project. When I investigated the incident above, as I was coaching Giggy at the time, I found CWII's behavior to be deplorable. I told Giggy, "that CWii's behavior here has a negative connotation for other 13 year old editors... heck, it has connotations for other editors under the age of 18. Many people are reluctant to trust them with additional authority because they can act rash and immature." CWII's behavior in this case is too soon for my tastes---especially from a minor. Again, I am not opposed to minors getting the mop, but I need long term proof that they are mature and capable of the bit in a mature reasonable manner. I just don't see it from CWII---CWII does not personify a minor who stands heads and tales above other teenagers, but rather possesses the attributes people are concerned about when they see a 14 year old run for adminship. I MIGHT have been able to over look this incident IF he had been upfront with issues such as this, but his vague answer to 3, leads me to wonder if there are other similar issues.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson for everyone therefore is if you are planning to run for RfA, dont ever reveal your age and we will be none the wiser. 211.30.109.24 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CWii retired this year after being criticized. Based on the effect the criticism had on him, I don't think he's going to be able to handle the potentially much stronger criticism he will face as an administrator, which an administrator needs to be able to do. There's also his interactions with Jakezing. Here he continues to badger a dispute, reverting the users's removal of a discussion. This dispute was then several days old, and he still hadn't disengaged. This earlier edit seems needlessly aggressive, threatening "other actions" if Jakezing didn't respond. But my oppose is mostly the ability to handle criticism issue. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Jakezing is insufferable. Everyme 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, an admin should have an interest in writing articles. Not being very skilled at it is understandable, but not a lack of interest. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Moved from support per concerns cited by east718, Balloonman, seresin. I did think CWii was an admin already, but now think that another few months would probably be wise before granting the mop. Sorry. [ roux ] [x] 08:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this time. Although CWii has done some excellent work here, the lapses in judgement highlighted by east718 and Balloonman demonstrate a lack of maturity; I'm not reassured that this candidate will speak softly and act in a measured, thoughtful manner. The lack of interest in article-writing is also a concern, as it implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what we do. Wikipedia is sustained by writing and editing articles; it's the most important job there is, and the admin tools exist only to facilitate it. EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, childish behaviour and trivial consideration of blocks is not what we need. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of a lack of maturity. Within the last 150 edits, CWii's edit summaries include: "lol spacing", "whoops lol", "rawrrawrrawr", "what the fuck, really", "lol fail", and "lol". These suggest to me a little too much immaturity. I'm okay with a user using those types of edit summaries in their personal space from time to time, or in more friendly conversations with other users, but when they're posting warnings to newer users or editing the image space, I believe that these have no place. I also find it ironic that he has this posted on his talk page in light of what others have raised about a lack of mainspace experience. Per this lack of immaturity, and the points raised by others, I must oppose at this time, either way (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't expect much in the way of encyclopedic contribution, but I expect something. I also think the tooling around with DragonflySixtyseven belies a lack of maturity, disappointing in both CWii and DragonflySixtyseven. The block button's not a tool. fish&karate 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and karate, did you mean the block button's not a toy? It is considered an administrative tool... either way (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately, per Balloonman and either way. Will definitely support in a few months if you work on those problems. iMatthew 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Change from support per Balloonman, again. Everyme 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Moved from support per items brought to light in the oppose section. Useight (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This exchange, linked from the post on Giggy's blog, worries me. But, it was in April, and I'll assume that he's changed since. \ / (⁂) 09:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The lack of article building is not a problem to me, I think all sorts of users are needed to maintain Wikipedia as it is. But I'm concerned about the 'roughness' in his actions. Certainly not something that should be in an admin, someone that other users will constantly seek assistance and advice from. An admin should be umm... well, nice and helpful - not intimidating. So, neutral for now. Chamal ^talk 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good contributer, no question about it, but Chamal puts it best why I am not able to support at the current moment, at least not until I heard something from the candidate in reply to those problems named. Lack of aticle building is surely not a reason to oppose (I would have had to oppose myself then^^). So Why 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 #::::::No, NOTNOW is for noobs who stumble into RfA by mistake.  CWii migth want to withdraw, or this might get snowed (although I don't think it's there yet.... I'm of the position that respected experienced editors (which CWII is) don't get snowed unless it is something like 2-1 or 3-1.)---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' While I am not inherently opposed to minors becoming admins, I want to see proof that they are the exception to the rule and that they are capable of handling the responsibility in a manner benefiting the project.  My exposure to CWII is somewhat limited, but the incident that I know of stemmed from [http://giggyisms.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-not-to-treat-newcomer.html this summary of events] that lead to an AN report against Giggy, and to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Compwhizii/Leaving&diff=prev&oldid=203871942 CWii's leaving the project].  When I investigated the incident above, as I was coaching Giggy at the time, I found CWII's behavior to be deplorable.  I told Giggy, "that CWii's behavior here has a negative connotation for other 13 year old editors... heck, it has connotations for other editors under the age of 18. Many people are reluctant to trust them with additional authority because they can act rash and immature."  CWII's behavior in this case is too soon for my tastes---especially from a minor.  Again, I am not opposed to minors getting the mop, but I need long term proof that they are mature and capable of the bit in a mature reasonable manner.  I just don't see it from CWII---CWII does not personify a minor who stands heads and tales above other teenagers, but rather possesses the attributes people are concerned about when they see a 14 year old run for adminship.  I MIGHT have been able to over look this incident IF he had been upfront with issues such as this, but his vague answer to 3, leads me to wonder if there are other similar issues.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
+#:The lesson for everyone therefore is if you are planning to run for RfA, dont ever reveal your age and we will be none the wiser. [[Special:Contributions/211.30.109.24|211.30.109.24]] ([[User talk:211.30.109.24|talk]]) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 #CWii retired this year after being criticized. Based on the effect the criticism had on him, I don't think he's going to be able to handle the potentially much stronger criticism he will face as an administrator, which an administrator needs to be able to do. There's also his interactions with [[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]]. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakezing&diff=249579365&oldid=249577463 Here] he continues to badger a dispute, reverting the users's removal of a discussion. This dispute was then several days old, and he still hadn't disengaged. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakezing&diff=247277665&oldid=247058465 This] earlier edit seems needlessly aggressive, threatening "other actions" if Jakezing didn't respond. But my oppose is mostly the ability to handle criticism issue. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Seresin|¡?]]&nbsp;)&nbsp;''' 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 #:To be fair, Jakezing is insufferable. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)