Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo

Add links
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.

Wikiwoohoo

[edit]

Closed (1/10/3) ended 8:00 12th October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself. I am not trying to be big headed ;) but would love to be able to help out with the project in a greater capacity. I have loved editting and want to be an admin to do more and have the extra powers to make a positive difference. Although this account is new, I am not to Wikipedia. I gave up with an old account some time ago (I forgot the password) and only recently created this.Wikiwoohoo 17:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC) In my time as Wikiwoohoo I have created two UK specific stubs - UK-bank-stub and UK-retail-stub and made edits to some already in existence, such as bank-stub. My main interests are in UK television, hence why I joined the British TV channels WikiProject (mentioned in my answers to questions). Wikiwoohoo 12:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.Wikiwoohoo 17:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. By AGF, I should assume that this user's claim as having an old abandoned account as true. Deryck C. 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, you really need a lot more edits and you haven't really been here long enough. FireFox 18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, you need about an order of magnitude more experience. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per FireFox and Rick Block. Maybe in about four months' time. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Astrotrain 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Its very good that you want to become an admin to help Wikipedia, but Im afraid that you dont have enough experience. Please continue to be a dedicated and contientious editor, and come back when you have amassed over 1000 valuable edits, and have shown yourself capable of handling admin tools. Good luck. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose because of reasons given above. Private Butcher 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose and Delist too few edits --JAranda | yeah 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. User is on a good road to being a strong contributor. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Sorry Wikiwoo, but you have fewer edits than me, & I don't have a lot. You are a great editor however, but you need more edits. Re request after you have at least 2000 edits, (Which is the norm for admins). Spawn Man 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Extreme les... sorry. Oppose, too little experience, as the low edit count and previous malformed nomination show. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral: The first seven votes on this RfA under oppose are all about editcountitis. This nominee has been on Wikipedia before, and took a long break. His contributions since his return, while light, have all been in good faith. He has been courteous to users, and shows no sign of losing his cool under pressure. I think he can be trusted with the tools of adminship. I have no reason to oppose him based on edit counts. My only reasons for opposing are his activity level per day being lower than I normally find acceptable, and his edit summary usage is lower than I like to see. If someone is going to delist this RfA, I suggest coming up with better grounds than editcountitis for doing so. An RfA is useful for instructing a nominee on how they should improve to become a better nominee in the future. So far, the oppose votes are speaking just one lesson. Let this RfA stand. If Wikiwoohoo wants to delist it, he can withdraw the nomination on his own. --Durin 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As of now, I am neutral to this nomination. I have kept my options open for some future time when I shall be able to form an opinion based on his/her activities with the present user name, as I do not have any clue to his/her earlier edits. I also welcome him/her back to wikipedia. --Bhadani 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted Grant his correct sex , which I learnt from his immediate message on my talk page in response to my vote to his present nomination. I am sure Grant was a good editor and shall prove that again. --Bhadani 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I won't oppose of do anything like that. Your contributions show that you're a good user, but the thing is, we need to know how you've helped around here in order to consider you for adminship. Your edits appear to be in good faith, but without the rest of your contributions, I can't know how you'll behave with the mop and the flamethrower. I can't know if it is true that you did in fact have another account, but I'm believing you because I assume good faith. That said, keep up the good work a few more months and you'll have no problem rounding up support. Titoxd(?!?) 23:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(Journalist below is responding to Durin's neutral vote above and Merovingian's response)

  • Doesnt his low per-day activity level links to his low total edits? I have not opposed solely on edit counts, Ive said that the user needs experience... While focusing on edit count can be a bad thing, it still shows a person's involvement and assiduity (ie. experience). If an editor who has been on Wikipedia for over a year has 1000 edits, then he would be delisted for being uninvolved and lethargic. Therefore, if someone has a high edit count, it usually points to the fact that he/she has devoted a lot of time and attention to the project. They only way persons can become known in the community, and the only way others can vote, Support, seen him around is if he has been 'far and wide' on wikipedia, editing and conversing. The result of such actions is exteriorized in his edit count. Edit count really isnt as bad as how people make it out to be. →Journalist >>talk<< 03:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user was involved in Wikipedia before, left for two years, and came back. He's not just a new user. People are judging him solely based on his edits and time on Wikipedia under this account name. # of edits per day and total edits are related, but are rather different. A high edit count is not indicative of being devoted to the project. Average # of edits per day mutes the objectivity somewhat, but not entirely. As I've said here on RfA multiple times, it's just one tool of many. As many have noted, edit counting does nothing to evaluate how much effort is being made with each edit. In the time that it takes for me to write this commentary, I could record many new edits by stub-sorting. Does the stub-sorting have more value? Does this commentary? I've spent more than an hour before working on a single edit to USN ship articles. Since I know it's not likely someone else will be editing the articles there in question, I can be casual and hit "Show preview" many times to get the format the way I want. In that hour, I could rack up a hundred stub-sorts. I could rack up 50 or more votes on AfD, CfD, and TfD. Edit counts are an objective measure of something that is subjective. You can not gauge the value of a contributor or their contributions by the # of edits they have made. Such a route is inherently perilous in evaluating a nominee. If edit counts really were an effective way to evaluate people, then we'd automatically give people admin status as soon as they crossed, say, 1,000 edits. But, we don't. Neither do we grade people on their value to Wikipedia based on their # of edits. I have more edits than you. Does that mean I am better than you? Of course not. Neither does a low edit count for a user automatically mean they are ill qualified to be an admin. The qualities that make a nominee a good candidate do not magically become imbued within them once they cross some magical threshold number of edits. They had those qualities before they came to Wikipedia. --Durin 04:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are "judging him solely based on his edit and time on Wikipedia under this account name" because that is all we have to work with... it would make sense to consider the history of another account if there was any way to examine that. --Tabor 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • --Edit conflict with Tabor:) Durin, I really understand where you are coming from. And I concur with most of your above points. What you are saying is that you could edit one article and hit "show preview" many times, making major punctilious contributions in one edit, while another can rack up 50 or more edits 'VFDing', stub sorting etc. The fact of the matter is that a person who devotes himself to "casually" hitting the "Show preview" botton does not necessarily need sysop powers if all they do is make major edits. A person has to show that they are already doing admin type work to be a good admin. Such things include making major edits, interacting, voting on AfD, CfD, and TfD, participating in discussions, and especially reverting vandalism and warning unconscionable editors —all of which will contribute to a high edit count. And if someone is causually hitting the preview button, and spends all day on one edit, what time will he/she have to familiarize himself with Wikipolicy, interact with others, handle disputes with other members, and edit a large cross section of namespaces so we can know that he is not just limited to writing one area. Its like you are saying that a great writer shoud automatically be given sysop powers. As stated, I agree with most of your points, but I though that it is implied that the edits of the candidate would be studied. And if it is, and there is little variety to go on, other persons are going to be skeptical. Its just fact. You said "The qualities that make a nominee a good candidate do not magically become imbued within them once they cross some magical threshold number of edits. They had those qualities before they came to Wikipedia", but how can we know this unless he is participative? I know that having 1000 edits does not automatically make you a good admin, but being a great writer and meticulous editor does not mean that you will be one either. As I have already stated, edit count can be a bad thing, but its not always, and if I didnt make it completely clear, edit counts should also be reviewed. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what I've been saying is nobody in the 10 oppose votes has come up with any reason to oppose this nominee except on grounds of edit counts and time on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this person should be an admin; I did not vote support. But, we have a number of admins here who had similar edit counts when they were given admin priviledges. We have corrupted the process so much that now a nominee needs >2000 edits to have a solid chance to become an admin. 2000! So, I challenge the oppose voters to come up with something negative about this nominee other than low number of edits and time on Wikipedia. At least take the time to review the edits (after all, there aren't that many) and come up with some feedback on how this nominee could be better for the next time they run for admin. --Durin 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Ill do that :). And wow, I really cant believe that the standard is now 2000 edits! Thats kind of a stretch (I have to admit it even though it goes back on what Ive been saying). Oh, and lastly, maybe may reasons for oppose were a bit ambiguous, but doesnt 1000 valuable edits mean that the edits themselves would be meticulously studied? →Journalist >>talk<< 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've totally forgotten my old user name other than it began with Grant, well at least that's what I thought but it seems it wasn't now. Thanks to Durin for his fantastic efforts to help but I think I'll just have to give up digging about in my mind. It's giving me a headache ;)! I looked at all the edit histories of the BBC related articles and none of the user names on those ring a bell. It's annoying for me to have seemingly completely forgotten something as simple yet important as a user name but I like the name Wikiwoohoo, it has a air of mystery in a way but an over-riding sense of fun. That's my thought anyway ;)Wikiwoohoo 15:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, deleting articles and images that are copyright violations or that 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.
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 recent occasion with a new user recently that could have descended into a conflict but we both acted well and calmly and it has not.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikiwoohoo&oldid=1258104578"