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

MWOAP[edit]

Final (12/17/4); Closed by Rschen7754 on 04:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

MWOAP (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and if the community allows, I would like to become an admin. I have daily editing habits for the past three months. I feel that I, now, am grounded in wiki-policy, and know my way around. I always try (and have) kept cool, providing constructive comments to other users. Thank you for considering me for adminship in the first place. MWOAP (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. I will place a note on my talk page about all of this so people can also comment on that, it should be up in a few minutes, thanks. --MWOAP (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I intend to work all over as my edits indicate, but my primary edits would be related to the following (as indicated by my userpage):
IRC Channels: #wikipedia-en-help & #wikipedia-en-afc (Voiced on AfC)
  • Clearing out backlogs in WP:Backlog (not 100% clearing, help clearing)
  • Watch Star Trek Articles
  • Maintain the monthly selected Articles, Quotes, Pictures, and recommended articles for Portal:Star Trek
  • Use WP:AWB effectivly to help cleanup wikipedia.
  • Use WP:Huggle to remove vandalism.
If you want me to be a little more specific, I would probally be more into AN/ANI/AIV (especailly)/Admin Backlog/any admin backlog not listed there (ie user requests) --MWOAP (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions are to users specifically as I try to balence what is needed to help them (not just say "follow this policy") & size of explanation. I believe that the only way Wikipedia will become better is to communicate to it's users better. Some of my less noticed contribs (which I love to do): Along with Fetchcomms- I created Template:Tech Issue; I have rescued Metropolitan Bible Church; & I have kept working on the referencing issues a lot. (that is all the "reflist" edits i have). --MWOAP (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 will start with stress: yes I have had stress from wiki, but at that point I walk away from the computer, vent it, and then come back fresh. In regards to conflicts, yes, one, back in jan/feb of this year. did not come close to the 3RR here though. --MWOAP (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
4. I see you already do a lot of great work, and I personally think the folks who work WP:AFC are an under-appreciated bunch. However, many of things you say you would do as an administrator do not require the administrative toolset. You indicate you would use them at AIV, so here are some scenarios you might encounter while reviewing cases there, please indicate what you would do in each case:
4a:A newly registered user replaces an encyclopedic article with an obscene racial slur as their first edit. They are issued an "only warning" by a vandal fighter. Their next edit is to their talk page, where they tell the warning user to go to hell. The vandal fighter reports them to AIV asking they be blocked.
A: Would deny this one. First of all, (personal rule) the absolute maximum that you should ever give a first time editor OR vandal is a level 3 warning. I personally feel that we are all about the users who make up Wikipedia and make those edits (good and bad). If we want any improvment in how we get people to edit in Wiki, we can't just turn them away. And to back up my personal statement with policy, WP:NPA states "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I would have to individually review the content though to make sure that it wasn't really bad, but probally nothing that would be of to much concern.
4b:An ip has a history of constructive edits alternating with some problematic edits. There are several warnings on the talk page, some dating back several months. The ip responds to an edit they made being reverted by blanking out the reverting users user page and replacing it with a picture of Adolf Hitler. After that they seem to return to normal editing. Let's assume this incident happened 4 hours in the past, and the user has made 15 productive edits in the meantime. You find that a report on this user has been sitting at AIV unaddressed this whole time.
A: This is one of those unlikely to happen situations. If there are no other warnings for issues between that edit & the most recent vandal, based on the fact that they have been productive edits, I would not complete the request becuase it seems that they had stoped during that time. In regards to the page blanking, I would leave a level 2 or 3 warning and let the editor know (not by template) what & why I did what I did.
4c:A well-established user has made a nasty personal attack on another well-established in the form of an obscene edit summary suggesting the user's mother has participated in certain lewd acts, used during an edit war between the two of them. They have both come up to the line of WP:3RR but have not crossed it. The edit warrior who was the subject of the personal attacks asks that the user making the offending remarks be blocked for disruption.
A: By well-established user, I am assuming no warnings. It would depend on weather the reverting was still going on (because 3rr expires every 24 hours past each edit). If there was still an edit war (and no reasonable discussion), the block would be put in place. If not, the user would recieve a level 4 or 4im warning for their personal attack. And to show that I am not violating my own policy, I am assuming that they have been warned about his or her previous edit wars.

Very good questions, thank you. --MWOAP (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few from smithers
5. When are "cool-down" blocks used?
A. As I have said up above, we are trying to give editors the best chance we can before we block them. Cool-down blocks, i would not consider using. The only reason they would recieve a block is becuase their edits are disruptive.
6. If you were to close an AfD discussion on a BLP when a consensus is not blatant or easily determined, how would you close it?
A. (If I understand your wording) I would close it as a keep, based on no concensus. If not enough people participated, I would relist it on the basis of not enough opinion.
7. Explain CSD criterion G1.
A. This is for articles that may just have a bunch of random letters in it or says I love hotdogs. It is not to be based off of vandalism. It basically means that the article has no relation to the title of the article.

Nice BLP question. Rest are to come, just thought I would post these first. --MWOAP (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Phantomsteve

8. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:
a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A. As I said above with the G1 requirement, it is based on the fact of no relation to the subject. (ie. hotdogs are the best.) The A1 & G1 are very simialar, but the G1 can be used on anything, Where as A1 is article specific & requires it to be really short. If it does not meet A1, A3 is the next thing I check. With A3 you need to have actual content that is not an article quality post. (Ie talk page comments, templates, or links) If it does have text that does not relate to the items listed before this in parenthesis, then it qualifies as A3.
b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?
A. This criterion does not qualify if it is an article about "books, albums, software, other creative works, or animal's spicies." To decline a CSD on this, I would require some source of how the identified subject makes a difference on weather he/she or it, is big enough to maintain an article. (ie an article says "This -insert person- is a political officer of..., or some other relevant claim. to go to the oppisite, it would be "this person helped me with my homework.")
9. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which sections of which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. First of all, if that is the case, I would check my facts and sources against wiki policy (such as WP:SOURCES, and WP:NPOV) and make sure that I did everything right. I would revert it only once then engage them in talk to see why they made this claim. If no productive talk can be engaged (like user does not reply), then I would go to first warning. My above personal rule applies here, no user shall recieve above a level three warning on the first indication of unconstructive work. Then if it continued for a while (reverting I mean, also were talking days), I would consider giving the final warnings, then a block if neccesary. I would consult with other admins before this. (WP:VANDAL & WP:BLOCK)
10. In your own words, could you explain what the difference between a block and a ban is?
A. A block is issued by an administrator for unconstuctive edits. A ban is issued by the community (most likely ArbCom), Jimbo Wales, or Wikimedia staff; I do stress that this is not to be done by a single admin, but the issue can be brought up by an admin.
11. In your editor review request of 22nd December (here), you said I am thinking about adminship, but know I am not there yet. What has changed in the last 2 weeks that helped you to decide that you are ready?
A. As you will be able to see in my talkpage edit history, I was away for a while on a personal emergency. Just before that review, I knew the emergency was comming up, but did not know when it was, and thought I would not get through it this fast. I am past it and have been for about a week to week and a half. That was the big factor. Also, I was looking around at some recommendations for admin and I saw I was not to far off from them. I would like to note again, there are no offical requirements for adminship.

I think these questions really help an editor come out and say who they are. Thank you --MWOAP (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, if only morally; agree that more experience would be good, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest this editor is incapable of handling the bit responsibly. Lots of productive edits, including involvement in the projectspace, and no blocks/warnings. This isn't going to pass, but I wish you the best of luck and encourage you to not get discouraged! –Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Experience is always preferable, but you seem to know your way around well enough. I see no reason not to support you, and keeping your nose clean for 1,400 edits is good enough in my book. Don't expect you to pass, though- edit count may just be a number, but a lot of people hold real stock in it. Good luck anyways! Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 08:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A Mari Usque Ad Mare I would have to agree with Julian on this one, why not? Though this RfA might be a bit early in terms of length of active participation or/and edit count for by some standards i find that it is filed sincerly in good faith. Support from sea to sea to sea. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support, based on the fact that despite your relatively little experience, there is nothing to suggest that you will abuse/misuse the tool. Agree with JC on this one. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Lots of good admin type work in your recent contribs, working at AFC is a good indicator of helpfullness, no reason to switch from the default support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral Support per Juliancolton. You seem to be using rollback successfully since I gave it to you last week. Take a few more months of active editing, seek counsel whenever needed, and try again in the future. Keep up the good work! upstateNYer 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Why the heck not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Because you mentioned that you have kept cool, I think keeping your cool is one productive way to success in becoming a sysop! Keep it up with your constructive comments as well, and you'll be there in no time. Minimac94 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support Keep up the good work. Or not. :) But have fun regardless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support - Although the edit count is a little small, the user has a clue. smithers - talk - sign! 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. It's clear that this user is responsible to become an admin, and edit count is a meaningless standard. As Juliancolton said, why not? "This user has 1500 edits" is not significantly more valid reason to oppose a user than "This user's name is in all capital letters". Bart133 t c @ 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
    For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
    1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
    2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
    3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
    4. Negotiate a compromise.
    Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. ceranthor 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do opposes like this not piss anyone else off?  GARDEN  09:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFA has been templated. At least there is only one so far, and it does contain relevant advice. I prefer to make more specific, candidate directed comments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen, not sounding like a machine makes all the difference. upstateNYer 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, actually. It doesn't sound like "No, because, well, you suck." It gives some specific advice. It only makes us sound like a machine because we see it on so many RfA's, but the person running has likely just seen this template for the first time. iMatthew talk at 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think it's being used for good here. However there are some times when I think it should not be used, and when I see it I will point it out. (e.g. a user who has 10000 edits doesnt need to be told they need "at least 3000" edits). -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I do have to admit I disagree with the "3 months" part, because I just don't think most editors are active enough to be ready for admin status in just 3 months after a "not now" type of RfA. But that's just my personal opinion. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:NOTNOW. I'm sorry, but you need to have more experience before we can judge your understanding of policies and guidelines. Get some experience in WP:AFD, WP:CSD, and such areas, get a little time under your belt, and then come back. I look forward to seeing you after you've gotten some more experience. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry, your timing is just not right. Also establish a more stable editing history and the community might be able to judge your content work better. I also recommend and endorse a snow closure per WP:NOTNOW. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:NOTNOW. However, if you follow ceranthor's advice, you'd be in good shape for another try, provided you're still interested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose WP:NOTNOW per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose not enough experience come back in 3 months. RP459 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Şłџğģő 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry, I have to agree, you don't have enough experience yet. Please continue to contribute and perhaps another RfA might be in order a ways down the road. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Concerns with judgment, experience, and policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be possible to have a couple of diffs showing examples of judgment problems or policy knowledge concerns? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Removed policy knowledge concerns, as this is something that I have stated in my oppose below! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sorry, not ready yet, as several people have already pointed out.  GARDEN  09:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WP:NOTNOW I don't want to spend much time beyond the less than 1500 edits on the project. Keep producing solid work, and follow some of the advice that has been previously provided. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Concerns about experience. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose per Fastily.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 20:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose - You're off to a great start but I have trouble supporting someone with so few edits. Just thinking of my own experience, when I was at your position in terms of "tenure" and number of edits I still had quite a lot to learn about policy and procedure. I'm just not comfortable with someone getting the bit this early. -- Atama頭 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose. WP:NOTNOW: a good user who simply needs more experience. Come back in a few months! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The answers do not give me complete confidence in the candidate's knowledge of policy (for example, their answer to Q9 seems to indicate that they would block an editor with whom they are personally having a dispute). I think that the candidate is not ready for adminship yet, but hope to see them here again in the future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify with what I have added to question 9. What you may of seen it to be, I want to make sure that I was clear , so you would know what I would actually do in that case. --MWOAP (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I just don't feel a solid and comprehensive understanding of the policies and guidelines here. I haven't seen much monumental work in the past 1.5 weeks (question 11). Also, G1 is about gibberish only, and A1 is different from G1. The BLP (question 6) answer isn't complete enough for me, it would be a keep unless there was too much negative unsourced info or promotional material. For 4.C., 3RR doesn't just expire every 24 hours, and they could still be blocked regardless of whether the edit war was still going on. Cool-down blocks aren't used because they generally inflame the user as well, and I see a lot of personal rules, not necessarily bad, but of course personal rules aren't really your guide in most cases. Sorry, but I'd like to see 6 months (a min. of 3) and several thousand more edits. NOTNOW.  fetchcomms☛ 01:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please realize, you only have been active for about 2.5 months, and have under 2000 edits, and that's simply not enough to really get a feel of how you would do. And I'm going to be a bit blunt, but have you really understood adminship? The answer that gets me the most was question 11. 1.5 weeks is just not enough to be ready for a job I'm not sure you know all the aspects of yet.  fetchcomms☛ 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral for Now - Answer questions 5 thru 7 please. smithers - talk - sign! 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Switched to support smithers - talk - sign! 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral veering towards NOTNOW oppose. I'll await a response to my questions before making a final decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Switched to oppose -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Neutral Before I support I would like to see the candidate try out more aspects of the facilities here. So far only one image has been uploaded. I would like to see the uploading of free images, preferably at commons. Although working in AFC, I can only see one article accepted: Carl Reindel; also a bit more knowledge of the category system would be useful: Category:American film actors Category:American television actors are sub-sub cats of Category:American actors so Category:American actors is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Per WP:NOTNOW. More experience would be helpful, although the work you've done to date is not a problem. Warrah (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral You've done great so far, MWOAP, but this seems extremely early to me—my advice would be to come back in about 6 months, and get as much experience around here as you can. As Juliancolton said, I support you morally, but I just think this is too early. Also, I'm not sure what sort of things you'll need the tools for—removing categories, writing, and commenting at AN can be done by any user.  fetchcomms☛ 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to review the CSD criteria and basically what it means to be an admin. I just don't think you're close to ready for the responsibility. And I have to move to oppose with some of those answer, including the CSD ones. Another 6 months, I would say.  fetchcomms☛ 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral not gonna pile on but you need to go back and relook at criteria for speedy deletion. Your answers to Q7 and Q8a are incorrect. "I love hotdogs" is not incoherent text so it does qualify for G1. A1 is not similar to G1, an article with "I love hotdogs" would qualify or any article that you can not figure out what the article is about from the text of the article. A3 is for articles with no content whatsoever. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that the hotdogs was not applied to the CSD A3 in my paragraph (I may not have said that clearly enough). True, the hot dogs does not apply to G1, my bad. --MWOAP (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If my reply implied that you had discussed the hotdog portion as part of A3 I apologize. You had said in A8a "With A3 you need to have actual content that is not an article quality post". If you have actual content, A3 does not apply no matter what it says, A3 is only for articles with no content. Hope this clarifies my comments. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Looks generally competent. Possibly needs more experience, and the suggestion that they might block a user who they were in a content dispute with raises my eyebrow. Fences&Windows 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category