Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Lake (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 4 December 2006 (number my vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikiwoohoo

Voice your opinion (32/6/4) Ending 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) – I have been active on Misplaced Pages since August 2005, with breaks due to my work. I try to maintain a friendly and polite attitude towards all users and have involved myself in several WikiProjects which have taken my fancy. I have also joined the AMA and have become deputy co-ordinator where I recently organised the current ongoing meeting. This is my third attempt at RFA, though I accept my previous attempts were foolhardy; I did not have the experience I have gained since then. I would love to be able to serve the community in the more advanced form that adminship brings and will always remain completely accountable. Wikiwoohoo 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The large amount of images and articles nominated for deletion either in the general way or through the speedy deletion channels grows more and more each day. I would work to alleviate some of this work away from the already established admins and work to reduce it. Admittedly, I have contributed to these backlogs in my nominations for the deletion of many images I have uploaded but that aside, I would like to help out much more. Recently I have also come into contact with several blatent vandals, as an admin I would be able to impose blocks on them and ensuring they are in fact vandals; currently I am only able to give warnings as a normal user.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My work on the BBC News, BBC News 24, BBC World and BBC One articles has made me particularly pleased but I would not take all the credit if these were to become good articles as I hope. I am merely part of a team that has worked, let's face it, extremely hard to get the articles were they are today. I have most recently devoted my efforts to the above articles in turn. My aim is to get these four to good article status followed by featured article status and then to move on to other related article. That would be very satisfying.

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 would not say I have had any conflicts over editing. Recently I was accidentally accused of vandalism regarding the BBC News article by RoyBoy though this was accidental and was sorted out as quickly as it came about. I try to remain cool under pressure and pledge that I will never descend into making personal attacks, ever.

Optional question from (aeropagitica) (talk · contribs):

4. Can you provide some diffs for XfD discussions in which you have participated, so I can appreciate your applications of policies and guidelines?

A: The majority of my useage of the XfD pages has been with nominating images for deletion. I have also tagged images I have identified as copyright violations; informed the user and found the image on the internet to prove it violated copyright. Where possible, I have also replaced such images within their respective articles with generally fair use images. Some examples are here:

• Copyright problem, from September 2005 regarding Image:Huwedwards.jpg.
• Category deletion discussion for Category:Former BBC newsreaders and journalists.
• Copyright problem from 14th August 2006 regarding Image:Markatbbc.jpg and Image:Markatbbc2.jpg.
• Copyright problem, from 6th August 2006 with Image:RagehOmaar.jpg.
• I initiated the AfD for BBC Channels, an article I originally created. The discussion is here.
• My most recent image nominations for deletion, from 2nd December 2006.

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs):

Hi, Wikiwoohoo, and thank you for submitting your RfA. I have taken the liberty of asking (after edit conflict) some optional questions that I lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE.

They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: I recall that Karmafist was found to have been using sockpuppets for vandalism and has since been blocked indefinitely. The first and most important thing would be to engage in discussion with the editor, questioning their motives but at the same time investigating what they have done with their sockpuppet accounts. It may be that at the very point of being caught out, they would apologise and make promises not to abuse the system as they had. This should be taken into consideration, but weighed against the harmful edits they have made and the context of such edits. In my view, if the editor was then found to have committed a wide range of harmful edits then they should be blocked, indefinitely at that. For the record, I can not understand why an editor would create harmful sockpuppets, communicating with some who do would help me to learn a little more about it all.

6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A: It is most important in these kinds of disputes to keep dialogue going between all parties. I would prefer that blocks were not imposed for as long as possible to be able to achieve this. If another admin were to block the two users concerned, I would contact them to explain in the full the problem and my efforts up until that point to sort things. I would encourage the admin to unblock the users, possibly also to involve themselves in the process as well to provide another viewpoint. I would make sure the other admin who had initiated a block knew exactly what was happening, even if I were to begin contacting the users by email. It would be gong behind their back otherwise, in my opinion.

7. If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be?

A: That is a very hard question. I think Misplaced Pages is a very good thing but there is always the problem that the moment somebody looks at an article, they may be looking instead at a vandalised version. A greater amount of anti-vandal techniques would be best to combat this. Otherwise, there is nothing I can think of off-hand.

8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A: I find continued personal attacks to be extremely harmful to the community. They should be avoided at all times but if an anonymous IP were to embark on a continued attack on a user, I believe that an indefinite block could be warranted given the severity of the attack and the effect it has upon the user. With other cases, continued vandalism would require a block but beginning with the shortest amount and becoming progressively longer if vandalism continues. Showing a vandal that they have been noticed and that vandalism will not be tolerated by initiating such blocks could well discourage them from continuing. An indefinite block for vandalism should only be made after the use of all test warnings and several short duration blocks.

9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A: Regardless of whether an AfD result was bordering on delete, keep or no consensus, the discussion should only involve actual users and not sockpuppets. I would leave a discussion as no consensus and make my concerns on the use of sockpuppets obvious on the discussion page. There can be no definite decision made if there is the risk of sockpuppets being used to further a vote one way or another. It is fraudulent and can mean an incorrect decision is made. I would not make any definitive changes to an article's state if there was the risk that this had happened.

10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A: I think at least three other users aside from the nominator and creator should be involved in an AfD discussion, preferably having had no other interaction with the article in question. They are then in a position to judge the quality of the article and the notability of the subject it addresses. The resulting discussion can then define whether the article is needed within Misplaced Pages, or possibly if it could be merged into another existing article. The five separate viewpoints are better than one or two.

11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: The fact that Misplaced Pages is a computer based volunteer project to me provides ample opportunity to take a break from what is going on and take time out if required. I have always remained calm as an editor and do not allow stress, either from work outside the project or in the course of my editing, to impede how I operate here. If I were feeling stress, I would take a break and would make it clear exactly why.

12. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A: I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages as a user and being part of this community but I feel that as an administrator I have so much more to offer the community. The additional facilities that would become available to me would be put to good use, making deletion and administering blocks where appropriate and not without considerations of what were about to happen. Rest assured I will never rush into anything and will not abuse the trust of the community.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs) lifted from Malber (talk · contribs)

13. How would you apply the policy WP:IAR in administrative tasks?

A:Misplaced Pages and its policies will need modernising as the project ages and expands as it is now at such a high speed. It may be that some rules may need to be broken to allow this to happen and depending on which rule that it, I may be willing to do so.I would not do anything that is ultimately harmful to the community or the project as a whole and would think through my actions clamly before committing any actions.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs) not lifted from anyone

14. In what circumstances is a block for vandalism justified, excluding the full sequence of test warnings consecutively without vandalism stopping?

A:Vandals should be blocked for continued disruptive behaviour though test warnings are sometimes forgotten. Personal attacks should not be tolerated and if an anonymous IP address partakes in this activity then they should be blocked indefinitely. AOL IP addresses should be approached differently; a block could lead to hundreds of legitimate users being able to edit Misplaced Pages.

Optional question from T-rex (talk · contribs) (sorry about asking so many extra questions)

15. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased besides those relating to the BBC?

A:Almost all of my edits are related to the BBC, though I have contributed a great deal to articles on individual presenters, some of whom hold freelance contracts with the BBC and can therefore appear elsewhere within the media. I have devoted the overwhelming majority of my mainspace edits to BBC related articles but rest assured, I do my upmost to remain impartial.

Optional question from CheNuevara (talk · contribs):

16. According to your edit count on the talk page, you have very few talk edits compared to non-talk edits (just over 1 talk edit per 10 regular edits in most namespaces). What does this trend say about you as an editor? What does it say about the type of admin you will be?

General comments

• See Wikiwoohoo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• The two previous RfAs are here (1) and here (2). I have also had an Editor review - here. Wikiwoohoo 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have also asked for a review by AMA members into my actions so far in the role of deputy co-ordinator there. The current discussion can be found here. Wikiwoohoo 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Looks reasonable to me. I was hestitant given that this is a third nomination, but then I saw the second was about a year ago. (Radiant) 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
2. BBC Support Everything checks out here. Great article-builder (especially to BBC-related articles), knows policy, is civil, participates in project namespace, and has a great deal of experience with images. Should be useful with those image backlogs. :-P Nishkid64 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Dedicated, responsible and friendly. Would make a fine admin. Dfrg.msc 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Everything checks out. Sharkface217 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Meets all of my criteria- that is, he's a very good editor who has been around for a while and expresses a need for the tools. The little I've interacted with this user before, I have found him to be quite kind and intelligent. -- Kicking222 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Claims of not enough edits are extremely ridiculous. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support while the answers are a little short and the time you have been here is a little on the low side, I think you will be a fine amin.__Seadog 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Err, he's been here since August 2005. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Wow...I must of read that wrong...I thought it was August 2006 my mistake.__Seadog 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Support I have to say that I'm disappointed with the editors who have voted "oppose" because of a lack of edits; it's ridiculous, as the guy has over three thousand edits! And even though his answers to the mandatory (not optional) questions are short, they're sufficient. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support His edit count is fine, and although he could have given lengthier responses to the question given, I have no problem with his being concise. TSO1D 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Support per TSO1D. Meets my Standards. Lapses adequately explained-- we can benefit from his use of the tools when he can edit. I would caution the user to be cautious at first as there is not a lot of *fD or RCPatrolling history. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
11. good luck ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support You're on air in 5...4...3...2...1...action! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support fantastic work at AMA: shows the user can handle backlogs! :P Computerjoe's talk 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Three questions are generally enough for any candidate, and I'm assuming good faith he'll do fine. --Majorly 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. What the heck, I was promoted with little more than 3000 edits; and I am more than willing to take Computerjoe's word; which gives an ample indication of knowledge of policies and guidelines; and Nishkid has already vouched for his editing skills on BBC related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support adminship isn't a big deal and given that he hasn't been in any conflicts so far, I doubt he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Terrific user, has the qualities to become an administrator. Hello32020 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support But please don't indef block any IPs - yikes! :) Switch back to neutral. riana_dzasta 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

18. Support Terence Ong 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support The only thing that really matters is if I believe this user will abuse the tools or help Misplaced Pages by using them. I see zero chance for abuse, so I must believe Wikiwoohoo will help. -- AuburnPilot 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I do not see anything to lead me to believe that Wikiwoohoo will be a negative impact as an administrator, and he meets my RFA|standards.-- danntm _C 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I'll support based upon answers to the questions above - adminship is no big deal, right? (aeropagitica) 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Wrong! - crz crztalk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

22. Support I have seen Wikiwoohoo around and he is an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools, absolutely no reason not to support. ~ Mike (Talk) 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good question answers, particularly with the non-itchy trigger finger on the block button. Just H 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. I see no reason why not, and we need admins doing images. Even though I don't agree completely with all answers (e.g., Q10) I have no qualms about giving my support; after all, I think there is hardly anybody whom I agree with on such a wide range of topics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak Support per Dlohcierekim. I don't see any reason why this user would abuse the tools, my only reservations are because of potentially controversial XfD closures and blockings. James086 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I see no reason why Wikiwoohoo would abuse the tools. He will make a great admin! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Good contributor, and answers to the questions look fine. utcursch | talk 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Agree...disruptive editors should be blocked always.--MONGO 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Sufficient experience for me. I hate it when candidates are picked apart by this many questions... Nobody's going to agree with you on everything. Maybe I'll support anyone who answers 10+ questions from now on! Grandmasterka 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. questions answered well, Gnangarra 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. There's some room for improvement, but who's perfect? I'm satisfied by the answers to the above questions. SuperMachine 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) #Neutral. I'm leaning towards support, but I'd like to see the rest of the questions answered first. SuperMachine 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm unconvinced by the oppose comments. The nominee appears ready for and in need of the tools, and there's no reason for concern they won't be used for anything other than their intended purpose. Agent 86 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)