Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWY2190

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.

CWY2190[edit]

Final (54/18/7); ended 08:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CWY2190 (talk · contribs) - CWY2190 joined Wikipedia in April of 2006 and began heavily editing in January of 2007. Since then, he has amassed over 5,300 edits including several (266) deleted edits. CWY2190 is also an extremely active member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, having expanded such articles as 2007 Pacific hurricane season, 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and 2007 Pacific typhoon season. He has made 21 edits to WP:AIV, and regularly participates at the help desk, having edited the page 49 times. As you can see, CWY2190 is a balanced editor and would be a great asset to the administrator team. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you. ---CWY2190TC 04:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in vandal fighting and help to keep WP:AIV clear. Many of my edits have came from reverting vandalism and tagging the talk pages of those users. I also will help to keep CSD and WP:RFPP clear. I do occasionally monitor Special:NewPages, where I not only tag articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but also add clean-up tags and do try to Wikify them myself. I feel I know the policies well and will always assume good faith and I will not bite the newcomers, who contribute many great things to the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'll be the first to admit that I am not the most prolific article writer in the project. However, I feel my many edits to articles on tropical cyclones and keeping them up to date when new cyclones form have been my best contributions. I'm also very proud of my edits in reverting vandalism and also welcoming new editors.
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: The only one I can think of occurred after a user felt that the advisories from the Taiwanese weather bureau should be included in the section on Typhoon Sepat. It caused me more laughs than stress as I felt the reasons against it were clearly put forth by multiple users including myself. I cannot see myself letting a disagreement bother me to a point where I lash out at a person. I can definitely keep my cool in stressful situations.

Optional questions from –The Obento Musubi

4. If you see an IP address vandalizing a page and re-adding vandalism to reversions by registered users, would you block them in accordance with the 3RR? In other words, if a vandal IP adds "x", and a user reverts it, but the vandal then adds "y", then again with "z", would you block the IP for 3RR?
A: In that case, there have not been three reverts, only two. What I would do is start with a level 1 warning from WP:WARN, and then continue up the ladder to level 4. If the vandalism continued, I would block for WP:VAND. ---CWY2190TC 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q: If the IP had performed three reverts and was reported to WP:AN3, would you block for WP:3RR? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would block for WP:VAND. --CWY2190TC 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What if it is not vandalism, just a content dispute and edit war? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer. Obento Musubi's question specifically mentioned vandalism. If it was over a content dispute or edit war then I would block for 3RR. --CWY2190TC 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, mostly I was getting at was it seemed like you said you would block for 3 reverts, which isnt against 3RR, you need to revert 4 or more times. That's what I wanted to hear. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You block for a fourth revert. --CWY2190TC 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:A ban is a sanction given to a user that removes editing privileges for all or part of the project. A block is a software restriction on editing that is applied across the entire project, except for the user's or IP's talk page. It can be set for a temporary or extended period of time, or even indefinitely.
6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Never. They won't help solve the situation as it will only make the user more frustrated and angry.
7. What is your opinion on WP:IAR, and when are you willing to used it? When are you not? What about when closing a AfD?
A: I'm a fan of IAR. I know there are situations that arrive where if you go by the letter of that law, that I believe it hurts the project. I used IAR as a reason to keep {{HurricaneWarning}} when it was on TFD. As for the AfD, if consensus rode on user's citing IAR, I would let a more experienced admin close the AfD.
8. What is your opinion of CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it?
A: All admins should be held accountable for their actions and I would gladly add myself to AOR.
9. What steps should you take when checking if you are going to block a user when checking a report at WP:AIV?
A: I would check to insure the user actually made the edits and that they were properly warned. I would make sure that there has been additional vandalism after the level 4 warning. After checking that and I felt that the edits were in bad faith, I would block for vandalism. ---CWY2190TC 05:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Balloonman

10. In preparing for this RfA what did you do?
Answered the questions and added "I accept". It was a little bit of a surprise when I saw the nom, but I decided to go for it. ---CWY2190TC 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keeper

11.I realize you haven't stated very much about Wikipedia's deletion policies. Since, upon passing RfA, you'll have the ability and tools to delete articles, I thought this a pertinent 2 part question:
11.1: Please elaborate (with diffs if possible) what experience you have with WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD?
A: I'm quite familiar with the speedy deletion policy through my vandal fighting and new page patrol. PROD is placed on articles where they don't meet WP:CSD, but is believed that its deletion will not be controversial. Should anyone object to an article being prodded, then it will be placed on AFD. If no one objects to a proposed deletion, then it will be deleted after five days. If an article has been placed on AFD in the past, or has been undeleted than it is ineligible for PROD.
As for AFD. I'll be the first to say that I don't discussion possible deletions on AFD very often. I understand how AFD works though. It is a community discussion where a consensus is tried to reach on weather an article meets certain guidelines. Common guidelines cited on weather or not to delete an article is WP:N and WP:NOT. When an admin feels that a consensus is reached, he or she will keep or delete the article. If there is limited discussion, it can be relisted to try to reach a consensus. If no consensus is reached, it will not be deleted. If I get the tools, I plan on using it for vandal fighting and keeping WP:CSD clear.
11.2: How would you close this (chosen at random from WP:AFDO). Thanks.
A.: That is a tough one. The information on Martino is very limited in the article. In fact there is barely enough to keep it as a one or two line stub as most of the article is about the voyage itself. After looking it over, I would close and merge the limited info into Ferdinand Magellan, as User:DGG suggested. --CWY2190TC 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Jon513

12. About a month ago (February 24, 2008) you tagged (diff deleted edit) an article (Dannye600) created by a User:Dannye600 for speedy deletion as a test page. The content of the page was "Test 2 - 24 - 08". You then left a template message on his talk page. You did not take the extra time to explain to the user the difference between the userspace and the mainspace, a point he was obviously confused about, and was not explained in the message you left. How do you decide when to write custom messages and when do you just leave a templated messages?
A.: Most of the time when going through new pages, I will use the standard templates for articles I tag for speedy deletion. When I wikify a new article from a new user, I will usually give them a welcome template and occasionally leave a sentence or two that specifically says what I did to their article and what they should read to help write articles up to Wikipedia's standards (eg: WP:YFA). However, looking back it was a mistake by me to not explain the difference between userspace and mainspace because the users name and the articles name was the same. Thank you for pointing this out for me and I will remember this on future new page patrols. --CWY2190TC 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CWY2190 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Edit summary usage looks good. 100% for all major and minor edits. –The Obento Musubi 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - Looks like he's very trustworthy, and I know he will be a great addition to Wikipedia. The only thing I am worried about is that this user has only a little above 5,000 edits, but it shouldn't be a valid reason why I should object. –The Obento Musubi 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quality over quantity. Tiptoety talk 05:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. –The Obento Musubi 05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would much rather see 5000 edits over 12 months than 10,000 edits over 3. 5K over a year indicates somebody who actually does the edits, whereas 10K over three indicates somebody who is probably working a bot and not thinking about them as muchBalloonman (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The standards have gone up so much. I passed with about 3000-4000 edits. Which was very safe in June 2007, and 2000-2500 usually passed it. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? 10000 edits over 3 years averages out to LESS than 5,000 edits a year (roughly 3,333 a year). Your logic makes no sense. At all. -- Naerii 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Balloonman meant 10,000 edits over three months, instead of three years. Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support because of his answer to question 6.-KojiDude (Contributions) 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support he has a foot print all over the place. He's on the help desk, at ani, in the news, and helps out others on a regular basis. I was very pleased to review his edits, particularly this one.Balloonman (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I'm seeing good consistency and experience. MBisanz talk 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, per question 7 mainly, although in general the user seems responsible enough to handle the tools properly. Mrprada911 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, seems fine. Neıl ☎ 09:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rudget. 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, looks like a solid candidate. No evidence that they'll abuse the tools Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  10. Support A trsuworthy editor, who is very active with the Tropical cyclone WikiProject, and also spends much of his time reverting vandalism. Having encountered this user before, I think he'd make a fine admin. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - Brilliant wikipedia user, will make an even better Administrator...Good luck! --Camaeron (t/c) 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. VERY Strong Support From what I can see I think that this user would be a top notch admin! --Mifter (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support seem like a strong candidate. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. As said before me, quality matters more than quantity. It's nice to see an admin candidate whose edits don't just consist of hiding in the corner tapping the revert button. The help-desk work is good, and I haven't seen any examples of this user being rude. The one small suggestion I can make pertains to last sentence of the answer to question three, there's a rather interesting typo there. Good luck, FusionMix 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I catch it? [1]---CWY2190TC 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. FusionMix 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Consistent, thoughtful contributer. Great antivandal work, and more attention to AIV is always welcome. κaτaʟavenoTC 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - As long as the candidate reads up on WP:3RR, you will be a good admin, good luck. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Supprot Has high quality edits. SpencerT♦C 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Thank heavens for clear heads. Strong support for this request based on my observations in WP:ITN/C. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - looks good, meets my standards, great answers to questions. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good work and general understanding of core policies; please be a bit more careful to be civil (like calling a heading "What the hell?"), sometimes things just don't come off well online. Shell babelfish 03:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Tools aren't that big of a deal, and this user is qualified. --Sharkface217 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Smarter than me. Just be a bit cautious with delete buttons (all of them, for that matter) until you're sure of what you're doing. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Just take it slow for a while at first, and remember that we're all here to help you! GlassCobra 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No big deal, assume good faith, trustworthy user etc. скоморохъ 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support. I've gone round and round with this one. You do great work and seem to have clue. I don't see anything glaringly wrong or incapable in your edits. I'm "weak support" because I'm a bit nervous about your limited experience in AfD/deletion policy, but you answered my question above nicely. The example "close this AfD" I gave you at random, was randomly brutal and perhaps a bit unfair, but you handled it as well as that mess could be handled by even a seasoned admin. You've stated though that you don't intend to work much in that area of the wiki, so I'm ok with your admitted lack of experience in the area. If you do decide to venture into deletion/Xfd closing, go slow, ask questions. Going with my gut here, you'll be a fine admin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - iMatthew 2008 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Hard-working. Non-aggressive. Capable. Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Satisfactory experience, appears to be well-versed in core policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. You seem to have Wikipedia's interests at heart. You might not do things exactly the way I would, but no matter - I think you'll help build a better encyclopedia. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support seems good. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per answer to my question (12). Admitting and learning from mistakes is very important quality. Jon513 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Seems like a good chap who probably gets it. Still no big deal, and I trust Keeper, especially when he's writing long supports. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. -- Naerii 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Despite a low level of project edits, it seems that this user will not misuse the tools and will become more knowledgeable in regard to policy over time. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good editor. His level of project space involvement is just about enough. Epbr123 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I think that he can handle it. I trust this user. нмŵוτнτ 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Per Q10 :) (Seriously, however. You seem have a clue... I'm not going to nitpick over some magical ratio....) SQLQuery me! 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Seems capable. Acalamari 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, vandal-fighting isn't rocket science so a modicum of experience is perfectly adequate. I'd caution CWY2190 to take it slow and avoid the more difficult areas at first, such as closing AfDs or trying to deal with POV-pushing. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I echo TimVickers, except that about 50% of AFDs are extremely easy to close, since they're pretty much unanimous. But I think avoiding difficult areas is good advice for all new admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- seems a competent editor will make a good admin too! --Camaeron (t/c) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Camaeron, you might want to take a look up, at support 11. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I just think you deserve two ; ). Seriously though, thanks for getting rid of my "second support". Ive been in trouble before for double voting...I am rather clumsy! = ) Good luck! --Camaeron (t/c) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - looks like a good user, can be trusted with the tools. --BelovedFreak 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Seems like a deserving candidate for the extra tools. --Charitwo talk 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Nothing wrong with specialist admins, provided CWY2190 takes it slowly when it comes to other areas of the wiki. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - good user; trusted by many. Microchip 08 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Trustworthy, understands policy well, will do good. Harland1 (t/c) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak support Many of the diffs provided below show relative inexperience and perhaps, if you'll excuse the ageism, a little bit of immaturity. Heart's in the right place though and I see no evidence that he's unwilling to correct mistakes. Sure, we can wait two or three months for RfA number 2 and if he addresses the concerns voiced here, he'll have a smooth ride. Still, if he listens to criticism and asks for advice while familiarizing himself with the admin tools, he should be ok. Adminship is not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Been around a while, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker. Why not? --Carnildo (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Fantastic contributer, seems responsible, great understanding of the project. Hello32020 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, the opposes don't convince me. Wizardman 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Seems to me that the positive aspects of having this user as an admin far outweigh the limited concerns raised below. --jonny-mt 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 08:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, unfortunately seems to show a lack of understanding of policy. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per low edit numbers and misunderstanding policy. Flibirigit (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about the 3RR question? I understand the 3RR policy quite clearly. --CWY2190TC 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What demonstrates the lack of knowledge of policy? All I see from the questioning is that CWY2190 misunderstood an awkwardly phrased question. Malinaccier (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are talking about my question, than sorry if it wasnt phrased perfectly, and if you note, I supported this user because my question was kinda confusing and it would be hard to hold that against him/her. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Lots of good article work, but almost all of it seems rather minor. I'd like to see more evidence of article building, greater participation in deletion procedures especially AfD, and more dialogue with other editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Changed from neutral - the thin veil of admin-related work troubles me too much, likely indicates a lack of the requisite knowledge. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - this user is not ready yet. More experience, especially in Wikipedia-space areas is needed. Lradrama 11:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The nominee does not enough appear to have sufficient experience in the areas he plans to use the tool in. The main area he mentions is vandalism, but he only has 21 edits to AIV. I would expect a user who was requesting the tools to have posted there many more times, firstly to show they have good experience of the warning escalation process and also to indicate a need for the tools in that area. Apart from the low count, the nominee last posted there 6 weeks ago [2], the two posts before that were 2 months ago [3] [4], and the one before those was almost 7 months ago [5]. Such an infrequent interaction with AIV, coupled with their plan to focus heavily on using the tools for vandalism fighting make me think that the nominee needs more experience first. TigerShark (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - changed from neutral, sorry, but I am just not seeing enough project based contributions to make me feel comfortable supporting. I know that with a few more months of solid wiki based contributions will ensure a very successful RfA in the future. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per TigerShark, I don't feel that the candidate has enough experience just yet. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TigerShark summed up my comments. Not enough experience as of yet. —Dark talk 09:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose Sorry, lack of experience - due to low edit numbers. Especially namespace. I would suggest more time and solid editing would do the trick. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose This user only got rollback rights on the 21st March 2008. I think he/she is quite fine just using that to fight vandalism for now. Also, a userbox states that this user is only 18-years-old. I will probably support his/her next RfA. TheProf | Talk 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why is the userbox stating that the user is 18 years old relevant? Acalamari 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, thats just to young to be an administrator. When this user is a bit older and more experienced, i'd be happy to support their RfA. TheProf | Talk 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been an admin since I was 16, and going on other people's comments about me, and my own judgment, I've been doing fine. Acalamari 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure we've had people gaining admin even younger than 16. GlassCobra 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 15, and I've done fine (I'm pretty sure =P). Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ilyanep became a bureaucrat at the age of 13. I became an administrator, and editor of the Signpost, at age 15. Age is highly irrelevant, so long as maturity is there. Ral315 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, i'd like to thank everyone for their comments. Secondly, my reply to those comments is; Everyone has a criteria for there stance in RfA votes. One of mine is age. I'm sure there are lots of great administrators and bureaucrats that started young! In fact, i take my hat off to them. However, that doesnt change the fact that i feel more comfortable with an administrator that is my age or older. Finally, just for the record. I would probably not oppose someone if they were 19. They will have been an adult for at least a year then. May i ask CWY2190 how close are you to 19? -- Cheers TheProf | Talk 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just over 18 (18 y 2 m). --CWY2190TC 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Anonymous Dissident became an admin at like 12, which is way younger than your "standard". I know quite a few admins who were not 18 when they passed their RfA and they're doing just fine. (FYI, I passed mines when I'm 19, still pretty young among the rest of the admins) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was Friday's oppose on MFC's RfA. Pretty blatant and unfair stereotyping at work here. Enigma message 05:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Just not enough overall experience quite yet... wait a while and will probably be able to support next time. Jmlk17 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for now - general lack of experience, & the fairly recent edits given by Moonriddengirl below. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose a little more time and experience, and per below the comments by Moonriddengirl. Modernist (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hm. Weak oppose per above. Also (PDRTTFIJSINAFLMBINTBFMO / please don't respond to the following, it's just something I noticed and felt like mentioning, but it's not the basis for my oppose), I don't know if this is a joke, but the candidate has the userbox "This user does not enjoy reading" on his userpage. Speaking of userboxes: I think I've finally made up my mind: I will never again support anyone who has a userbox featuring the retarded policeman image. The kind of mindset it conveys should be court-martialed. Also also, like many other "legitimate strategies", cowardly hiding is lame. But if you think it's ok, why don't you just camp some more and I may support next time. Dorftrottel (talk) 17:42, March 26, 2008
    He he he... retarded policeman... Someone should just MfD the stupid thing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose (changed from neutral) for evident misapplication of vandalism label to a new contributor. (For context, see my stricken neutral below.) As nominee has edited this page and has not provided any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for the use of the tag, I feel I must oppose. I can't be sure that this nom fully understands and will correctly handle vandalism. I realize that this is one incident, but I find it a serious concern nevertheless. Like Angus McLellan, I fear that edits like that will drive contributors away, and, indeed, it might well have done so. I don't see sufficient enough communication with other editors to allay my concerns about what seems to be a serious mishandling of this one. I've spent some time looking for it. It did, however, raise an additional concern about readiness for the admin role that, along with concerns addressed above, helps decide my !vote. This help desk contribution from March 8 displays no familiarity with the problem of cut and paste moves, although the user's question reasonably should have raised that red flag. (It did in me, and, fortunately, an admin who also read it.) He was quite correct that the now deleted edit would be evaluated as vandalism by any editor who had no reason to suspect otherwise, but his handling of this situation leads me to suspect that more time in admin-related areas would improve his ability to deal with the varied situations that admins encounter. More project space contributions and more dialog with other editors seem like valuable preparation for adminship here to me. It can only improve his ability to recognize legitimate disruption and to understand how best to help a new contributor attempting legitimate contributions but thwarted by inexperience. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose The two incidents raised by Moonriddengirl are a bit disquieting, and, when viewed alongside general concerns that aren't yet wholly allayed, leave me unable to determine that the candidate might not misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he is not greatly acquainted) the tools, such that I don't know that I can conclude with a sufficient deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive ("weak", though, because there is much to commend CWY, and because neither those things that dispose me to support nor those that dispose me to oppose are particularly strong or significant). Joe 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose per Tigershark. I do think you're a good candidate, so keep your chin up and work on what was suggested! Enigma message 05:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral. Enigma message 05:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - On the fence at the moment. While I am immensely impressed by the candidate's diligence in the mainspace, I am troubled by the weak participation in Admin-related areas. The answers to the questions were decent. I would have liked to see the candidate make reference to activity before the hypothetical blocking at WP:AIV, but that's just a minor skin irritant. Going to ruminate over this for a bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Hmm...neutral I have to go with wisdom on this one. I am not sure I see enough project space contributions to be satisfied that this candidate has enough admin experience to understand policies and participate in admin related duties, but his answers to my questions clearly counter act that claim leaving me neutral. Tiptoety talk 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral due to concerns about the candidate's answers regarding WP:3RR. Three reverts is not an entitlement. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Of the 1300+ user talk edits, the vast majority are templates. Based on those, as well as the 300+ article talk edits, I could not get a good feel as to how this user would react under the added stress dealing with the janitorial aspects of wikipedia provides, so I cannot in good faith say that I have a good enough understanding of this user's judgment to support, but do not see enough for me to register an oppose, as a lack of familiarity with some of the various portions of the sysop job can be easily picked up, so I will abstain from this request. Good Luck. - Avi (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. While for the most part, the nom's speedy tags seem "on", there is one incident that concerns me enough that I don't feel I can support at this time. I am baffled by the tagging of this nom on Kumbia all-starz on January 15. When the article said "a.b quintinilla is the leader of this band. kumbia all-starz originated from the kumbia kings due to a dispute they are no longer a music group. now the all starz have made a great sucsess from the kumbia kings with there hit single "chiquilla" which is sung by irvin "pee wee gonzalez" salinas", the nom tagged it {{db-nonsense}}. Obviously in need of clean-up, but it doesn't seem like nonsense to me. It was deleted under A7. The creator's next effort was tagged and deleted as a test. The third effort reads "The kumbia all-starz are a latin music group that originated from the kumbia kings. But the kumbia kings would no longer be a group due to disputes beetween the band. So eventually a.b left including irvin "peewee gonzalez" salinas and a.b's brother in law chris perez. A year later the kumbia all-starz came back with a all new cd with the hit "chiquilla" sung by peewee. Now the all starz are now getting ready to start a whole new cd which is in current production." This the nom tagged as {{db-vandalism}}. Vandalism, of course, is used to refer to deliberate efforts to compromise Wikipedia. I don't understand the reason for this tag. There were no efforts to communicate with this editor, Nam1091 (talk · contribs), beyond the speedy tags that I can see. His or her edits certainly seem to have been made in good faith. Perhaps the article was suspected to be a blatant hoax? ("Kumbia All-Starz" currently hits 273,000. I don't know how many it would have hit in January. There is basic confirmation of the information at now at AMG (and again). I don't know if it was available in January, but since their sole album was a billboard charting hit in 2006, I would imagine it was.) If I'm having to speculate, I doubt that the new user, who was obviously struggling with procedure, would be any more aware. The label seems to me to be extremely bitey under the circumstances. Given my own stance on speedy deletion, this is almost enough to put me into oppose, but I hope that there is some reasonable explanation for the use of this particular tag. (I would also hope that the editor, who seems to have failed in his efforts to create a legitimate article, has not left the project as contribution history suggests but is perhaps finding more success under another username.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I can't get off sitting on the fence for this one, the helpfulness is a big plus, but i would like to see some easy-to-digest evidence of article-writing. The best thing to do is make a Good Article, which anyone should be able to do with some guidance and help. Moonriddengirl's material above pushed me from weak support to a regretful neutral, some more article writing would make it a net positive again. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was definitely tempted to support until I looked at the Kumbia all-starz episode. This is the kind of thing that can drive away potential editors, particularly the inappropriate {{db-vandalism}} tag. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nuetral Great editor, just not enough prima facie. But still a great editor. flaminglawyerc 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per low WP-space/total edits ratio. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Originally was a weak oppose, but I'm changing to neutral, per TheProf. Enigma message 05:10, 27 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CWY2190&oldid=1222495431"