Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nwwaew

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

Nwwaew

(talk page) FINAL (1/6/1); Ended 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nwwaew (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself for adminship for three reasons:

• I primarily fight vandalism on Wikipedia. With the mop, I will have more tools at my disposal, should I need them.
• Wikipedia has several backlogs that could use another admin to tackle. I want to tackle backlogs, such as on WP:SPEEDY.
• I feel I am ready to take on the mop. Even if this RFA fails, I will take what I learned here, and use it to become a better Wikipedian.

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)I'm withdrawing, before this gets closed as WP:SNOW. Thanks for the kind words, even if you did oppose me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: As stated above, I plan to help fight vandalism, as well as helping clear out backlogs.

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

A: All of my contributions dealing with major vandalism.

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: Back at the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, some friends at my school started vandalizing Wikipedia after seeing me edit at school. One of the things they would do is replace my userpages with hundreds of barnstars, which would lock up the school computers. Eventually, I requested a CheckUser on them, which stopped them for good. It also got me blocked by mistake, but it was worth it to get them taken care of, and I thank the admin who did it for taking care of the situation.

Optional question from Citicat:

4. What specific tasks do you see yourself using the administrator tools for?

A.

General comments

• See Nwwaew's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Nwwaew: Nwwaew (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nwwaew before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support. Plenty of reports to WP:AIV. Can't see any evidence of incivility in your contribs, and examples of WP:AGF by removing some of your posts there (although really by the time you get to AIV the good faith should have gone out the window). I'm not fussed about contribution level per month as it's the overall net effect on the project that is important. The answers to the questions are short, but honest. Kudos as well for self nominating. That shows, IMHO, that you feel you are ready to take on more (unrewarded) work. You have also put yourself through editor review which is positive. My support is only moral however, as you just haven't shown through contribution evidence of strong user interaction or how you will deal with anything controversial. Vandal fighting is a very good thing - keep the work clean and tidy for the writers and readers is fast becoming a personal motto - but you will need more than that alone to evidence an understanding of why the tools will benefit you. I'm sorry, I would honestly suggest an early withdrawal before we get to WP:SNOW and someone else does it for you. Much as you may feel you will learn from this experience a long line of opposes will be upsetting and benefit neither you nor those who comment here. If you wish to discuss my talk page is always open to quality good faith editors like yourself, and I am sure that other (more experienced than me) editors and admins will also extend the same offer should you ask. Best. Pedro |  Chat  19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. You're off to a great start, and if you ever want to ask a question or anything, I'm right here. Useight 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have not seen much Wikipedia namespace participation, where many of the admin tasks are located. Furthermore, many of these Wikipedia namespace edits are to UAA and AIV, which are pretty trivial pages. The intro and answer to question 1 is far from satisfactory. I don't really see much article building either; much of the mainspace edits are machine vandal reverts. (→O - RLY?) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, sorry. You have participated in a few admin-oriented areas for some time, but I have several concerns such as not enough experience, rather low overall activity, lack of mainspace participation and even edit summary usage. Step up your good work and I'm sure that you'll attain a successful RfA within a few months.--Húsönd 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I feel a sense of unpreparedness. Your first two answers show this, and I don't really think you're ready. J-stan ^Talk 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I commend this editor for his good intentions, however, only averaging 70 edits a month over the last 6 months doesn't show much activity. Only 361 edits to the mainspace isn't very many for a community trying to build an encyclopedia. Aside from the numbers, the answers to the questions don't really show that the editor has a very definitive idea on what, exactly, he wants to do as an admin. On the other hand, he has 129 reports to AIV is excellent. I would support in a couple months with increased activity. Useight 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - has been editing for a while now and is experienced THAT way. But he has hardly worked on any mainspace articles (can you provide much help to newer users who may want your assisstance?). I think there needs to be more activity on certain Wikipedia project spaces too - current edits are sparsly populated. Lradrama 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Good start with the vandal-stopping work, now you just need to show evidence that you are up to speed on main space editing in order to assist editors who will call on you for assistance with things like images, references, citations, edit wars, POV conflicts, political bias and any other devisive issue that can be imagined. That's where you have to keep a cool head and provide as much neutral assistance as you can, or pass the problem on to a more experienced userbase. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral to keep this from becoming a landslide. The user's intention to help with CSD's concerns me, seeing as that's an area that's fairly simple to muck up without a strong knowledge of what you're doing. Aside from that, I just don't see anywhere near enough activity in general to support this RfA. My suggestion to the candidate is that he gets some experience with administrative tasks for the next few months and then tries again. Trusilver 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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.