Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiooiw

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

Calculating the raw data of 7 support votes out of 16 total votes, there is a raw support percentage of 43.75%. This falls below the community accepted standard of what a RFA should pass. I don't find anything convincing to discount any real comment here, all the arguments are strong and valid. There is no rough consensus to promote. I encourage the candidate to continue working, and please do engage the community before another RFA run. Jon@talk:~$ 02:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiooiw

Wiooiw (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I would like to nominate Wiooiw for adminship. Wiooiw has been editing Simple English Wikipedia for ~8 months and has over 3000 edits in this time. He has over 150 valid QD tags, and has experience in anti-vandalism with several VIP reports. He has 57% of his edits to the mainspace, but also participates in RfDs and in discussions in Simple talk and the administrator's noticeboard. I think Wiooiw would do well as an admin in Simple English Wikipedia. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: -- wiooiw (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from Albacore (talk · changes)

Describe a situation in which you would use a rangeblock.

A: Rangblocks have been used to prevent abuse, for example, from LTA editors and from proxies. I would only perform a rangeblock if there is an extended amount of abuse in the range. How many people affected by the block would be taken in consideration before such action is made. -- wiooiw (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

   Support Absolutely. A great editor and recent changes patroller who will make good use of the tools. Grunny (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Striking per the issues Fr33kman brought up below. Grunny (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Surely; very active. -- Mentifisto 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Katerenka ^[talk] 09:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - I've often seen him around reverting vandalism. He is an experienced editor who would benefit from the tools. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

   Goblin 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor! --Struck, changing to oppose - sorry. Goblin 17:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

5. Support Per nominator. Strong history of vandal fighting. --Hydriz^Talk 07:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support An excellent editor who has helped this wikipedia in the past with the limited tools available to a user like me, currently. What I mean is I have few tools to help, and I don't doubt that Wiooiw deserves extra tools to protect this wikipedia. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Support. Notwithstanding the tainting below, the editor has a positive contribution history. Checkuser evidence should not be brought here, unless it is conclusive. I don't know if that was totally fair. p.s. If I tell you I edit from Canada, but I really edit from North America... that is my business. Jon@talk:~$ 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Recuse. Jon@talk:~$ 19:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   I think you missed the point of what the issue was, it wasn't the saying he was in a place he wasn't but that the other account was vandalizing and looked like a CU match to wioow. In other words good hand bad hand accounts. It appeared that one account he controlled was "pretending" to attack another account of his. -DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   We've just got to remember that this was never completely proven, it was just fishy.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Yes it depends on what you call proven. IPs didn't of course match but the other technical things CUs see matched if I recall correctly. And its pretty rare for people to have the other stuff match as well. Though you are right its not as conclusive as an identical IP. -DJSasso (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Support per the nom. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. fr33kman 03:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   Hi. Could you elaborate, if you are willing, on the nature of the nonsupport here. If there are facts we could use, it would be helpful in our own decision making processes. Thank for for considering this request. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   Well, this stems from the days of the proxy attacks on this user. Wiooiw maintained that he/she lived at the Playboy mansion and was being attacked by someone putting that information on pages here. It took a lot of oversights, checkusers and other actions. A problem arose whereby we had to check Wiooiw's IP address and that check and subsequent checks proved that the user lives, lived, no where near the Playboy place. There was some technical evidence that the attacks were from an area of the US where the user's IP addresses came from also and had similar technical information to Wiooiw's account. Not long after the candidate became aware of CUs being done and that their location was nowhere near, the attacks stopped. Whilst I make no accusations about this, I'm just not comfortable with this RFA and feel I should state I oppose it, this is just an opinion however. fr33kman 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   You have been emailed Fr33kman. wiooiw (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   It is a little unclear here, did you ever determine if abuse originated from the user? Thank you for your help again, Jon@talk:~$ 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   The actual CU data is no longer available to us, however my personal notes on the matter and my personal recollection of the matter are what I'm basing my oppose on. Like I said above, I'm just not comfortable, I'm not accusing. fr33kman 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Not Fr33kman, but I'd have to think not. If it had been confirmed, I'm sure there would have been a block or something. So, While fishy, no confirmation.--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   The way I recall it on the admin mailing list was that we all believed it was him and that the CU evidence pointed to a very likely match but it was decided we should first warn him and that if it didn't stop then we should take it further, and as fr33kman mentions it stopped. -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   That is correct. fr33kman 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Per fr33kman. I'm making no direct accusations against the user, and this is no reflection on the work they've done here, but I just don't feel comfortable in light of what has been mentioned. Kansan (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Per fr33kman, I have very strong concerns about this user due to the past that he mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
4. (Changing from support) The concerns that are raised by fr33kman are too big for me to ignore, unfortunately. Had I been aware of them before (I believe it was in a period of inactivity for me, or it passed me over) then I would not have supported in the first place. Sorry. Goblin 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
5. Oppose Per above... SPQR 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per User:fr33kman--Bärliner (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per My beloved adopter! His changes look good, but the "Playboy Problem" sounds fishy. Dewflower 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose per fr33kman. You do have a history of good edits, though. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 12:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
9. No clue what the cu evidence has said. I just became a cu at the time this proxy vandalism happened. However, I've just talked about this to someone else and was pointed to the editor review from about 7 months ago. There it is stated that you used vandalism-only accounts.This kinda disappointed me now and gave me the impression that it is like "good hand-bad hand" accounts. With this knowledge I'm not sure about this account and if this might be used as bad hand account sooner or later. Sorry, you do a good work here but I cannot trust you being an admin. -Barras (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've also stated this at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_88#Good_sockpuppets. wiooiw (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Just wanted to put something up. The users contribs look great, I just don't feel comfortable supporting, and can't oppose based on that. So, I am not going to place a vote.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm striking my support based on the concerns raised by Fr33kman of which I was previously unaware, and I no longer feel comfortable supporting. However, I don't know enough about the situation to oppose, so I'll just withdraw my vote. Grunny (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• HEY. This user is a GOOD user. If he lied about where he lived, so be it, I lie about it too. Like I live in Washington. But CU evidence provides the exact place down to the county. From there they would deduce that I live somewhere in the Pacific (no, I'm not stating exactly where I live, CheckUsers can do it if they like). Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where he said he lives isn't the main issue here, as is explained above. There's much more to it. Kansan (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see... so we are opposing per the fact that the user might have been involved in a proxy attack? What happened to WP:AGF, and where is any evidence to that effect? As Fr33kman said, his personal opinion is that he is uneasy with this candidate becoming an admin. Considering that nobody else who is opposing was involved with the incident, how can their personal opinions be based off of anything but the assumption of bad faith? Yes, AGF should not be a death pact, but this is honestly ridiculous. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  AGF doesn't apply to RfA's. In RfA's the candidate has to prove themselves capable and trustworthy with the tools. Frankly I don't trust him, which is what I believe the other people are saying as well. You have to have the communities trust if you are an admin. And with a past like his, that might be hard to acheive. If AGF applied to adminship, we would give everyone the tools right off the bat and remove them only if they did something wrong. But of course we don't. I would also note that AGF states that it does not need to be blindly followed when there is evidence to the contrary, which is what I believe the CU evidence is. Evidence to the contrary of his good faith in the past. BTW as an oversighter I was actually involved in the situation as I had to make a very large number of oversights hiding what wiooiw said was his real personal information. That kind of disruption wasted my time, and that of other admins/cus who also had to deal with it. That sort of disruption alone makes me think they aren't admin material. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  As an oversighter, the community granted you those tools for precisely that reason - that you use them to hide personal information. If you feel that using your tools as they should have been used is a waste of your time...

  AGF as a policy might not apply to RfAs, but in practice it does (as it applies to everything in wikiland). In fact, in this case it might be better to reference "use common sense" instead. Beyond that, as I said above, there is no evidence here. All there is is a personal opinion of one user (albiet a trusted and rather awesome one). If there was evidence that, say, the user was actually involved in attempting to disrupt the wiki, I'd oppose. But here is where the using common sense thing comes in, as well as the assumption of good faith. Nothing else that this candidate has done even remotely infers bad faith intentions - he clearly is here to help the encyclopedia, and could make good use of the sysop tools. Also, as a final point, that CU evidence is not conclusive. I have often argued about the uncertainty around IPs, especially when trying to locate where they are from. My IP is very dynamic - and one of my previous IPs has jumped around from Canada to the US and back many times. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Using them to hide real information wouldn't have been a problem. Being asked to use them when the user knows that what is being hidden is not real information is a problem. Its a gigantic waste of our wikis limited resources. And any user who knowingly does that can't be trusted with the tools. There was evidence that the user was trying to disrupt the wiki, that is the point. Whether you personally choose to believe it was or wasn't good enough evidence is of course up to you. But I, and a few others have decided its enough to make us uneasy about him being given the tools. Common sense in this instance tells me its better to not give tools to someone with a questionable past so that they can't create more issues in the future, especially on a wiki that is not lacking in admins. -DJSasso (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you don't mind me jumping in here, I might add that my default position on any RFA is "oppose" until I feel comfortable with the user (in that, for example, if a brand new user joins and immediately nominates themselves, I will naturally vote oppose with no prejudice against the user because I don't have an affirmative reason to support). If a user feels uncomfortable with a candidate, I feel it is within their right to vote no. Kansan (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that wiooiw is not that type of guy, to just do THAT. Nobody has the right to say "no, he's a vandal" and whatnot when it was a long time ago. I've seen his contribs. This past half year they've been good. I saw. You cannot make him fail when he's such a good editor. It was from a different IP address. I trust him enough that my trust would fill up 5 votes, if possible. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 07:17, 26 March 2011 (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.