Withdrawn at 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC) and (1/13/0) by candidate. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
SE7 (talk·contribs) – This user has made a few thousand edits, and has a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. He does an outstanding job at reverting vandalism, tidying articles etc.He has contributed very nicely in many of the pop-culture articles, substantially helping a few Featured Articles along the way. He seems to be a very nice, and receives and responds to advice very well. DavidJJJ (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With great thanks and, I accept. I hope I'm ready, and I'll answer the questions below right away. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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: At first, I would not deviate too much from my current activies in reverting vandalism etc, but I would expect that I would block the more persistent vandals that I currently deal with. Then, as I become more familiar with the tools, I would probably venture into backlogs and mediations, growing as gradually then as I have until now.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say my best contributions to Wikipedia are finding re-direct pages, and correcting the incorrect links. For example, St George's, Hanover Square was being called St George Mayfair in some articles, and this could be potentially misleading to people visiting the site. Moreover, I have completed edits to little-edited pages that were perhaps missing due to lack of interest. The best example I could give for that would be when I edited several different pages belonging to players of Charlton Athletic FC, and gave them the Player of the Year template that was missing as perhaps the list of winners had only been completed relatively recently. Finally, I would say I am a stickler for neutrality, or correctness, as I see it. Articles to do with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland take up a lot of my viewing time, as I seek to remove any impartial edits geared towards either side of the community.
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 have been in some conflicts in the past. Upon the creation of the article relating to Ashley West, a number of editors disagreed that he was notable, but this did not cause me stress, I simply endeavoured to improve the referencing in the article. Furthermore, I have conflicted with editors regarding nationalities. I would judge Robert Boyle to be English, as his parents were English, and he spent most of his life in England, and I certainly reject any claim he was Irish. Again, this did not cause me stress or elevate into a serious issue, but I felt it was good to gain consensus from other users interested in the subject, and the conclusion was reached that Boyle was in fact Anglo-Irish. In conclusion, I have been in a few, minor disputes that have not caused stress, simply led to me becoming more versed in Wikipedia protocol etc. In the future, I would try to resolve any situation with both points of view taken into consideration, and with the help of other admins if necessary.
4. What is going on here where, immediately after transcluding this RFA, your nominator has attempted to speedy delete (with a spurious reason) the article referred to in your answer to Q3 above?
A: This was an article I worked hard to prove the notability of and sustain it's standards. However, after it seems his notability is not sufficient to remain on Wikipedia. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Where exactly was your laptop when your account was used for vandalism? You say that you left it in your workplace, but according to your user page, you are taking a wikibreak due to school. These statements appear to contradict each other. Please could you clarify what you mean?
A Apologies, I was using a term I thought more formal and thus appropriate. It was in a library, which I have made sure I no longer use while using my laptop, so there should not be any problems, and my account has not been compromised by anyone in terms of them having knowledge of my password etc.
According to this page you (Chinwe Izamoje) haven't made any contributions for over a year. Please could you explain how you knew about this RfA. Do you know SE7? (I am asking this question because when users are inactive for long periods of time and then return to vote in an RfA, they are sometimes suspected of sockpuppetry). GT5162(我的对话页) 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I might not have been on wikipedia for a long time, due to studying in my native Nigeria, but I do know the features needed for a good admin. I knew user: SE7 from when I created the Ashley West article. I liked how he showed initiative and helped the article stay up. Thats the skill that made me support him. The fact that he is always stuck in and tries his hardest. Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
' Moderate Support- Judging from the number of edits this user has made, he seems like an experienced candidate. He has 77.74% of his edits on articles, which is an extremely good number and a number that you would like to see from a prospective admin candidate. He seems to be a very tactful user, who highlights and explains his actions very carefully, and fights against vandals and trolls. I trust that this user would not abuse his admin powers in any way. He shows very good knowledge n the articles he makes and contributes to. Punk Rocker (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT The first three supporters have a combined total of 22 31 edits in the past 4.5 months. 15 of those 22 edits are on this RfA (or transcluding the RfA to WP:RfA)---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Net postive and no problems except for the account "hacking" which I hope is a thing of the past and not a lie.--Giants27T/C 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Switched to oppose.--Giants27T/C 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Placeholder oppose pending clarification as to what exactly is going on here (see Q4). – iridescent 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Now just plain Oppose. The last three posts on your talkpage are vandalism warnings; I hadn't noticed that. – iridescent 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If you see here, [last vandalism warning], you will notice four separate editors came to the conclusion that someone else was using my account, as it says, and I quote "your past history doesn't seem to fit with this, has someoen either hacked your account or a logged-in session?" - as was the case. I had left my laptop open in my workplace and somebody felt the need to vandalise an article, as was the case with the second vandalism warning as well. The third post is not a vandalism warning - it's notification that a copyright was wrong. However, I was not responsible for the image itself - my contribution was to trim the edges of the image to remove the black border around it. South-East7™Talk/Contribs 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And if so, what measures have you taken? Passworded screen saver? Public-use account? If something like this were to happen with an +sysop account, much greater damage could be done, theoretically. Useight (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please focus on what contributions the user has made overall. Not what happened. Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
These are perfectly valid concerns. A compromised admin account could inflict serious damage upon the encyclopedia, so we have to be extra careful at times like this. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I must oppose on the grounds that you have zero experience in the AIV and AIN areas, and only 70 total edits in the xFD area, so right now I see no need for the tools. ArcAngel (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
STRONG Oppose and suggest withdrawing the fact that your account was recently used for vandalism on two separate days is concern enough. This is not a commentary on you or your editing style, but when such a major gaff has occurred recently, the community is almost obligated to hold back the bit for a while. (You are not the first person nor will you be the last person asked to demonstrate that they can protect their account after somebody else used it.)---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Switching to STRONG oppose. The first three supports have a combined total of 22 edits in the past 4.5 months---15 of which are related to this RfA.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand your concerns, but I can't stress enough that my account is entirely protected, it was a simple physical error of leaving my laptop on in a certain place. Please do not take this as arguing, I'm just adding my view. Thanks for the comments so far South-East7™Talk/Contribs 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Spartacus and iridescent.--Giants27T/C 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose A combined effect of your aforementioned security breach and a lack of experience in the project space. You claim to be a vandal fighter, yet I do not see any reports to AIV, which is just strange. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be something suspicious about the oppose section. A number of opposes in a matter of minutes.Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yuppers, I mean, the first three opposers only have over 137,000 edits...
That what happens when people appear from nowhere to support. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Too soon after vandalism, if it was you then that makes this a strong oppose, if it wasn't it is still an oppose since administrators in particular need to be more careful than leaving their laptop out where anyone can cause damage to the encyclopaedia. And I concur, there is something fishy with the support section. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Given the circumstances surrounding this RfA - the recently compromised account, the unusual background of some of the supports, and answers to the questions themselves, I find I simply don't have the comfort level I need to trust you to wisely use (and safeguard) the tools at this time. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(Switched to Oppose) Neutral Has been a good editor, but I cannot support unless if I can be sure that his account will be secure in the future. An administrator account can do a lot of damage if someone else has access to it. GT5162(我的对话页) 17:54, 18 March 2009 (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.