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

Hollow Wilerding

final (0/16/2) ending 03:05 January 6, 2006 (UTC)

Removed by Cecropia 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hollow Wilerding ( talk · contribs) – Honestly, Hollow Wilerding is simply amazing. She was responsible for elevating The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask article to featured article status and is proceeding to achieve this same success with Luxurious (song). She is very active in the Wikipedian community and participates in several featured article candidate discussions, Wikipedia project discussions, and socializes with users frequently about and not about Wikipedia. I truly believe that she would make an excellent sysop, though I'm unsure how she'll take the news of being nominated. ;) DrippingInk 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Well... wow. I must admit that I did not expect this. For one, luring me away from my computer for ten minutes while filling out an RfA notice sounds a bit... inhumane (just kidding!). Actually, it sounds very interesting. If it was DrippingInk's decision, then I suppose I'll accept. I'm not really looking on the bright side of things though. But who knows! I accept! — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

Oppose

1. She may be a good writer, but her conduct on WP:FAC at the moment is so incredibly unbecoming of an administrator that I'm gobsmacked she's even been nominated. Ambi 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose per her comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl, specifically [1], [2], [3], [4], and most of all [5]. I might also mention that I find the general tone on this page absolutely hilarious and this is my second ever vote on WP:RFA. Talrias ( t | e | c) 04:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. User has only been here since November 5. I also note a suspicion that this is a sock puppet or reincarnation of Winnermario ( talk · contribs) [6] and I didn't like these comments. [7] [8] I've no idea whether the sock puppet concern is correct. Perhaps the candidate could comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   SlimVirgin, there are some users who became sysops after approximately two months of being present on Wikipedia. Also, you might want to look at the sockpuppet regard below... — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   If sockpuppets normally got articles to featured standard I propose we lift all bans on sockpuppets right away. Talrias ( t | e | c) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Impossible, considering I registered this account on Wikipedia the same day that User:Winnermario was blocked from editing. Winnermario was able to resume her editing the following day; however, since I registered the very same day, it is impossible for her to be a sock puppet of mine. We are just friends from another website. That is how we know each other. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Let me just butt in for a second - In no way, whatsoever, does you registering on that day make it impossible. It is very much possible regardless of when you registered. So how, pray tell, does you registering on that very same day make it impossible for the two accounts to be sockpuppets of eachother? Search 4 Lancer 14:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   User:Winnermario's IP address was blocked, which indicates that she was unable to edit with an account or anonymously on Wikipedia. Since I do not operate the same computer as she does, I was capable of registering. If you'd like any other information, just ask. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Reasons that thinking is horribly flawed: a.) Dynamic IP addresses, b.) proxies, c.) public terminals. Search 4 Lancer 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   You'll have to explain what the latter "reasonings" are. I'm not familiar with proxies or public terminals. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   i.) proxy server ii.) those things you find in libraries and cyber cafes that let you on the Internet. :-) Search 4 Lancer 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   I can no longer participate in this conversation because I have no evidence that I had not travelled to an "internet café". All in all, I am not a sockpuppet of User:Winnermario. If you check her contributions you might note that she was responsible for editing music-related articles only. I've expanded mine to video games, and other areas, covering more ground than she had. Also, the votes presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts are completely different. I supported the nomination, while she opposed it. This is all I have to give. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose as far as I'm concerned, a bit too little Wikipedia-related (MFD, RFA, RFD, AFD etc) discussion. NSLE _{( T+ C+ CVU)} 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose per Ambi and Talrias. I'm pretty taken aback that anyone would say what she did on the Hollaback Girl FAC, much less someone who would like to be an administrator. Would have to see a good bit of effort toward being more courteous before I would support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   I'm just curious to know: is there anything else that I've done wrong? Is there anything else that sticks out in your mind that I really should not have done? The Hollaback Girl FAC was a long time ago, and I haven't been in contact with the article since. I'm sure you've been a bit angry or engaged in an edit war of some sort on Wikipedia. I've been promoting other articles to featured standard. Why can't I be known for my good contributions? I don't think it fair that one situation ruin a person's chance of becoming an administrator. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

6. Oppose based on FAC behaviour and account age.-- nixie 04:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Then remove the administrators who became a sysop two or three months after they registered an account on Wikipedia. Also, I hope you are not opposing as per the Céline Dion article nomination. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

7. Oppose per links provided above illustrating user's conduct. Also the comment "when I want something, I get that something" in this edit gives me very serious cause for concern. -- Francs 2000 04:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   That comment was made because the user who had posted a message before I had accused me of a terrible intention, which wasn't even the intention. Some Wikipedians have to understand that they cannot just accuse someone of doing something without knowing what their true intentions are. I have examples of users conducting this action if you care me to provide them. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

8. Oppose; user behavior has been sketchy. King of All the Franks 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose, please see my comment below to the standard question "do you feel other users have caused you stress"? Bishonen | talk 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC). reply
10. Oppose Comments at FAC indicate editor is far from ready for adminship. Xoloz 05:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Inappropriate behavior. Andre ( talk) 05:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose per Telrias Diff #5, although the comment made me laugh think of "What Lola wants, Lola gets", of course if it was directed at me don't think I'd be doing much laughing. -- Wgfinley 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Strong Oppose per all diffs. Inapproriate conduct and behavior on WP:FAC. Cobra 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose: On FAC, she has been a helpful voter some of the time, but when her own issues and articles are at stake, she seems to have an inappropriate temperament. This is a specific issue, as the ability to keep one's poise when one's favorite issues and articles are edited/deleted/rewritten is important when one has the revert, delete, and move powers. Geogre 12:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose, per all Sceptr e ^{( Talk)} 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose, pretty much per all, but in particular because of the candidate's thoroughly inappropriate position regarding copyright violations and plagiarism. Monicasdude 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

    Pretty much per all? Try again! I believe that you are solely opposing because of the situation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion, and how several users believe your comments to be over-the-top. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning towards support, I always support pressganging people into adminstrative service, but I'd like to see how she handles this RFA first.-- Tznkai 03:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Being an admin is a different kind of task from being a good editor. Needs to get to know the community better. HW - keep up the good work. +sj + 09:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• What's this about "luring me away from my computer for ten minutes?" Do you and DrippingInk share a computer or something? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This is suspicious also. Anyone say a checkuser is done? Cobra 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Let's not, eh? fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 13:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Someone must explain how that is suspicious. I checked the history, and as it appears, User:DrippingInk wrote in the wrong username. It appears to have just been an error. No, the two of us do not share a computer. We live across the street from each other and he called me and asked me to step away from the computer for ten minutes. I didn't understand his intentions, but I complied. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Now it is clearly... uh, clear that I am not going to become an administrator (not that I ever wanted to from the beginning). However, I must comment that the Hollaback Girl FAC took place about a month ago. If I apply for the administrator position next Christmas, are people going to look back at the Hollaback Girl FAC and say, "Oh, look what she did over a year ago! Oppose!" Should that be the case (we currently don't know), then the sysop procedure is absolutely silly. Is there any other reason to object or is that the only one? Has no one bothered to look at any of the enhancements or committments I've made to Wikipedia? Is one discussion going to destroy my chances of becoming a sysop? — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No, of course not. Or to be precise, it depends on what happens in the meantime. There've been plenty of cases of candidates who got voted down because of stuff like this and were successful in later nominations because it was clear that their contributions in the meantime had been positive and the problems hadn;t been repeated. There's no need to wait til next Christmas either, for that matter, as long as the concerns that have been expressed here are likely to have been resolved. Happy new year, in any case. Palmiro | Talk 14:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

There were plenty of other similarly revealing FAC discussions I could have linked to on this page, I just picked the one I was familiar with. See also SlimVirgin's vote and links to comments by you that have nothing to do with any FAC nomination. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

So, if you readily admit that you are not going to become an administrator (at least now, anyway), then why did you relist yourself on the RFA page? That alone is you still hurting your already tarnished rep Search 4 Lancer 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I relisted myself because I had not even received a chance to respond. I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and my actions in the past twelve hours had been sleeping. ;) It was the middle of the night over where I am from. I'm not going to reduce the amount of sleep I receive to argue on an RfA all night. That would only be common sense. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Whenever an issue requires clean-up or assistance, I will exercise one of the abilities of an administrator, that being from speedy deletion to blocking a vandal. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am exceptionally pleased with The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, as I promoted it to featured article quality. I am also quite content with Luxurious (song) and Shakira, both of which I've upgraded to average quality. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Well I'm positive that I've been involved in edit warring and such, but there are none that stick out in my mind right now. No users have caused me any stress. I believe that when there is less stress floating around, a happier Wikipedia community exists. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No users have caused you any stress, really? You must be very stress-resistant, which is a good quality in an admin. Many of the people commenting on your several FAC nominations of Hollaback Girl seemed to find interaction with you there a stressful experience for them, in fact some of them commented on your reactions and demeanor as being difficult to deal with. Do you have any comment? Here is the second discussion, in case some voters are interested in how you dealt with this conlict (because it was very conflictual). Disclosure: I was involved in the discussion, and some of your most ... surprising responses were for me, like the famous "How dare you?". I feel obliged to vote Oppose. Just from my own encounters with you and your demeanor on FAC, I would recommend you to become a little more adjusted to the place before you apply for adminship. -- Bishonen | talk 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, feel obligied. It will hurt the RfA, but it won't penetrate my soul. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

That was last month. You honestly believe I need to get adjusted to Wikipedia? Please look at my contributions. I am on everyday; I think I'm adjusted. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't believe it was stress. I did not let it get to me at all, really. I understand that I'm not going to receive the Admisistrator treatment, and truly, it's fine by me because I knew my attitude at WP Talk:FAC was going to decrease my chances greatly. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

If you have any sense of having stressed others, and regret for it, it might be good for your next RFA to acknowledge it, rather than just say you knew people would complain. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC). reply

I never said that I have stressed others, mainly because I don't have that knowledge. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.