Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Accdude92
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.
Final (0/8/0); Ended 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW.)
Nomination
[edit]Accdude92 (talk · contribs) – I am a really good candidate, and would help with all areas of wikipedia. Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to remove spammers and all other users (both ip and registered) from Wikipedia. I also love helping the community and will do anything in my power to do so.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am a member of the Welcoming Committee, and have thus welcomed Newbies to Wikipedia.
- 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 not had any stress with any user, but if I do I will settle it in a calm and professional manner.
- Additional optional questions from Unionhawk
- 4. Is there any significance behind your username? I'm just curious...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A:
General comments
[edit]- Links for Accdude92: Accdude92 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Accdude92 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Accdude92 before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]- Being a good candidate doesn't make you a good candidate - that's circular logic. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
- Edit Stats posted in talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
Oppose
[edit]- Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
- For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
- The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
- As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
- Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
- Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
- Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
- Negotiate a compromise.
- Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
- Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
- If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
- My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Astronominov 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- WP:NOTNOW. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a friendly addition to the above comments, try to get some article editing in, too. Welcoming new editors is important, but ultimately we're here to expand the encyclopedia. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - WP:NOTNOW.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Agree with the above - love the enthusiasm, and I'm sure I'll be able to support your next RFA. Take some time around the project and get some good experience before re-applying, though - it'll help your chances here, and it'll make you a better editor & admin. Good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.You have 684 edits and would like more experience before you try again as per WP:NOTNOW.Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Was this a joke? You want to remove all users from Wikipedia? How does that help? Nezzadar ☎ 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]