Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anon126

Add links
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.

Anon126

[edit]

Final (2/14/4); Withdrawn per the snowball clause by Sam Korn (smoddy) at 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon126 (talk · contribs) - a newcomer, yet understands policies and MoS This has been posted by Anon126.
Visit me at User:Anon126 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:

I intend to help with things that require administrative priveleges, such as deleting redundant or bad (according to policy), or protecting pages due to vandalism, or other causes.

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

I believe my best contributions are adding redirects to pages, adding categories with redirects, and that's just about it. With this I'm probably going to fail.

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 do remember that I've had edit conflicts at the sandbox, so I decided to create my own at User:Anon126/Sandbox.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Anon126 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support – Everyone needs at least one vote of support. However, you may want to withdraw your nomination. With only 84 edits, I believe you may have jumped the gun here. Your Gung – Ho attitude is welcome and appreciated. Nevertheless, asking for the tools maybe a little premature. Good Luck and happy editing. Shoessss |  Chat  10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support - I would advise you to follow Dlohcierekim's advice. I hope you take on-board the concerns raised and come back as a more experienced editor. All the best, EJF (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Please edit consistently for a few more months, and avoid the userspace. Answer to question 3 does not show adequate understanding of "conflicts over editing". —Dark (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Lacking experience, weak answers to questions - give it 5-6 months and return and I'll take another looksy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Though all the contribution in WP is welcome, I suggest you to come after few months later.Good luck--NAHID 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I hope this was just gung ho enthusiasm which inspired the user to apply for adminship. When you've been editing for some time, you'll probably understand much better why this request was drastically premature. Please don't let this get you down. Doczilla RAWR! 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) If that's what this is about, that is. Doczilla RAWR![reply]
  5. Oppose - Your answers aren't put in the right place (it belongs after A:, not on the next line), and they're very short. I think you need to do more soul searching here first, because creating redirects does not need any administrator privileges. Perhaps you'd like to see WP:ADMIN for what admins can do that regular users can't. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Welcome your commitment towards Wikipedia.But please try after 5-6 months.Sorry.Good luck for the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 'Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Not one substantial edit to the article namespace, only 2 edits this year, and 9 in total, 8 of which were creating redirects and the 9th was fixing a wikilink, now I don't wish to be unfair or what have you, but without really substantial experience of creating and fixing content, it wouldn't be fair on you to be promoted at this time, you would honestly end up completely dazed and confused by the whole being an admin routine. You'll really need to start writing lots of content if you want your next RfA to pass, it can't stress that enough, writing content is important. It doesn't need to be Good Articles or Featured Articles, stubs and short articles are fine too, as is fixing up existing articles or just adding some references here and there. Nick (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose With less than 100 edits, and with less than 9 edits in the mainspace, this shows total lack of experience. And considering the answers to the questions you made, shows lack of knowledge. Sorry. Try in a couple of months. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Give it some time and experience and try again. I am glad to see you are excited enough about helping at Wikipedia to try for a RFA. Cheers GtstrickyTalk or C 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Less than 100 edits, lack of experience, and too premature. Also needs better answers to questions. Recommended closure per WP:SNOW and try again in May or June with more experience and better answers and I can support you. NHRHS2010 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful Oppose Okay, I know I'm going against my own standards here, but nine mainspace edits just isn't enough. A certian level of experience is required for a sysop and with a few more months and a few more quality edits I will be more willing to support. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. MUST... PILE... ON!!! Majorly (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that necessary? EJF (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry, it was immature and stupid, and I apologise to the candidate. I'm just fed up with seeing pile on opposes. Instead of taking the time to write an oppose, please just close the damn thing. Majorly (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose WP:SNOW-Close it now. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Please come back in 4-5 months; at this time I can't support for lack of experience. Midorihana~iidesune? 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Sorry, but you need more experience. Take a look at WP:AFD. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful.
    • Please read WP:Admin
    • Please read the admin reading list.
    • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • 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.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    • My suggestion to any nominees with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Decide to be nice today and not piling on. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anon126&oldid=1085560386"