Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dustihowe

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

Closer's note: Despite the recent preference for only bureaucrats to close failing RFA's, this is an exceedingly clear-cut case. We cannot give adminship to users who have no contribution history whatsoever. We encourage users to contribute productively to Wikipedia, but this is neither the time nor the place for such a new user as this candidate. I will leave the standard message on his talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dustihowe

FINAL (1/3/0); Ended 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

dustihowe (talk · contribs) - I like to work on pages like on wikipedia, I am currently an editor for a newspaper and i am also going to go to college to minor in communications. I would appreciate your permission to grant me adminship. Thank you for your time.Dustihowe 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a chance, let me show you how good i can be...!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 September 2007

Questions for the candidate

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 make logical changes to articles that i feel would be benificial for the rest of the community here at Wikipedia.

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

A: I have not had any contributions yet to Wikipedia, due to my current crazy schedule in the crazy thing that we like to call "life"

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:No, i have been fourtunate enough to stay out of any conflicts

General comments

See dustihowe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for dustihowe: Dustihowe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/dustihowe before commenting.

Discussion

I suggest withdrawal of this RfA, per WP:SNOW. Sorry, try again in a few months, and we'll see how it goes. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that you have to have an expert for Wikipedia to become an Admin, sure expierence is prefered, but if you see that someone is not going to misuse the tools, then why not let them try Adminship out? Trial and Error??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I fear that you would misuse the tools (although not deliberately). For instance, one of the admin tasks I often do is editing fully-protected templates and interface messages. A mistake editing one of those pages can screw up the interface of the site for every user, and despite that is not always fixed immediately; you made markup mistakes filing this RfA, and even now are not signing your comments (which makes you easier to contact to reply to things you say if needed, and makes discussions easier to follow; see Wikipedia:Signatures for why and how). Do you have to be an expert to become an admin? No, but there are large number of mistakes that you could make if you're unprepared, and an admin who isn't clear on what they're doing could cause a lot more temporary damage than a user who isn't clear on what they're doing. (This definition is pretty much what caused various abilities to become admin-only.) Your question answers didn't provide any evidence that you knew what to do as an admin, and even on the limited data so far there is evidence that you would make mistakes (and Wikipedia is sufficiently complicated that a user unused to it would be pretty likely to make mistakes through chance, because the documentation about what to do isn't perfect). --ais523 17:33, 1 October 2007 (U T C)
Added [[1]] to user page. Phgao 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong support, user has given me no reason to oppose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Unfortunately, you don't have nearly enough experience for me to be sure that you wouldn't make mistakes in using admin tools, nor to gain a sense of what sort of admin you would be. With only 8 edits, there isn't much material available to review. However, you have made several mistakes - for instance, there are technical errors in filing this RfA - and it's probably not a good idea to run until you are a lot more confident with technical, policy and process aspects of Wikipedia. Try reading WP:GRFA; then try to get a lot more experience (a few thousand edits and several months), and you'll have more of an idea of what being an admin involves, how to do admin tasks, and why submitting this RfA this early was a bad idea. --ais523 16:50, 1 October 2007 (U T C)
Oppose due to lack of experience. Your answers indicate that you do not know what adminship is. The whole point of wikipedia is to make "logical changes to articles that i feel would be benificial for the rest of the community here at Wikipedia." J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly I have to oppose this, please contribute more and read up on relevant Wikipedia policies before applying, that way you can become a good editor. Phgao 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.