Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ginbot86

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.

Ginbot86

[edit]

Final (2/11/7). Closed per WP:NOTNOW at 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan!


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My intents in the administrative fields are working around the admin backlogs, requests by users needing help, WP:UAA, some WP:SPI and WP:XfD and/or WP:CSD, WP:RfPP and user warnings/blocks if necessary. Having been a rollbacker for quite some time, I have had situations where vandals' actions could have been stopped in a more timely manner (but not without proper protocols being followed.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are mainly WikiGnome-type edits, such copy-editing and vandalism removal, user notifications and/or reports, and working around with the (still in trial) pending changes program.
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: Yes, I have had conflicts with other editors in the past. One of them was an anonymous IP editor who was concerned with a particular phrase in the Steve Jobs article, in which they left a message on my talkpage. I replied to them why I undid their deletion in a straightforward manner while maintaining WP:AGF, and while the IP didn't agree with what I had to say regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V, they eventually stopped deleting the content in question.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral Support for a longterm user with a clean blocklog and 1600 edits. Only a moral support because the speedy deletion tagging is not quite up to snuff yet, just in July I've seen examples of speedy deletion tags on articles I would consider to have asserted importance - though to be fair I doubt they'd have survived AFD. I also saw a couple of A7 tags where I would have preferred you to have tagged the article with a {{G10}}, and some very hasty tagging - remember if it isn't clearly a badfaith article or it asserts that it isn't notable, then tagging for speedy deletion in the first minutes after creation can lead to mistakes. Take care and hope to see you back here after November. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for having made numerous contributions to Wikipedia articles. Good luck on your request for adminship! Luckytoilet (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I don't like opposing RfAs, much less being the first. However, a quick glance through your contributions shows that you are just not ready to be an administrator. Not only have you got just over half the 3000 edits that are recommended, they are not all recent. The reason why this is a problem is because it is not enough for me to see how suitable you are for the position. Also, a sizeable chunk are to your userpage. The creation of this, just 60 edits ago, shows lack of understanding of what SPI is for. Whilst your speedy deletions seem to be accurate, most of your edits appear to be vandalism-fighting and it's hard for me to find much of anything else, which makes it hard for me to assess your judgement and familiarity with different sectors of admin work. That said, your use of edit summaries is commendable, and you seem to be a good editor thus far.. (Also: as you've noted, your username is somewhat misleading. It would probably be a good idea to change it.) Don't be discouraged by this; you look like a very sensible editor, working without desiring recognition or causing drama, and this is much desired. Keep up the good work and I hope to be able to support you next time. sonia♫♪ 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, the contribution record, both in mainspace and in project space, is too limited at the moment. Also, the current username is problematic as it suggests that you are a bot; please consider changing it soon. Nsk92 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Nsk92. --Leyo 08:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose -- I think you need more experience in mainspace, particularly creating new articles: two is not enough for me. Like others, I'm not saying you won't make a good admin one day, I just don't feel that day has yet come. But stick at it, keep doing good work, and I'll hope to give you my support in the not too distant future (but not until you've changed that misleading name!). Jimmy Pitt talk 09:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Sonia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not only that I agree with Sonia on her vote comment, but the answer to Q2 shows that you only have minor edits, and therefore hasn't shown a demonstration of Wikipedia policy understanding. The only suggestions I have to consider is to go article building and/or creating articles on a subject that you might be interested in. Then I would try admin coaching in about 6+ months time so that you can understand what WP:SPI is all about along with other administrator tasks. Minimac (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Q3 has a point, and you missed it. Şłџğģő 12:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Concerns about experience, answers to the questions, and breadth of experience. -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Good spirit from the candidate, but inappropriate username for an admin. I suggest changing it before another attempt. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience, and I don't like your answers to the questions. Also, a username that contains the phrase "bot" is reserved for bot accounts. I recommend a close per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, but with moral support. Not enough experience right now, and your activity level is a bit low. Come back in about 6-12 months with at least 4k-5k edits, and I may consider supporting you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Comment - I'm not going to oppose, because I don't want to discourage you too much. You seem to have made a solid start, and lots of your vandalism work and CSD tagging look pretty good. However, I honestly can't support you, because you just don't seem to have enough experience to be seeking adminship right now. Your recent contributions are just not enough for me to see that you have the knowledge and experience required. I'm absolutely sure that, further along, with more involvement "under your belt" you could make a very good admin, but I'm afraid I don't think you're at that point yet. I'd recommend reading WP:NOTNOW, and looking through some previous unsuccessful and successful RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing. I do, also, agree with the other comments that considering a username change might be a good idea.  Begoontalk 07:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning towards Support: I do not think that lack of edit count is that much of a big deal. Indeed, having fewer than 2000 edits makes it that much easier for us to look at somebody's contributions. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask: did you ever start something that later became a Good Article? Or, did you ever make edits that substantially contributed to the promotion of a good article? If yes to either, then please show me. Bwrs (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Per Begoon Bejinhan talks 11:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per above !votes. A8x (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Begoon. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I would say that Begoon voices my own thoughts quite accurately. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Not enough exp. I find the account name confusing with a bot in the title. I would strongly suggest looking in to making it a bit more unique to you. Please do consider running again down the raod though. Just not quite ready yet. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (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/Ginbot86&oldid=1142540698"