Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24

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

Gordonrox24

Final (0/9/0); ended 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC). Closed prematurely per WP:NOTNOW by PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs) – Hi all. I have been editing Wikipedia steady for almost six months now and have taken quite an interest in anti-vandalism. When I discovered WP:TWINKLE I took full advantage of it. As the Userbox says; Reverting Vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle! I recently approached a bureaucrat asking for Rollback Privileges and my request was filled. I have used these privileges to best of my ability; using them to keep Wikipedia clean. Now I am here petitioning for the Administrative tools to help me further my ability to help. I thanks you all in advance for you comments; support or oppose! gordonrox24 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If granted the Administrative tools, I would use them to further what I currently do on Wikipedia. I spend a great deal of time reverting vandalism, nominating eligible articles for speedy deletion, and commenting on AFD and RFD discussions. With the Administrative tools I could do this and more with much greater ease. Administrator abilities would help me help Wikipedia further.

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

A: My greatest contributions to Wikipedia have come with the help of WP:TWINKLE and my Rollback Privileges. Working to rid the encyclopedia of vandals and other bad faith editors is invaluable when trying to run a project like Wikipedia and I am proud to say that I have been able to help. I also have a great amount of knowledge in Canadian Motor sports and NASCAR. I often find myself editing pages having to do with those topics.

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 think in working with the amount of people that we do on Wikipedia daily, conflict is impossible to avoid completely. There is no way you are going to work constructively on an article without some discrepancy in opinion or style of writing. recently User:Stilltim has create quite a ripple by creating multiple articles that were duplicates of already existing articles with only a change in wording. Extensive conversation took place on his talk page and the talk pages of his articles. A WP:RFC was started and many of these forks were deleted. It is hard to say how conflict will be dealt with in the future as all conflicts are unique. I would of course stay diplomatic, talking directly to the editors involved trying to get to the root of the problem before any other actions are taken. The complexity of each conflict needs to be assessed and solutions need to be thought out carefully. Coming to a mutual agreement with all parties involved is of course always the main goal.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:

General comments

Links for Gordonrox24: Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Gordonrox24 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gordonrox24 before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose I need to see more work in the article space before I can support. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNOW Of your 1,700 edits some 300 are to your own user space. Of the remainder there is insufficent evidence of policy understading, article writing, consensus building and collaborative effort that would demonstrate you understanding of what may and is required. Don't think you work isn't valued - it is - but alas without demonstrable evidence of the above I'm not able to support. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Oppose. Out of your 1900~ edits, a majority of them are on talk pages. You only have a nudge over 300 edits in article space, which means there's a lack of article content building. I'm not asking for good or featured articles, but I'd like to see more than 300 edits to actual articles. — Σ xplicit 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone above. WP:NOTNOW, as only around 17% of your edits are to article space. MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I would prefer more than two months of regular editing. Please feel free to reapply in a few months. Nakon 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro puts it well. It seems you have the best interests of the project at heart, but I cannot support due to lack of experience. Best of luck in the future, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. 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.
- 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.
- My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain 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. iMatthew : Chat 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Under 2000 edits and only 4 months of experience is by no means enough. Sorry.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but not now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 24 May 2009 (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.