Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/How do you turn this on

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

How do you turn this on

Final (0/6/1); Scheduled to end 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW Enigma ^message 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) - I registered on July 23 and since then I've become basically addicted. I have thus far a GA, Jeanne Calment and plan to work on many more. I've also made lots of other improvements to all kinds of articles. Why should I become an admin? I feel I've learnt a lot in my time here, and am familiar with how things work. I'd very much like the ability to delete pages that do not meet our inclusion guidelines. I've !voted on some AfD's and tagged some stuff for deletion. If people think this is too early, I fully understand, but I really feel I'd be better off with admin rights. how do you turn this on 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: As stated in my nomination, deletion work really. Since that is the area I'm most familiar with, it would be best to start with that, and with more experience, expand activities to other areas.

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

A: I have gotten Jeanne Calment to GA status, which I guess is my best contributions. Of course I feel all my edits are beneficial in some way.

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: On a GA nomination I was reviewing, I felt the nominator was quite harsh in their responses to me. I remained as polite as I could be, but it was a little difficult when they were questioning my reviewing skills. In future, I guess if talking doesn't work, I'd bring it up elsewhere for another opinion (such as the admin noticeboard) or just drop it altogether.

General comments

• See How do you turn this on's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for How do you turn this on: How do you turn this on (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm sorry to have to oppose at this time, you're well-intentioned and on the right track. However, you lack experience as of yet. You've only been editing for one month which isn't long enough to quite learn the ropes yet. You want to work in deletion, but I don't see much evidence of working with speedy deletions or much with articles for deletion. Also, please use edit summaries more often, they are very helpful in determing what an editor is doing and/or why they are doing it. Your work with articles is great, but I can't support until you have some more experience working in the "background". Useight (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose not a good idea to accuse editors of plain stupidity, given that you consider criticism of Wikipedia to be hurtful and insulting EJF (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose WP:NOTNOW--LAAFan 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose per NOTNOW. Here is the info I found most helpful after my failed Rfa:

   • 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. --Cameron* 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Still green and has a long journey waiting in exploring the internal workings of the encyclopedia. Please do not be discouraged, but work towards learning the ropes here. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Sorry I suggest withdrawing and gaining more experience before applying again —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Recommend withdrawal/closure per WP:NOTNOW. This will not pass. Townlake (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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.