Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krett12

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

Result: Not successful. Chenzw Talk 04:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krett12

Krett12 (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

RfA of Krett12

global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 03:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I am Krett12, master ClueHuman vandalism revert-er! I am aware that I do not meet *some* criteria such as the several hundred edit requirement, however, I believe I would be a good exception because I am a skilled vandalism revert-er, and there have been at least a dozen times where I have needed an admin and not had one. Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination

Support

Oppose

Strong Oppose: Unfortunately, I do not believe you have anywhere near enough experience on simplewiki, having only 135 edits here (18 in the mainspace) and 433 edits on enwiki I wouldn't be comfortable with this. You have also not displayed much maturity with edits such as this, and multiple reverts you did have been questioned by other users - which is concerning because you have only 18 (as before stated). I also believe reverts such as these are completely unnecessary as they do not remotely affect the article in any way (I say this because it shows you lack the experience and understanding required to become an administrator). You seem more like someone who would need to request rollback, instead of becoming an admin. Even so - I'm not entirely sure you're ready for that either looking at some of your reverts. -- Kethrus |talk to me 03:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kethrus. All administrators should have at least 1500 solid edits before requesting adminship. eurodyne (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not have confidence in your competency in handling vandalism. Please come back when you have garnered more experience working on this wiki. Chenzw Talk 10:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I suppose you guys are right, however, as I mentioned before, there have been a lot of times when I have needed (but not had) an admin, and with the current vandalism spike, I think we should probably make an exception. Krett12 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can always join #wikipedia-stewards ^connect and get them to block the user, as I have done in the past. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not old enough to become a steward, sorry :( Krett12 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was not recommending you become a steward, I was recommending you join that channel and ask for assistance if any persistent vandalism occurs when an admin isn't around. -- Kethrus |talk to me 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - experience is what is needed, and the request shows that it is missing.--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - per everything else. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You are kidding right? I have had to undo a very large percentage of your edits. You are easily a year or more from even considering running for admin. -DJSasso (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Is "lol" a valid oppose reason nowadays? I haven't voted in ages... Anyway, what Djsasso and Peter say is correct, so per them. -Barras talk 21:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per everyone else. User has very little experience on simplewiki, I see no need for these tools. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hmm, I guess if you guys really think so, I could wait a month or two, but we must have some new admins because we are just overflowing & stewards have more important things to do. Krett12 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That really isn't the case, in most cases most things can wait a fairly lengthy amount of time for an admin to get to them. We have a relatively low amount of vandalism here. Critical things can have a steward take care of them. Frankly we are only just now finally getting back down to more reasonable admin numbers for this wiki when we used to have far to many for a wiki this size. As for waiting a month or two, I can tell you that you would likely not get it then either. You display a complete misunderstanding of how a lot of things work. You have a lot of enthusiasm but not a lot of knowledge on things yet. My usual recommendation for most users is to not go for admin until they have been editing here at least a year. And even then some users are not ready. My other recommendation is never nominate yourself. If you are ready someone will nominate you. If you make it your goal to be an admin that often leads to never becoming one. A good example in the lore of this wiki is a user named Razorflame, he failed getting admin 14 times because he kept trying without taking on the lessons from previous failures. He was just far to desperate to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I litterally just said that I am OK if it turns out to not be me, but actually if a user vandalizes 15 times after a level 4 warning, then no, it can't wait. If I was an admin, I would mostly be on PROTECT, DELETE, ROLLBACK, and BLOCK. So I am going to say this again: The point is not for me to be an admin. Krett12 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even then probably not a huge issue unless the vandalism includes inappropriate personal information/libel. This is what I am getting at, you are over stating the issue. Vandalism happens, most of the time its not a big deal once its been reverted. 99.9% of vandals leave after a couple edits. If you happen to be around for the rare one that hits 15+ then go request a steward help in an irc channel. But I can only think of less than 10 times of that many vandal edits coming in a short period of time in my 7 years on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, if you really think so. But if it happens, don't look at me. Krett12 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2015 (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.