Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr little irish

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.

Mr little irish

[edit]

Final (5/26/7). Unsuccessful. Closed early by WJBscribe @ 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

Mr little irish (talk · contribs) – Being an editor for almost two years, I now almost fully understand most, if not all, WP policies and guidelines. I feel that I can be usefull towards the project with my level of WP:CLUE and level headedness. I have decided to nominate myself so as not to put strain or pressure on nominators as I have seen in previous RfA's. I have been inactive alot recently, which contributes to my low edit count however I am now back to edit and learn more and more about this wonderful project. As a note, I'm not very good at writing a big paragraph for direct questions (such as the first three default questions) as I feel that a simple question should have a simple answer. If you are not happy with an answer, please don't hestitate on asking me to elaborate. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomitate. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: I intend to take part in AIV, PERM, and then slowly take part in more and more area's such as CSD and ANI.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that I have no 'great' contributions, but the contributions I have made overall have made an impact of some sort. I'm not a content creator, I am more of a fixer.
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 have been in no major conflict that comes to mind. In the future, I would normally take a step back, take a night off, and come back to the discussion with a cool head in the morning. If all else fails, I would ask for a third opinion, or obviously, take it to the appropriate noticeboard.

Additional question by Carrite:

4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another screen name? If so, please list that name or those names. Thanks! Carrite (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. I have never edited Wikipedia under a different username.

Additional optional question by TParis:

5. I've already opposed you and I am unlikely to change that opinion, but I see a lack of questions here and I wanted to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your level of knowledge and clue so that on your next RFA you have a benchmark that others can compare your improvement to. As I've already opposed, the question is optional and I'd ask no one to hold it against you if you declined to answer. So question: You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in only twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation? If anyone has a question why I said "neither are sysops" then please contact me privately and I'll explain. It has nothing to do with "sysop privilege."
A.

Unrelated: To start, I've seen some banner somewhere (I think it was above my watch list). Well not a banner, but a notification, that there is an ongoing RFC on renaming the abortion articles?

Note: I refer to both editors as him/he but I do not expect them both to be male or female. It just helped me word it better. Now, there are a couple of factors that come into play in this senario;

  • I wouldn't bother templating them as per Don'tTemplateTheRegulars - I would leave personal notes on their talk pages
  • These edits were not vandalism, so rollback should not have been used. I would warn both editors in regards to that.
  • Editor A has infact not done anything wrong, (technically, in terms of editing new material in) although should have consulted the talk page after the first revert for consensus on his content addition (bold edit obviously didn't work). I would drop a line to Editor A to discuss the new material in the article talk space.
  • Editor B has broken the 3RR violation, and should be sanctioned as such (Been here over a year, established? The editor should know by now). I would drop a note on Editor B's usertalk page to inform them that they have broken the 3RR violation, and not to continue reverting Editor A, and if he wishes to discuss the validity of Editor A's source, to do so on the article talk page.
    I think I have covered everything here, but if you need me to expand or explain anything, please don't hestitate to ask.

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]

Also, for future reference, you should delete the nomination sentence when self-nominating. I'd hat to see you get opposes based on technical errors with the process. — GabeMc (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's optional. It's not technical. If someone was to pick up, it would be how I didn't remove the subst for the time ending. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 09:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. I've worked with MLI extensively over the past few months, and found him to be clueful and knowledgable of policy in a way that one would not expect from someone with an edit-count similiar to his. I've seen him take an apply policy in his edits, work to help new users out, and generally be an asset to the Encyclopedia. I am happy to be the first person to put my support behind him. Our project would be better for giving MLI the tools. Achowat (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as being the sort of editor we would have promoted in 2005. →StaniStani  19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many things have changed since 2005. A lot more areas, more work, etc., etc., and as standards of wiki has improved, we expect standards of editors also to be high :) Yasht101 02:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many things have changed, indeed. Not all for the better. →StaniStani  02:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The candidate is magically delicious. Keepscases (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly confused by this. Have you licked me recently? MrLittleIrish (talk) © 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was a slightly-racist (very, very slight) jab at your Hibernian heritage based on the popular American children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms. Achowat (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bmusician 03:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Riley Huntley (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Regretful oppose - You are a great editor but I have to oppose. I have 6 reasons for that:
    1. Though you are really experienced, less then 1000 edits is too low to get my confidence.
    2. Only 4 months of activity with average of 200 edits is very less amount of experience
    3. Very less content creation. I m not saying that you should have a GA or FA or FL or DYK, but only 4 edits as top edited article is not good sign.
    4. Only 20% edits in article space. The main aim of wiki is to built the encyclopedia so only 20% is very less for me
    5. Active only for 1 month after many ups and down in your activity. And that also with only 280 edits is way to low number that I see if you are talking about experience.
    6. Not creating a single article is also a concern.
  2. I normally despise edit counting, but I can't support someone who contributes to mainspace so little. Sorry. - filelakeshoe 15:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not seasoned enough. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Normally I'm not somebody looking on the edit count, but having made only 11 mainspace edits this year of your last 363 edits... Do you know why we are all here? mabdul 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Based on your edit count, I'd advise you to try again in a year.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose 50% of your edits are in the user talk space. That is far far far too high. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too new yet, as mentioned by others. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose but with moral support. This is pretty sure to be a WP:NOTNOW result, because with so few edits we simply don't have enough material to see how well the candidate understands all the issues that admins face. But I really just want to add that I've seen Mr little irish around the place in the past couple of weeks, and he comes across as a friendly and smart person, with good interaction skills and a positive attitude. I hope I'll be able to support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unfortunate Oppose While your contributions are all good, I do not feel that you have the necessary experience to be an admin.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Nowhere near the experience required for a lifetime adminship. This is a foregone conclusion: Please close asap via WP:SNOW, thanks. Jusdafax 20:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose If you don't think that your cleanup work is a good contribution, then you are not yet ready. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I have seen you around and I think you have WP:CLUE in abundance. You are bright, reasonable, rationale, and you explain your thoughts well. However, what you lack is experience. You mention you havent been in any major conflicts. One of the things that comes with edit count is the probability that you'll end up in a major conflict. I would like to see that day come and see how you handle yourself before granting the tools. So a higher editor count is a must. ~4000+ is what I'd like to see but I'd support a strong candidate with your attitude and level of WP:CLUE with ~2000+. Another thing that comes with edit count is dedication. We need to see that your dedicated to the project. Another inactive admin (like this User:TParis asshole) isn't really useful. I feel 6 months of strong activity (300 edits per month/10 edits per day) would show dedication. Is this a volunteer project? Yes, and those who wish to volunteer for the admin bit need to really want to volunteer. The last thing that comes with edit count is experience with a variety of policies. As someone else mentioned, you haven't created an article. I would like to see some article creations. Nothing major, I'm not a content writer either, but I would like to see experience with the notability guidelines. You don't have to show yourself to be lax or strict with them, just that you know them and how to interpret then reasonably. Participation at AFD (if you don't already) would also show some of this. I could go on, nothing I have to say is a demark on you but rather a lack of factors which would make me comfortable to support. Try again in six months to a year.--v/r - TP 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say the purpose of having a high edit count is to produce a major conflict; I had 4,000+ edits and essentially no conflicts going into my RfA, and even now I don't think I was involved in anything that blew up too badly. It's just to see how well the candidate can apply policy in general. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not saying the purpose is. I'm saying that the more edits you have the higher the probability of conflict is (excluding the POV pushers with 10 edits). I could avoid a conflict for 10 edits, but 10,000? So, I'm saying conflicts come with an edit count.--v/r - TP 00:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Inexperienced. Little content contribution. Limited collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - not yet experienced enough. Good intentions, I'm sure, but it is not possible to gain the necessary experience with less than 200 edits to the article namespace, and as mabdul has pointed out, you have only made 11 mainspace edits in the last four months. Mato (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - as others have said, now is not your time. Per my criteria, I'd like to see a lot more editing experience and a better idea of what you'd do with the tools. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - as per WP:SNOW Abhishikt (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not enough activity and experience to properly form an opinion on the user's suitability as an admin. Snowolf How can I help? 01:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Per Yasht101.Érico msg 01:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Too few edits (you need a couple thousand at least), not nearly enough content work, no dispute resolution experience. Follow the advice given here and I am sure in about one year you will do better here. I suggest you create, or bring an existing article to FA, so I know you have dealt with consensus building and so you know what goes into our highest quality articles. Without content work, you are not suitable for handling content disputes, and there is no evidence that you know about sourcing and verifiability. — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per Yasht101. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose due to concerns about experience.--Slon02 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose due to insufficient talk-type edits, expecting over 1,000 user-talk (now 412+), and more than 100 Wikipedia-talk or template-talk (now 24 & 7), plus needs 50 detailed Help responses (currently: 0). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, with regret. A clueful, enthusiastic, cheerful and helpful editor, but sadly, just too few edits at present. I do, however, look forward to registering a support vote in, say, six months or so. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Not happy to do that, but the no. of edits force me to do that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - I think you have good intentions, but I need to see more experience in a variety of areas. Continue working to build articles and get more involved with various maintenance-related tasks and come back in 6-12 months. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Even when I was starting out 1,000 edits was too few to get a real grasp of a candidate. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Not just yet. You need a little more experience first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not now. You have good intentions and will make a good admin one day, but you need more experience around Wikipedia first. Spend another 6-8 months as a normal editor, remain active and as positive as you have been so far, try to get a little more involved in working with articles, then come back. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not now, although I'm looking forward to when you are ready, as I know you will make an excellent admin. Zippy's advice is good advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not now, per ItsZippy. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient time with the project and insufficient edit count. Spend some time to learn your craft at WP, be that copy editing or vandal fighting or content writing. Then if you decide that the janitorial tools help you to advance the project, come back for them. It really does take a good long while to learn the ropes... Carrite (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per NOTNOW. It's great that an editor of this quality wants to help out with the mop, and I look forward to supporting a future RfA. Keep up the good work, you just need more experience. Good luck! --sparkl!sm hey! 08:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Great that you want to help but not enough experience for the mop yet. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:22, 1 May 2012 (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/Mr_little_irish&oldid=1226902650"