Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ONaNcle 4

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{{1}}}

ONaNcle

~~End date: 19 July 2008 at 6:16 UTC~~ Closed -- by ONaNcle (talk)

Result:Candidate withdrew. -- Creol(talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping the new deletion procedure will avoid some people voting again against me. ONaNcle (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose - Sorry, but I have to oppose. These are my reasons and concerns: 1.) You are way too inactive if you look here. Ever since September of 2007, you've only made just over 10 edits. I'd like to see much more activity here. 2.) Looking through your contributions from, erm, excuse me, a year ago (:O), I see no WP:VIP reports which shows no need for the block tool. Anyway, some positives would be: ~~1.) You have many deleted edits, which is good, but try bringing that up. I'm just curious of what those deleted edits are.~~ 2.) You have over 80% of your edits in the mainspace which is very good to see. But maybe try getting an article at least to WP:GA might help. 3.) You have a decent edit count, but I would like to see more quality edits within them. Anyway, overall, you seem to be doing good, but I would generally want to see more activity here and a few other things I mentioned. Try again in a few months with more constructive editing and more activity. Even try WP:ER. That helps. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of his deleted edits, 28 are tagged QDs. -- Creol(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then. That's not really anything to cheer about. Sorry, but only 28 QD tags shows not a need for the deletion tool as much also. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, this user has been tagging many QDs today (I had to clean them up) which only 1 was correct which shows a lack of policy knowledge, specifically in this case WP:DELETE and WP:QD. This user most likely will misuse the deletion tool at this rate if given adminship so moving to strong Oppose. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keeping my self nomination as explained here ONaNcle (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because your years older than most of us, that doesn't mean you can become an admin just for that. Look at User:American Eagle, he's been here for only 3 months and he's an administrator. He does good work, and the community trusts him. Even if you've been here for 4 years, it's contributions that matter, not time. You have to show to the community that you are ready by your work, not how long you wait. Contributions is much more valuable than time. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Four edits today and then we go back 3 months until you last edited. 10 edits in April (mainly all on one hour) and then we have to go back to November to get to any real activity. With 800+ edits, there are no WP:VIP edits (and only 2 warnings listed to talk pages). There has been some reversion, but there is no sign that at any time further action was needed. Basically no need for the tools and no activity in the last 7-8 months makes me have to oppose. -- Creol(talk) 06:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: looking at your deleted edits, the five warning you gave and signed as BrownE34 are always an issue.. and and Chenzw brings up below - you are a Secret Agent and hense must be opposed. -- Creol(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about this SE BrownE34 story. ONaNcle (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The warning seen here was copy/pasted to the talk pages of 5 articles created by that user. Complete copy/paste with signature. -- Creol(talk) 07:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In addition to the above, I feel that you have a tendency of attacking other people. Your nomination already says that. Also, I still don't understand your oppose to my RfA. Chenzw Talk 06:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Creol and the cryptic request. Your inactivity is of particular concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity... It's your opînion... But did you check my recent edits and did you notice I'm remaining in the Top 50 Simple contributors as shown there : http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm late ONaNcle (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if your in the so called "Top 50". Again, I point to User:American Eagle. He is not on that list and he's an admin. Nobody cares about how long you've been here or your recent contributions. You have to be active for at least 3 months straight before you will have a chance to pass the RfA. Please read WP:CFA also, that might help. By the way, I have a few questions to ask you and it will be below in the comments section. -- RyanCross (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm reading that incorrectly, it says you're on the top 20 absent Wikipedians...that's an indicator of low activity. The list is helplessly outdated, as well, last created in February 2008; users such as American Eagle, RyanCross, and myself are not on there even though we are probably much more active currently than many of the Top 50 Wikipedians. Cass andra 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the Who are you? clause. You are WAY too inactive and you have shown no need for the tools yet. Razor flame 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not know you so I cannot entrust you with the tools.-- † Christian Man 16 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, sorry, but just because you don't know someone doesn't mean you have to oppose. Opposes are based on contributions, a willingness to contribute to the project, and trust. You could not know an RfA candidate and still support if the user is trusted by the community. Most of the candidates on en.wikipedia RfA, for example, most people don't know the candidates, but a big portion still support due to trustworthiness. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Simple, though, we should all know each other pretty well, if you contribute frequently and show up in RecentChanges. I'm not saying that you'd recognize everyone (since we all work at different times), but this user literally came out of nowhere months after his last activity to nominate himself ro adminship. Cass andra 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly...You don't go inactive for God knows how long and then just show up out of the blue to self nominate yourself.-- † Christian Man 16 05:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your right Cassandra, but who knows, some users might not even check recent changes often. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't even recognise your name! On a big community such as en, that would be fine, but in a community such as here where we all know who is who... another story. Microchip 13:29, Sunday, July 13 2008 Utc
Even a non-bureaucrat may now snow this vote... Too bad my specific UWP project was again and again absent from the full discussion process... Let me end by a little private joke to Microchip : Me too I know nothing about you but I use a different action in this very case ;-))) ONaNcle (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - absolutely not. Majorly ^talk 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. I mean QD's on random articles nad signing as another user tells me that you can't be an admin. The Page Changer 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Most of you will find the following anecdotic... I'm nominating myself at an European hour to emphasize the fact that most North American fellows are asleep at this time. Therefore, I could be helpful against night vandalism. ONaNcle (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could definitely be effective at what the US considers night - The problem with your nomination is just that in general, you seem to be quite inactive in this Wikipedia. As long as you are not more active here, getting admin status will be really difficult.--Eptalon (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my past inactivity, nor dozens of edits done today prove anything about my future activity if I happen to become sysop to fulfill my UWP project ONaNcle (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just WP:SNOW this now? There isn't much reason to continue this if this RfA gets just opposes. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, SNOW it - 0/7 does not look good for him. -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from RyanCross

1. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?

A: temporary protection ONaNcle (talk)

2. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?

A: even if this admin was active yesterday I block six hours advicing also this admin's friends who may know whether his computer access is secure ONaNcle (talk)

3 If an IP address is very disruptive, would you go to the point and block such an IP indefinitely? If not, why would you not block an IP indefinitely? Explain your reasoning.

A: no more than few days but asking community for more. ONaNcle (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per WP:SNOW. Thank you. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting WP:SNOW closure as it was not performed by a bureracat. RfA re-opened. -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can close obvious WP:SNOW RfAs. That's why the WP:SNOW page exists. Majorly ^talk 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so obvious ... ONaNcle (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.