Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sephiroth storm

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.


Sephiroth storm

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Final: (39/34/4); closed 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) by Kingturtle


Sephiroth storm (talk · contribs) – I Sephiroth storm submit this request for adminship. I have been a Wikipedia editor for around two years now and I have a strong desire to see it flurish and grow. I have been active in several WikiProjects, I worked extensivly on WikiProject Malware and helped start the new WikiProject Computer Security. I have not been around wikipedia as long as other administrators here, but I would like the opportunity to serve. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Accept my nomination.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: As much is I can. My primary area will be Articles for Deletion and Vandalism blocks. After my work on Computer Security articles, I've seen enough vandalism on wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My first notable edit to Wikipedia in my estimation was my edits on the Benazir Bhutto article, during her assasination. I was excited to take part in the coverage of the situation, to insure that accurate information was included in the article. Outside of that I have made numerous contributions to Computer Security articles.
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 was involved in only one true edit war. I don't remember what article it was, but I was a new editor and eventually myself and the other editor were able to come to a resolution. In the future, I intend to settle disputes the same way I have done since then, with communication.

Additional questions from Davidwr

4. I opposed you mainly because I did not see much in the way of xFD and vandal-fighting/reverting/warning. I confess I just searched the edit summaries for "articles for deletion" and "vand." Do you have a bunch of xfd and vandal-fighting work hiding under other edit summaries? If so, can you help me find it? On a related note, are you finding you are requesting admin help a lot? I'm more inclined to support someone who would otherwise be a neutral if there is a large demonstrated need, since people who request admin help a lot are tying up other admins and forcing the mop on them offering them the mop will save other admins work, provided they use it properly.
A. I do apoligise, I try to specify what the revision was that I reversed, if I can be specific, unless It is blatant vandalism, I will try to leave an appropriate summary. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Thor Malmjursson

5 Why do you feel the need to self nominate for adminship, and do you consider self nomination something which should ideally be avoided?
A. my major motivation is a desire to help wikipedia. Wikipedia is vast, and has many editors, many of whom would be great administrators, however I do not believe that every good administrator will be noticed right away. One of the reasons I have not withdrawn this RfA as some have suggested (Thank you by the way), is because along with a strong desire to succeed, is a desire to gauge myself, and where I stand. As for self nomination in general, I must admit, I have no judgments one way or another. As long as competent editors have the chance to be presented here, I think that the needs of Wikipedia will be served well. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Early Support 50% main space edits, no silly user boxes, never been blocked, over the age of majority (if that still counts as an RFA plus or minus) - what's not to like? Oh, the edit count which will bomb this RFA into WP:NOTNOW. However that's another story - and this is a support and a nod at the future opposers. M♠ssing Ace 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit count is not always unimportant. In this case it demonstrates an unexpected lack of experience after having spent two years as an editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully expect this RFA to be closed within a few hours per NOTNOW - I'm not that silly. Yes, editcount is a useful, if somewhat raw, method of determining admin capability - specifically the experience as you identified. That doesn't mean that I cannot support an RFA based on quality of the edits rather than quantity however. As a side note I hadn't realised badgering supporters was the current vogue - I'd assumed opposers had to justify their position. Just saw this - apologies M♠ssing Ace 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that was badgering, wait until I really start badgering you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, edit count doesn't measure experience. It actually measures how many times you've clicked the "Save page" button. You should try judging experience by actually looking at a person's contributions instead of just having a computer count them for you -- it wouldn't be called "editcountitis" if it were a good thing. rspεεr (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, experience and how many times you've clicked 'save page' are the same thing, regardless of the type of edit. I'd rather word what you've said as edit count doesn't equal aptitude. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support. I remember my own RfA — 1,000 edits and six months of experience were generally considered to be the standard back then (in the good old days of 2005). And I don't think the relentless raising of standards since then has necessarily resulted in a higher caliber of admins, either. So good luck in your future wiki-endeavors, and keep up the good work. Hermione1980 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing from "moral" to just plain "support" to protest editcountitis. User has plenty of experience. Hermione1980 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support You've been around long enough and done enough to justify adminship by the standards of when RFA was working. Weak because I'd have preferred to see more use of warnings after you revert vandals like this. WereSpielChequers 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Two years here, good number of article edits and you've not blown up the wiki. Support.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support Your positive intentions are appreciated. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good, trustworthy contributor. This RfA probably won't pass, and I wish those who are opposing solely based on a meaningless four-digit number known as the "edit count" would reconsider or at least come up with a more compelling argument. But as a strategic note, Sephiroth, you should really spell-check your RfA next time. rspεεr (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support for a good faith candidacy. - Mailer Diablo 03:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. When coming here I really did not think I would be doing something like throwing my name into the support section. I thought of opposing and of going neutral, but I realized that the candidate really does have adequate experience. For the technical and policy side, you'll want to check out WP:NAS and WP:ARL, but you'll be fine. Malinaccier (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per WP:WTHN. (Warning: Rant follows, apologies in advance.) This RfA is a perfect example of why, in my view, edit count requirements for adminship are ridiculous. Here we have a candidate who clearly knows his way around Wikipedia, has contributed plenty of content, and has no particularly objectionable edits. The only reason raised in the opposes below is 'hasn't got enough edits; NOTNOW, try again later'. But here we have someone who wants to help us out with administrative work now; why on earth should he be made to wait, or reach some arbitrary number of edits, before we allow him the tools? What possible benefit is there? Does anyone opposing seriously think he's not trustworthy now, but will be in six months, or once he reaches 3000 edits? This user should pass RFA, and the immense negative reaction to his nomination shows exactly why few candidates these days bother to submit themselves in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is arbitrary many times, but not necessarily today. The candidate wants to work in deletion and has 4 edits among 2 AfDs. They want to work with reverting and blocking vandals and have 0 edits to AIV. I agree that editcountitis grips people in these halls. I also agree that admin standards have changed (but so has the community, so have the tools, so have the edits....but I digress). But those folks opposing below aren't doing so reflexively (well, not all of them). Protonk (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's true - opposes on the specific grounds of 'lack of AfD experience' (or vandal-reporting) are fair in this case. It's the opposes based purely on edit count (or worse, edits per month) that annoys me; certain commenters here would do well to read the relevant section of WP:AAAD. Terraxos (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They would. There is something to be said for experience (distinct from getting enough edits for people to grok your character), but most "not enough experience" opposes aren't making that subtle of a point. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. This isn't a moral support, I actually don't mind this user getting the tools at all. Wizardman 04:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral Support This RfA is going to fail, that is a certainty. However, I think that you are going to be an excellent candidate for adminship in the future. I suggest you start taking a keener interest in the areas that you wish to work as an admin. If you have done that and come back in six months, you will have my support again. Trusilver 05:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral Support; any significant reason to oppose is due to 'not being here long enough', not any deficiency of character. As such I believe you would probably make a very good admin, just not right now. Soldier on through this RfA (if you want, it can get a bit soul-destroying), pick up any and all available criticism, act on those criticisms and run again in six months. Ironholds (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support; Cons: lower than usual edit count, XfD - Pros: Good use of edit summary, plenty of time here (you don't have to edit to learn), common sense, level headed, friendly, and eager with good intentions. One big pro I see is the strength in the IT field - that should not be overlooked. That ability should carry more weight than it often does, it means able to get up to speed quickly. I know it may end in a "TOSOON" outcome, but I'll throw my trust behind this candidate. — Ched (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I'm deeply disappointed by the editcountitis displayed in many of the opposes. 2 years of experience and good edits over that time shows someone that that is thoughtful and trustworthy. That there aren't many thousands of edits only shows that Sephiroth may have a more balanced life which is probably a good thing. Based on the quality of edits and lack of problems seen so far I assume good faith that Sephiroth can learn how to use the tools in any new areas and be careful with them. - Taxman Talk 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, no evidence user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  16. Support - Arbitrary edit count is arbitrary. The candidate's contributions are for the most part of high quality, despite the fact that many have been produced by automated tools. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - per Taxman who sums it up very well. As yet we have no examples of the candidate's "inexperience" hindering the project. Candidate seems trustworthy and wise. Good luck. Dean B (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Assuming good faith support due to no memorable negative interactions and as candidate has never been blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Moral Support per Trusilver. You're a great editor, you just need some more experience. LittleMountain5 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support a bit weak given the lack of direct AfD experiance but not "moral" in that like Wizardman, I actually favor giving Sephiroth storm the tools now. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Y. Ichiro (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Total support - per Terraxos (talk · contribs). My trust in him + he will/would be a net positive = I support. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - No reason to assume user will abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Seems to have made some very good contributions and as Garion96 has mentioned there are no reasons to suggest tools will be abused. It doesn't matter how many times you've clicked save page, all that matters is the contribution made to that particular page.Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 08:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Come on people (who oppose)! This user will not break the wiki. I trust him and I think self-nom is a sign of confidence! Tcrow777 Talk 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 'Support This user has only just over 1200 edits. And so what? They are all good, and the user wants to improve the encyclopedia, and has the obvious ability to do so. Can we now finally break away from the obsession with edit numbers? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Everything checks out. WHy notktktk Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. You know what? Support for a user who won't abuse the tools, and who has nothing but good contributions. — neuro(talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support My standard for candidates is the answer to two questions: 1. will this user break the wiki? 2. Will this user improve the wiki? No in the first, yes in the second to you, Sephiroth storm. Quality editing is more than edit counts. I hope you'll stick around and RfA again in the future.  :) FlyingToaster 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: per above. Waterjuice (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I believe that this user could make a good admin based on the altruistic approach for submitting your RfA. As with the statements of others, edit counts are not a absolute measure of experience nor maturity and should not be used as the sole reason for dismissing a potentially beneficent administrator. Should this RfA fail, please do not get frustrated and leave the project. Continue to contribute to appease the "edit-counters" and try again. You might also want to try WP:ADMINCOACH. Good Luck! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Blah blah 'experience' blah blah blah, it's not like being an admin is hard and frankly most 'experienced' candidates are the worst ones, you know, the ones that spends hourss and hourss drama'ing it up at ANI. I can't see that there's any benefit in spending weeks Huggling. I prefer my admins to not be brain dead. Seriously, we have a polite, helpful editor here who's managed to edit for years without causing drama, I'm pretty sure he'll cope just fine with some extra buttons. THE GROOVE 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Wandering Courier (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Appears to be a quality editor: I'm disappointed at the editcountitis reasons for opposition; but I'm even more disappointed at the amount of times WP:NOTNOW has been cited as a reason for opposition, because, based on my understanding of that essay, it doesn't apply to Sephiroth storm. Acalamari 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Moral Support: Have interacted with him at the WikiProject Computing spectrum. calm and good editor, but I believe you need more experience for adminship. Since this RFA is supposed to not succeed, I give you my moral support -- Tinu Cherian - 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Clueful contributions. Unfortunately not enough in the areas needed to appease many. Not blowing up after the NOTNOW patrol pounced indicates a good temperament, too. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: This user will make a good admin. Willydick (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support- For being Bold! PerfectProposal 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: I looked through this users interactions with other editors and some of their contributions and feel cannot see them misusing the tools. AfD experience etc. is less of a concern (for me) because actual admin experience is best picked up as an admin. (I was planning on staying out of this one because of the low edit counts but am glad I took a closer look!) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Per WP:NOTNOW; you aren't ready yet. Try spending several months and have another crack. You're doing well, keep it up. :D  GARDEN  20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a little hasty.  GARDEN  08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Experience issues. User is not ready. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. In your answer to Q1, you say you want to work at AFD. You have exactly four edits to XFD (1, 2, 3, and 4). Two of those four were refactoring your previous edit. Sorry, but at this time there isn't enough evidence for me to ascertain your level of understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures in the areas in which you want to work. What I've seen so far is good, keep it up and I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral oppose, as per my comment above. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Sorry, but 1,184 edits in 22 months is simply NOT enough experience. Not enough experience in the areas candidate wants to use the tools in, plus the candidate's edit summary usage could be better. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the user is inexperienced, show some contributions that indicate that. Simply counting the number of contributions without looking at them doesn't make any sort of compelling statement about experience. rspεεr (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each person has their own view of experience. In this case, most of the opposes are saying the same thing - not enough experience. I suppose I could have opposed because I felt the self-nom being too short, would that have been better? I don't have to justify my !vote - the onus is on the candidate to PROVE TO THE COMMUNITY why they would make a good admin, and in this case, the proof is in the edit count, which could be misleading though, in that 924 of the candidate's edits have come in the past six months. Sorry, but those numbers still don't make me feel comfortable.ArcAngel (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to justify your vote? The fact that you put that exclamation point before "vote" means that you understand there's more to RfA than voting. If you consider RfA anything more than just a popularity contest, you should be able to back up your vote -- make it earn that exclamation point -- by discussing the candidate's strengths or weaknesses. rspεεr (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is asking for our trust. Burden of proof, in my view, is on him. Good point on the spelling, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral support - Per WP:NOTNOW. Sorry, not enough experience. — neuro(talk) 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Moral Oppose? ;-] K50 Dude ROCKS! 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't. I'm moving to support. — neuro(talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Useight. With all due respect to the candidate, I'd recommend withdrawal. Apologies. GlassCobra 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per not enuff experience. Try working more at XfD, vandal fighting, AIV, ANI, etc. flaminglawyer 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral. flaminglawyer 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're pushing me into supporting now. Success at RfA ought not to be about spending time in the sloughs of despond, but about judging a candidate's character from his/her contributions in whichever areas they have chosen to work. That's why edit count is important, at least up until a minimum level. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having answered question 1, Malleus, they will in fact be working in those "sloughs of despond". Synergy 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An area they have demonstrated no experience in, or understanding of. Perfect candidate, obviously. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fail. Synergy 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Epic fail. Malleus, they should demonstrate a basic knowledge of those "sloughs of despond" before they dive headfirst into them. flaminglawyer 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I wasn't judging him by his time spent in those "sloughs." I opposed based upon his general edit count, and was just giving some helpful hints just in case he decided to run again someday. flaminglawyer 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Slough of Despond. Learn something new every day. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Useight. WP:NOTNOW. JPG-GR (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per the well-researched comments of Balloonman directly below. JPG-GR (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose User has fewer than 1200 edits in two years---and that appears to be with the benefit of using tools! He has zero articles where he's made even 20 edits--while a few are meaningful, most of his edits are minor. Has only five pages (in User Talk, Wikipedia Talk, or Article Talk) where he has over 10 edits. This candidate doesn't even come close to the minimums of anybody who has passed an RfA in a long time. Plus sparse answers to the questions. While he has been around for two years, prior to six months ago he didn't have a single month where he had 40 edits... and only 4 where he had as many as 20---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I don't hold the nominee responsible for his supporters. But he does not yet have the experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The candidate has little experience, per Balloonman's observations. Someday Sephiroth may be a good admin, but he needs more experience. Majoreditor (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Useight and Balloonman. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose He does not have enough edits to be able to make a accurate evaluation but from what is there I see someone who is far from ready. Per Balloonman mostly but additionally edit summary usage is very sporadic which to me indicates someone not fully invested in working with others with respect to communication and explanation of actions, key requirements for good editors - more so for admins.--NrDg 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Not ready yet.The candidate has but a handful of deleted articles and only to AFD discussions that I can see. This is not sufficient experience for working with the deletion policies. I see no reports to AIV. The overall number of edits is about 1700. This is not sufficient overall experience in admin related articles or in article building for me to feel comfortable with support. Dlohcierekim 04:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Not a whole lot of XfD work as pointed out by Useight. SF3 (talk!) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose/Moral Support - Not alot of edits in areas he wants to work. It's hard to see how he communicates with other people because his talk page goes back to 2007. Consider increasing your edits in adminy areas like WP:HD, WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI etc., wait a few months and then try again. Matt (Talk) 04:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. NOTNOW. Not a comment on the merits of the candidate, just not enough to judge work on vandalism/deletion areas. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for now - needs to hang around desired areas more. Limited obvious vandalism-reverting/vandal-warning and limited xfd shifted me from "neutral leaning oppose." Roughly 1000 edits since June and less than 200 prior to that is a good start but wouldn't pull me out of neutral territory without something special that made me want to say "we'd be a fool not to invent a time machine and give this guy the bit yesterday." If your next 3-6 months are like the last 6 except you significantly increase your participation in the areas you want to use the admin tools in, you'll see a lot more supports. On a personal note, don't restrict yourself to just xfd and vandal-fighting, put your toe in the water for some other admin areas too, you may find you like them, or at least you'll know you don't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Enthusiastic editor. However he should have a lot more discussion and collaboration with other editors, especially at AfD, prior to becoming an AfD admin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. very good user--Mojska (m) 13:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a support, correct? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant good user, not good admin--Mojska (m) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose time is not experience, and the area you want to work in contains specialists that devote a lot of effort into the field. I don't think you are ready. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, due to insufficient experience in the areas where the candidate says he wants to work. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. (See RfA rubric), I look for contributions related to Q1 and your contributions. You clearly said you want to work with articles for deletion however looking at your contributions you haven't worked with it at all and I looked thru september (5 months). Also, many of your edits are minor. I appreciate your work however you don't work in admin-y areas. So I am going to have to say WP:NOTNOW and hopefully I can support you on your next RfA! =D K50 Dude ROCKS! 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Self-nominations aren't inherently bad (or good), but they are a bit controversial when a user has a suspect number of edits. Probably a good editor that would handle the admin tools well, but that has to be backed up by a solid edit history rather than just a gut feeling. Flying Cactus (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting clearly abusive sock, about to be hit with some sort of block. Don't mind me. — neuro(talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking through, this user is obviously a sockpuppet of the user who has been harrasing Gwen and other admins, this newest acccount is now blocked indef.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose 2 years, 1,200 edits, I've been here 4 months and have 6,000 edits so that's definetely not good enough to be an admin. Try again because you are on the right track.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Lack of experience in admin-related areas. —macyes: bot 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose 2 years is plenty of time but with only 1,200 edits I don't believe the user is active enough for these tools.-Kieran4 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I trust Balloonman's judgements; they are always based on thorough examinations. Graham Colm Talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Oppose I'm sorry, but I must concur with Balloonman. I truly believe that you will be an admin one day, but honestly, not now. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose but keep up the good work The nose is clean, the work is good, but the experience is not quite there...sorry, but that's just the way I see it at the moment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Sampled the nom's editing in the mainspace - not excited by the encyclopedic depth of the editing. For me, an admin must have experienced substantial encyclopedic editing to appreciate the issues that may call for his/her action. Maybe later. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Lack of experience, particularly at AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose not now, but good for future. — JoJo • Talk • 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not now. In the future, I hope. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. Willking1979 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, while you have been around for years now. You need to be more active in the Wiki in both Mainspace and Projectspace areas. Since activity and passion are what makes good admins.  Marlith (Talk)  04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose can use more experience in the mainspace and probably more experience over at AFD. I say that because I usually trawl around there quite a bit and have not seen the candidate much at all, let alone enough for whom I would consider an "AFD regular". MuZemike 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Tough 'un. I fully agree with both Malinaccier and Balloonman's points above, and cannot draw my own conclusion on this one. Best of luck with your RfA. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support. Hope that this isn't too negative an experience. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. Communication looks good, clue level looks good, but I'd really like to see more experience (and better edit summaries). Fortunately, both of these are easily fixed given a little time. I look forward to being able to support at a future RfA.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (moving from oppose) The lack of experience is present, but not extreme. I would support if he had more, because all I can see is good things from him. I would oppose if I saw anything bad from a user with as little experience as this, but there is nothing bad to see. flaminglawyer 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak abstain 72.65.192.52 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Indenting this , IPs arent allowed to vote, they may use the discussion section -- Tinu Cherian - 05:01, 6 February 2009 (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/Sephiroth_storm&oldid=1089812180"