Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Taymaishu

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

TAYMAISHU

Final (1/8/1). Withdrawn by WJBscribe at 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Taymaishu (talk · contribs) – Self-Nomination Taymaishu (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I personally would like to assist in cleaning articles, compiling classes, and general help in RfD's and contributing positively to the community, upholding those values and policies of WP. I am a WP:NOTABILITY-lover, and i think this is something I can bring to WP and contribute in the best possible way.

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

A: I think presenting a case for the RfD of Jonathan Bonnitcha. There were extensive previous arguments over WP:NOTABILITY, however researching the person, i put new evidence in that made it clear he did not suffice for WP:ATHLETE notability. I compiled research, presented it and subsequently the page was removed under WP:NOTABILITY. Whilst I don't like having to subtractively contribute to WP, i believe it is important to keep the values of notability - the backbone of why Wikipedia is here.

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 not been in any editing conflicts/edit wars.

General comments

• Links for Taymaishu: Taymaishu (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Taymaishu can be found here.

My first RfA. I do understand that you may look at edit count, time on project - possibly as prerequisites, however if you are to do this please ask questions first. I am more than happy for you to make your recommendations, but please don't jump to conclusions.

I'm friendly, fair and willing to help out. Taymaishu (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate the offer but with only a week on the project, we simply cannot assess your editing well enough to grant you adminship. I suggest you withdraw this nomination, read the essay at WP:NOTNOW and re-apply after 3-6 months here when you have enough activity that your qualities can be assessed. Questions are good and fine but only action can really show people what you are like. Regards SoWhy 07:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page.  7  08:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support (Why is moral support listed under oppose?) -- Great that you want to help administering Wikipedia. Some areas here are, however, difficult to master, and mastering them will be what you have to achieve before your request will be granted. WP:CSD is a case in point, your tagging of Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies today was sub-standard. It was neither G11 nor A7 as indicated by you. A single Google check would have brought up the required sources. In fact, after checking this article you should have removed the WP:PROD template. --Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   I think moral support is listed under oppose so it doesn't confuse the bots, correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, maybe we're all just hypocrites who get off on being confusing. +Hexagon1 09:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Moral Support, your contribs look good so far, but 69 edits is simply not enough to get a feel of how well you know your stuff. I mean, 10% of your edits are to this RFA alone. Would be happy to support you in the future if you continue contributing positively though! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

   Thank you for your response - of course, the edit count is a large contributor and I do understand that. However, I am of the belief that 69 quality edits are better than 3,000 quality edits and one bad one.Taymaishu (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry, but your level of experience is simply not enough at this point in time. Recommend you withdraw this request, otherwise it will be snowballed. No offense, but your response to Lankiveil's oppose shows how naive you are as to the workings of the RFA process. ArcAngel (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your response, but how can someone be naive by aiming to make quality edits? That's the aim here - to improve WP on an ongoing basis by, yes, improving it. I don't understand why you're saying i'm naive by wanting to make quality edits to improve the project. Taymaishu (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose you still have a lot to learn here. For example your only picture upload File:Marie Ficarra.jpg has problems with being free. Remember that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, so no unknown copyright material, no rights restricted material and no fair use for portraits of people that are still alive and could easily be photographed by a wikipedian who asked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose with Moral Support. Excellent start! Really good work, but realistically most editors won't support the RfA of any editor of under a thousand edits, as a bare minimum. It's sort of like growing up, when you're little you don't realise just how much you have yet to learn and understand. Please keep up the great effort though, and don't be discouraged, you're well on your way towards someday coming back here and receiving my full support. +Hexagon1 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Hexagon, thanks so much - and yes I expected the 'edit number' to be the downfall. Taymaishu (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Moral support: I hate to pile it on, but you simply need more experience. Edits such as this, and uploading of a fair use image with no rationale and incomplete details (all of which are not exactly correct according to our policies and guidelines) indicate that you need to work more here and gain experience as an editor. If you would like to learn, I suggest you get adopted by an experienced editor, and get involved in different areas of Wikipedia. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you so much Chamal_N, I will follow that advice for adopted. Taymaishu (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose—Sorry, I just have the feeling all over that you're not yet ready. Please consider gaining experience in content editing and a good working knowledge of the major policies and guidelines, and renominate in ... six to 12 months? Tony (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. This POV edit alone, in which he replaced the earliest verifiable record with dubious latterday reference to rewrite history, indicates a serious lack of awareness of what Wikipedia actually is. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, bugger off, you kiwis damn well know we aussies invented Pavlovas! No, but seriously, he's new, cut him some slack. He attempted to source his edit and I'm sure he thought he was just attempting to improve Wikipedia. A week-old user who sources his edits, now that doesn't happen often. Bear in mind WP:AGF and WP:BITE. +Hexagon1 09:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   Still it is a RFA and we normally express reasons when we oppose. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

   At this point it's more a small-scale public peer review, and I am concerned about biting a budding editor. +Hexagon1 10:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose Too little experience. Suggest WP:SNOW Francium12 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. WP:NOTNOW - thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, no matter how good your answers to these questions, most community members will demand some evidence of how you do act in practice (rather than how you simply answer their questions).  7  07:27, 25 August 2009 (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.