Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TwinTurbo
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.
Final (0/7/1); ended 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW Widr (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
[edit]TwinTurbo (talk · contribs) – I am very knowledgeable on hip hop related articles and do produce the pages I edit/create to high standards TwinTurbo (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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:
- Stop accounts who are causing vandalism
- Delete non-standard images.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A:
- 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: Yes, over the page Demigodz, it was deleted when I had created it over poor sources, so I recreated it and improved the sources but it still got deleted so I requested a recreation of the page but failed, so I decided to wait up for someone with better knowledge on the article to contribute.
General comments
[edit]- Links for TwinTurbo: TwinTurbo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for TwinTurbo can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
Support
[edit]
Oppose
[edit]- Oppose Experience level is good, but a long block log, as well as a sockpuppetry case doesn't give me any confidence to support this candidate. I'm also surprised that you actually left the first question blank. Minima© (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the first question is not blank, he uses a bulleted list. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose which should have been very obvious from the beginning. It is so clear that TwinTurbo has almost no proper experience with regards to admin-related work. I don't think getting things improperly dealt with is nice to see of a potential admin. This RfA needs to be closed early as per WP:NOTNOW since we see that we're just offering the candidate a dry mop that can't help clean up the fuss in the wiki. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose very clearly WP:NOTNOW; I recommend the candidate withdraw or that this be closed early. Yunshui 雲水 14:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. WP:NOTNOW and likely not for quite a while. Only 2100 edits, but already a significant block log, a significant record of disruptive and promotional editing and of copyright issues (see the candidate's talk page and the history of that talk page). On top of everything else, the editor's userpage is misleadingly displaying a "Master Editor" service award, which requires 42,000+ edits and at least six years of service. Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This editor does not have enough experience editing wikipedia and has already built a significant block log and a sockpuppet investigation. In addition, I found little evidence of significant collaboration with other editors and only 54 edits in the File name-space: not enough to prove that the editor is knowledgable enough to properly "delete non-standard images", as stated in the administrative work the editor wishes to do. Bureaucrats should consider closing this RfA early under the WP:Snowball clause. - tucoxn\talk 14:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry - can't support this --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow oppose - The extremely poor formatting of the RfA would be enough on its own to make me reluctant to support this. Beyond that, the very questionable block log is a major concern, although, since the last block was a year ago, I'd be able to let that go if it was the only issue. The misrepresentation of the number of edits this user has, via that barnstar, is a problem, but the fact they've made just 2100 edits makes this very much a WP:NOTNOW situation. There is no explanation of how the pages listed in this RfA are the user's best contributions, which is particularly problematic given that the two or three I've looked at were not created by TwinTurbo. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- moral support. This is not going to pass per the appropriate rationales above. However, this user is turning around, having several of his articles go through the AfD process, without becoming defensive, and accepting and implementing advice. I encourage this direction, and hope to place my support vote in the future, but probably in about 2 years and another 10,000 edits, which should be enough to demonstrate that they understand the policies on copyright and promotion. Thanks for your interest! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (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.