Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adamfinmo

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

Adamfinmo

Final (3/6/5); Closed per WP:NOTNOW / candidate request by SoWhy at 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

adamfinmo (talk · contribs) – I have been a steady dedicated user to the project for nearly three years. I would like to be more useful to the project by taking up the tools. I have not been involved in any major disputes or battles and I don't have any blocks. I think that I would be a great asset to the project if I were given the mop. I will answer all questions to the best of my ability. My user name may come up, my name is Adam and I live in the American state of Missouri I used code to adjust the way my user name appears so that it would make some sense and be easier for other editors to read. I will answer all questions to the best of my ability and I promise to be fully truthful in my responses. Thank you.Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't succeeding so far, so if it reaches the point to close it per not now, please do so. Although I would like to see 12-24 hours of comments. Thanks.--Adam in MO Talk 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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 would like to do some anti-vandal work and dispute resolution. I have nearly 3 years of solid history with no major issues or problems. I think I will be useful with unblock requests and dispute resolution because I am not emotionaly invested in any particual issue or area of the project.--Adam in MO Talk 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

A: I have mostly been a gnome on the project, working at little pieces here and there. I clean up errors when I see them and I do a bit of lurking on ANI and I try to help out with things as I see them.--Adam in MO Talk 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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: Early on I had an issue with a user named Ecoleetage. We eventually came to an agreement on civil behavior and decided to make an effort to work together.--Adam in MO Talk 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/adamfinmo

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support - I think the opposition makes some valid points, but I see potential for a successful RfA in the future. Crafty (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral Support - Per Crafty ;). Airplaneman ^talk 03:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Moral Support: Great potential for a successful RfA in the future. Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but at the moment, I feel you don't have sufficient experience. In your nomination statement, you say you have three years of experience, but you've only been editing since December 2007, or about two years, and during that time you only made 1,140 edits. While editcount is a poor indicator of competence, you often make only a handful of contributions each month. Additionally, this leaves me concerned. Your work here is appreciated, and I'd happily reconsider in about four or five months if you become more active overall, but for now I don't feel comfortable supporting. Best of luck regardless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2. As Julian said. I dislike very much people who judge on edit account, but only one thousand edits for three years of experience just doesn't seem active enough. Thanks for coming here though.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Keep up the good work, you'll get there!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Julian and I am just not comfortable with your current level of activity. ArcAngel (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Moral Support but Oppose - You are a little unexperienced however the few contributions you do have are great. I thank you for your work you have done on the wiki. May I also suggest if you run for RfA later, you will get oppose votes for automated edits (Twinkle). Only 20% of your edits are Twinkle today, however that can rack up, and you will get oppose votes later. IT IS NOT BAD to use Twinkle. Keep working, and don't give up! Smithers (Talk) Give thanks! 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose, would like to see a bit more in the way of edits and experience. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I do not feel that you have enough all-round experience. A lot of the edits I see are minor edits, even if they are not labelled as such - if I missed a few major edits, I apologise - just present some diffs to show them. I can't support you at this time, and I do not want to continue to pile on the opposes, hence my neutral. Get more experience, and try again in the future! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2. From what I see, user has been around since 2007, but hasn't edited often enough to be considered worthy of the tools (onlt 1100+ edits in the past 2 years). No reason for me to support or oppose this one. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Moral Support I don't see anything to disqualify you. I also don't see anything to qualify you. Looking at the past few months, by month, your edits have been 8 in July, 1 in August, 11 in September, and 12 in October. I think an RfA candidate needs to be more active recently before throwing their hat in the ring. You need a few months more seasoning with heaver activity, and then try again. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral, with moral support Adam, you're a good editor with a respectable history on this site. There's no reason to oppose that I can see except for lack of experience, which you can easily fix with a few months of more active editing. That said, I recommend a non-bureaucrat closure per WP:NOTNOW. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Your heart is in the right place, so please do not be discouraged by this. If you come back with a few more thousand edits, I will most likely support you. Good luck in the meantime though! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 27 November 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.