Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Youndbuckerz

(edit conflict) It seems that i have again conflicted with an early close. The following is what my vote was to be.

1. Support As to the candidate, at 86% article space edits, over 4K edits, no automated edits, and with this account over a year old Youndbuckerz would meet or come close to the standards of some who declare standards. If there had been a little bit of coaching to refine some rough edges and offer some guidance this RfA might have passed. Perhaps later in the summer or autumn a second RfA might. ~~~~

Having now looked at the diffs of the project page since i began reviewing it appears to be just a joke. The 40some minutes i spent reviewing the candidate, can i get those back? delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 02:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm assuming it wasn't a joke, more like he made the mistake of thinking that RFA didn't take a lot of preparation; got insulted; got upset about some of the comments, and reacted sub-optimally. I could be wrong, of course, but I think we're supposed to assume the best. That might even be written down somewhere. My guess is your careful evaluation of his contribs will be appreciated by him when the sting wears off. If not, it's appreciated by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when the candidate does this after the !votes don't go his way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to assume bad faith when the candidate has at least 4k useful, helpful edits under their belt. I note that the edit you mention occurred after he was accused of being a vandal, and mocked by several opposers. Wise? No. Understandable? Yes, at least to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Up until that edit, it looked like a good-faith request. That edit may have been just expressing anger over the outcome. I just hope he makes an attempt to understand how RfA works for next time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Its is hard to trust after the edit to change votes and it is hard to not understand the frustration that would be felt with an RfA like this. For a candidate who clearly has limited experience in this corner of the wiki and pretty much just adds content having an RfA labelled a joke, vandalism, and a waste of time is not helpful at all. Fastily has solicited all qualities of untranscluded RfA. Imagine you are a casual user who wrote an RfA some time ago and you find you have this message from an admin asking if you wish to have people vote on your becoming an admin. Though it may not be intended and may even be spelt out in the fine print, any acknowledgement of an untranscluded RfA is likely going to be seen as an affirmation of their candidacy. Most people will have interest in pursuing admin when they are reminded about it. Some will follow through. This candidacy had a decent chance if Fastily had first offered a little help or arranged for someone else to mentor Youndbuckerz. Youndbuckerz' most recent edit, as of writing this, is to ask Xeno what he needs to do. He asked a few other people too. The style is unpolished compared to what one would expect from someone who has had more interaction with their fellow citisens of the wiki but the sentiment is there.

It was pointed out to me earlier that by being offended by the lack of a nomination statement by the time you got to Answer 3 it came across as flippant and demanding promotion to admin. I saw the lack of a nomination statement. I looked to see how many edits the candidate had. Anything > me surely gets my attention. My quick assessment: content contributor, specific field of interest, does not often venture to other corners of the wiki. I read the Q&A as someone who just doesn't know what is expected here. By the time i got to A3 i read it as willing to let go, to move on, to not hold a grudge. Opposition like this is usually seen when the candidate has something like 17 or 253 edits. To oppose a candidate who, at present, has 4299 live edits like that because he is ignorant for having spent too much of his time in article space just seems off.

I don't really read rugby articles but for those who do Youndbuckerz has been a wonderful benefit. Someone who has the potential to be a serious admin candidate next time around but who is clearly a probie in this area of the wiki needs friendly guidance not allegations and accusations that come from the candidate's ignorance of this corner of the wiki. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 05:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconding everything said by Deliriousandlost and Floquenbeam. I fear regular RFA participants get so used to seeing the usual RFA candidate that anything out of the ordinary in an unusual candidate's RFA statement and answers is seen as a weakness, or worse. Labelling this editor a vandal is at odds with the content work he has done in the project over a long period of time.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)