Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A.Minkowiski


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

A.Minkowiski
Final (0/13/3); ended 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW —John Cline (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) ' "I decided to enact an early close of this RfA under the provisions of WP:SNOW. In effect, this recognizes the validity of the emerging consensus; a uniformly clear consensus expressing an opinion that A.Minkowiski is not ready, at this time, to assume the role of an administrator. The consensus is equally clear that the candidate is progressing well; an opinion I share. I wish the candidate well, and join others in encouraging A.Minkowiski to continue his good work. Furthermore I extend my thanks to A.Minkowiski for all he has done, and for his willingness to further serve as an administrator. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)"

Nomination
– This user is a keen fighter against vandalism, spamming and the other afflictions that are sent to try us. He is relatively new, but has sufficient editing experience. I have checked that he has read the appropriate guidance, and I am not aware of any problematic interactions with other editors Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: I would not like to do anything with admin tools until I've contented myself that I have comprehend how to function the relevant tools properly. But after that I envision that I will spotlight on areas such as vandalism reports at AIV, requested moves, page-protection requests, CSDs, and XfDs, or other things that may require instantaneous consideration.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Actually, I never think in terms of "best contributions" ever. No doubt I’m new, but  I've done a lot of work in vandalism reversion, reporting then on AIV,  tagging pages for Speedy deletion that meets Speedy deletion criteria’s, leaving notes on new user's talk page to understand policies who keeps on creating something like autobiographies, advertisement etc. Also I have taken a part in AfD, sometimes clean up and copyediting.


 * 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, I've experienced conflicts like everyone else. The earliest(not major one) I can think of was at HTTPA-and they have occasionally caused me stress that it was not original research, the article was about http internet protocol that actually exists with HTTP name, while HTTPA was the latest unrevealed version of HTTP and the article itself said that ( It is a new internet protocol being developed by researches to thwart misuse of the personal data of users), and the idea of HTTPA was not in a position that there should be an alone article for it as it does not passes through the quality standards yet. I first suggested that it should be merged or redirected to HTTP, no one took an action. Although the subject was some how notable as it is an internet protocol that is being developed, but the idea has not been implemented yet in real world(nor any experiment taken) and there were no any authentic sources that showed that the idea will get success, or it is better than current http protocol. Since there are thousands of protocols but important are those that we use in daily life and have good coverage everywhere and are notable too. On the other hand, I requested to find reliable sources that might show the coverage of an idea and protocol in internet world, but someone tagged the article for improvement and  I just simply walked away, because no one were ready to get the idea of that research on HTTPA at that time.

General comments

 * Links for A.Minkowiski:
 * Edit summary usage for A.Minkowiski can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I hope to see the user back around these parts in several months time. A good editor with a suitable personality, but just not enough experience at this time. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Candidate Comment. Message copied from First of all I am not Native English speaker and I have good communication skill to deal with each user in Wikipedia. I first started learning about editing, then Wikipedia policies of WP:CSD ,AfD, WP:N, WP:V and all other policies. Then I regularly used to visit Admin board/areas like WP:ANI, WP:AIV , WP:DRN , WP:ANEW , WP:CCI , WP:SPI , WP:RCP, WP:VP and tried to get the idea how experienced editors and  Admin works. I know for RfA, there should be practical work and all of you can see how I have done my work just in 2-months. My actual working field is fighting against vandalism and monitoring others issues on admin boards. I am quite aware about admin policies and guidelines such as Administrators' reading list,Administrators' how-to guide in detail. I try to be an active almost 10-15hours a day. But from your discussion here, It looks like you don't need hard worker editor. And my dear sir Thomas.W yes I was begging for RfA not for my purpose, just only to have admin rights so that I can fight against vandals directly, I won't block any user as Blocking is the last resort. I know every policy! Unfortunately, no body is looking at my positive contributions, my work and efforts. Just only pointing towards few stubs that I tagged under a7 ? And I tagged that because one of the admin ordered me to apply speedy taggs on such pages because user were keep on creating unsourced stubs. Most of the editors here are only making this tiny good faith edit as an issue, only pointing negative things. But I respect every admin and admin comments and oppositions. Meaningless criticism make me dishearten, I am not asking for myself that please grand me admin rights.I asked for RfA to built up the Wikipedia and to have admin tools to fight against vandalism under certain terms and conditions(because content creation is not my field). I am quite aware about policies, Before creating my account, I used to learn about Wikipedia policies for 2-3 years. After that I created my account and started editing. Except those who were in touch with me and know about my work, rest of them are just in the sort of increasing number of OPPOSITIONS, making reason that this user account is new! Not looking at what I have done and what I want to do in the future. Yes my account is new but I am not a new in Wikipedia. I never expected this type of discussion on my experience and contribution. I left out my entire work and started learning about editing and policies in Wikipedia, ANI, AIV, page protection, VP, etc everyday and continued for couple of years before creating this account. Whatever the result of RfA would be(successful or unsuccessful), I think I might not continue editing anymore, not because of opposition or not getting admin rights, but because of personal attacks/criticism regarding my experience. I am not here for myself, I am just here only for Wikipedia. But Good to be here. At least try to understand that WHY Sir jimfbleak nominated me in RfA. You should consider my work and what I want to do If I become an admin before closing this RfA nomination. Thank you and best regards A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the !votes you'll find plenty of positive comments about your good work, but it's just too early for an RfA. Just accept it, and make a new try 6-12 months from now, when you have more edits and more experience. Because trying to keep this RfA alive is not going to help, and might even have a negative effect on a future RfA. Thomas.W talk 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, application of CSD A7 to articles such as these   is not something I want to see in an admin. Stats which show an individual has played for a professional football league are an assertion to notability. The answer to Q2 also suggests that the candidate has not done much article work. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * comment sorry, but with due respect, please see history what make me to tag these pages under A7? Have a look at . Thank you, and those who are talikng about my English Language, just simple answer I am not Native English speaker. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, those articles were created in good faith and they are not deletable per A7. A7 is meant largely for people writing articles about their friends, their bands, their companies etc, and speedy criteria should be used with great care for good faith contributions. For an article to be deletable per A7 it has to have no realistic indication that the subject could possibly be notable. In this case, we have notability guidelines for football players which say that if someone plays professional football in a league, they're notable, and these players have. Being "unreferenced" doesn't make an article eligible for A7 either, but in any case soccerway is a reliable source. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know sir, but another admin told me to apply CSD a7 tag as I mentioned in history link anove, since user were keep on creating stubs and were advised and warned by other admins not to create such stubs on players, and make one decent and sourced article about player. But I am wondering that why don't you point out my contributions instead of tiny good faith edits or simple errors that everyone makes? A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 11:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason people are focusing on your mistakes with speedy deletion is that we have to be able to trust admins to consistently delete correctly and to decline to delete correctly. BethNaught (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, the HTTPA discussion on the user's talk page and lack of edits to article space do not fill me with confidence that they would be a competent admin. Sam Walton (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as a Not Now. Nothing wrong so far but two month "tenure" is insufficient to understand the project; ~350 main space edits most (all?) of which seem to be reverts and gnome-like edits to citations is insufficient to understand content creation. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the bad CSD nominations and as NOTNOW. From reading their user talk page I am also concerned that their standard of English may not be sufficient to ensure consistent good communication, which is absolutely necessary in an administrator. BethNaught (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not Now as per QuiteUnusual  Brookie :)  { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 09:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose and close (WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW). A.Minkowiski is very eager to make a difference, and that is to be commended. However, I cannot support a request for adminship when the candidate does not yet even pass the requirements for AfC reviewing. By unwritten consensus, six months to a year of solid editing and maintenance work is the absolute minimum for consideration at RfA. Please don't be disheartened – it's simply that now is too soon.  Super  Mario  Man  ( talk ) 09:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) User only registered this account in April and experience appears limited to new page patrol so NOTNOW applies. I'm also concerned that A.Minkowiski raises this incident as a cause for stress. The nature of prods is that they can be challenged, especially if the reason given ("It may leads to original research of some one") is unclear or inadequate. Having a prod declined is not usually a cause for stress, especially for someone looking to become an admin. And one would hope a prospective admin would handle a declined prod by further discussion or taking the article to AfD to get wider consensus rather than attempting to redirect it in what appears to be a deletion runaround.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, for three reasons: a) too early, two months on WP and 2,000 edits (with 60% of those on user talk pages and only 20% in main space) is not nearly enough experience to become an admin; b), lacking language skills, as evidenced on both own talk page and the talk pages of other users, and c), too eager, posting on the talk pages of numerous administrators begging for both an RfA-nomination and barnstars to put on the user page, and not taking the hints about an RfA being too early, seems, to me at least, to indicate a lack of maturity. Thomas.W talk 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Sorry, too early, too few edits, not enough experience. Valuable editor with the hart in the right place. I expect them to become a good admin in perhaps another year. For now: SNOW. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Moral support. A general observation from my experience: nominating every single new article that is not obviously a speedy keep for speedy deletion will still result in a 80%-90% success rate. Enthusiasm appreciated, but WP:NOTNOW . Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose – per the candidate's insufficient experience on the project, as would explain simple errors made regarding inappropriate CSD tags. Generally, 2,000 edits or so in a matter of two months is far too little experience. I've come across this editor numerous times, and believe their heart is in the right place; fighting vandalism left right and centre. I would encourage  not to be disheartened by the result of this RfA should it be unsuccessful; but rather to continue their work combating vandalism, and perhaps submit their name forward to an RfA in 6 months or so. Good luck, — Mel bourne Star  ☆ talk 10:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per NOTNOW, The lack of edits in mainspace, The HTTPA discussion  and the answer to Q1 - "I would not like to do anything with admin tools until I've contented myself that I have comprehend how to function the relevant tools properly" which doesn't fill me with much confidence in this user. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  11:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the philosophical statement about (admin tools and rights) and unfortunately you are unable to get it. Please don't get confused A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 11:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that.... I perhaps read in to it too much!, God knows! – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per NOTNOW. This is a new editor who is showing a lot of promise. Based on a quick glance at their record, I suspect that in time the nominee could be a valuable addition to the Sysop team. But there is no way I could support handing over those kinds of tools to someone with so limited experience and track record. Come back in a couple of years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir as per you suspection, Yes my account is new, but it does not mean that I don't have any knowledge or experience about admin policies and guidelines as I mentioned above. I can guarantees you and assure you if I become an admin, I won't use any admin tool against any policy as I am well aware about them. If you OR any of the admin/editor find me using admin rights and tools wrongly anywhere, just block me at that time without noticing me that I am doing wrong with admin rights/tools. This is the best that I can do and I promise for that. Thank you A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I am not a fan of opposes. The user has done good work here. Echoing others' comments, I also agree that the candidate needs more experience. I think the message given to the candidate is clear now.  Jianhui67 T ★ C 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I've had several positive interactions with the candidate. He is a good faith editor, a little wikipediaholic and most importantly, a good learner. A total of 2028 total edit counts and 59% of them to user talk pages, only 359 to main and 319 to wikipedia does not allow me to flag support for the candidate. Some more thousands edit to main and wikipedia and a year more experience may make the candidate a real good rfa candidate. Sorry for this time. I'll assume good faith that, this rfa process will not bring discomfort to the candidate. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  11:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I've moved the candidate's lengthy comment from the Oppose to the Discussion section as it was breaking the !voting numbering - and it seems like a more appropriate place for it. Anyway, some thoughts..., please don't take the rising number of oppose votes too hard - with nobody for years passing RfA without at least six months to a year of service and at least 5-6,000 edits, I think it was clear from that alone that you would not pass just yet. Yes there are criticisms of some of your actions here, but they're not personal - and close examination (and criticism) of your actions is exactly what you should expect if you run for admin. To be honest, if you get upset at this mild level of criticism, you may not have the temperament for admin anyway - admins get a lot more dirt thrown at them than that, and need pretty thick skins. Looking over the comments, I do think you're getting praise for your good work here, and I add mine too - thank you for your valuable contributions. Please don't be too disheartened, and please please do not quit over this. But the bottom line is that you're not ready for admin yet - and that is not a reflection on you personally, just on your relative lack of visible experience at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: You might have plenty of knowledge through extensive reading of policies, and lots of experience editing without registering in the past, but unfortunately that can't really count for a lot here because people cannot see it. And with Wikipedia policies making it so hard to remove an admin's rights should they turn out to be unsuitable, the community simply won't hand over those rights based on personal promises - again that's not personal, it's just the way it is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2014 (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.