Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrewmc123


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

Nomination
(1/4/1); Scheduled to end 18:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Closed per WP:NOTNOW. It Is Me Here  t / c 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

– Andrewmc123 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I nominate myself to be an administrator Andrewmc123 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've been a user since 2008, although I only started to edit again in December 2008. I am used to the format of Wikipedia and am able to add infoboxes, tables etc. to articles. I have a good knowledge of the deltion policy, especially for speedy-deletion. Thank you for taking the time to read through my request.

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 intend to help prevent vandalism on articles. I will watch the Recent Changes page to help revert vandalism. I will help in the AfD debates and problems. I would assist in any other way once I an aware of administrator rules etc.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are pages on the Scottish televison soap, River City. I am in the process of updating character pages. Other contibutions include Grange Primary School, Monifieth and assissting other users in improving the articles they are working on. I am an active member of WikiProject Schools and assist in the assessment of school-related articles. I like to contribute to WikiProject Schools because I would like to help improve articles about schools and colleges.


 * 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 conflicts over editing in the past. However, I have saw other users debating about it on Talk Pages. I think that the best way to deal with edit conflicts are to keep cool and try to work out a compromise with the other user(s). If we could not work out a compromise, I would perhaps view the other user(s) work and add to it, rather than removing it or starting an arguement.

General comments

 * Links for Andrewmc123:
 * Edit summary usage for Andrewmc123 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Andrewmc123 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Moral support --Tikiwont (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) NOTNOW oppose - Sorry, but you only have about 600 edits. While editcount isn't a decidign factor, most of those were simply rating school articles' importance. I'd like to see much more experience in an administrator. Please keep working for a few more months, and I'll reconsider. X clamation point  18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support While your enthusiasm is commendable, I don't think that you're quite ready yet.  Sam  Blab 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above Lets  drink  Tea  19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, a little too soon. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:40, 8 March 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.