Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BYMAstudent


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

BYMAstudent
Final: (0/5/1); ended 11:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

- superb at recognizing and correcting errors pertaining to the factual or grammtical accounts of articles BYMAstudent 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to take part in correcting factual and gramatical errors, expanding stubs into full articles and delete pages inappropiate to wikiperdia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would have to say best contribution ws the creation of BYMA which details about a little known school. ALso i have mainly done small edits all over wikipedia in order to correct factual errors.


 * 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 been in a total of 1 conflict with somone over editing. A person edited a page I was watching adding inappropriate and inane comments about the topic of the article (some were not pertaining to the topics an were mostly opinions. I left a comment on the user page explaining why this was not right and made sure that the page was reverted however this user lashed out at me calling me names (i misspelled perposterous in my comment to her)   I delt eith it as such i took a deep breath and resoned that she was unfamiler with the editing process i calmly explained why  the information did not belong on the page and stressed that it was not a personel attack on her. I would deal with other problems in the same way, i will show that any revisions on their information is jjust pointing out that the information does not belong in an article. I would stress that i am not trying to prove the validity of the statement (thus avoiding the i'm right your wrong  sqabble) regardles of if the validity was in question but whether or not it has a place in an article

General comments

 * See BYMAstudent's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for BYMAstudent:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BYMAstudent before commenting.''

Discussion

 * It's difficult to say this, but I suggest you withdraw from this RfA. Don't take this suggestion against you; you seems to be a good editor thus far and will gain the experience in time if you continue your course. Sr13 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also - why does the talk page redirect here? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk  -- (dated 10:46, 17 June 2007 UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Poor answers to questions, doesn't show any knowledge of policies or guidelines. One Night In Hackney  303  10:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Your answer to the questions suggests that you don't need the admin tools are, or you don't know what the admin tools are. Edit summary is crucial, and your edit summary percentage isn't very high. You don't have the sufficient experience that most users look for in an admin candidate. I suggest you stay for a few months until you've gained knowledge of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, as well as the different areas of Wikipedia before reapplying. Sr13 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Caged-In sort of oppose -- I just cant support you mate, and I cant even say neutral. You do not appear to even properly understand the admin tools, and you have only 200 edits. There is nothing i can do but oppose. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk  -- (dated 10:37, 17 June 2007 UTC)
 * I will say however -- you have good potential, and also - please dont take this too harshly. My advice: close this down before it becomes a bloodbath. Just my take. Good luck all the same. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk  -- (dated 10:54, 17 June 2007 UTC)


 * 1) Very Strong Oppose - Extremely poor answers to the questions, doesn't show that even knows what an admin does, in regards to Q1, lack of experience, and here are your Wikispace edits:
 * Wikipedia:
 * 5      Requests for adminship/BYMAstudent
 * 3      WikiProject Judaism/Members
 * 3      Requests for adminship
 * 2      WikiProject Jewish history


 * All admin work is tied to the Wikispace somehow, and I have no idea how you have any understanding of the system, policies, etc. It should be more like 232 edits to some Wikispace page, not 232 edits total. And only 13 Wikispace edits again! And 8 of them have something to do with this RfA. Come back when you gain some experience.  Cool Blue  talk to me 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you need to 'very strong oppose' for? Is there any way you could rephrase the above to sound even slightly constructive? Riana ⁂  11:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you follow the suggestions made by Riana below. In regards to Riana's question, I feel very strongly about my oppose. But I can't even do anything but an oppose when the editor has only 232 edits, 13 of them are to the Wikispace, and 8 of those Wikispace edits are to this RfA. He has no experience. I frankly would feel insecure with him as an admin, and he has no understanding of anything around here, so it would probably cause a lot of blunders. However, once the user gains more experience, then I'd be inclined to support.  Cool Blue  talk to me 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) (edit conflict x2)Strong Oppose - very few edits, which indicate a deeper problem with his editing. Most of the tasks the user lists are ones which do not require admin tools - the sole one which does not, deletion, does not appear to be one which this user is familiar with, showing very few edits to the deletion class of articles.  User also shows problems with basic editing markup , the purpose of certain tags , proper conduct when editing a user's talk page . Responses to questions are also underwhelming in the extreme, the user does not use edit summaries, nor is it even clear he really understand what an admin does.  The lack of care put into this Request, indicated in spelling errors, fills me with grave apprehension. All in all, a summary of the user's contributions does not demonstrate a clear understanding of policies or guidelines, or what an admin does, and though they are well-intentioned, I think adminship should be seriously premature at this point in time.  --Haemo

Neutral
 * 1) You've been here for quite some time, but you only have about 200 edits... there's not enough there for me to assess whether you would use the tools well or not. I would recommend getting an editor review, possibly signing yourself up for admin coaching, participating in writing/fixing articles, reverting vandalism, taking part in policy discussions, and maybe coming back after you have a few thousand edits - it will make it easier for people to make their decisions. All the best! :) Riana ⁂  10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, increase your interactions with other users. If you wish to be an administrator, you will need to be able to communicate effectively. Riana ⁂  10:23, 17 June 2007 (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.