Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bart133 2


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

Bart133
Final (0/7/1) Ended 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

– I have been constantly working on Wikipedia to prevent vandalism for a long time, and I would like to be an admin in order to make it easier. Also, I almost made it several months ago.
 * Withdrawn. Obviously, the majority of Wikipedians have not noticed Jimbo's statement that 'adminship should be no big deal.'

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Preventing vandalism.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Not really.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: The only conflict was one over Fruit Brute.


 * General comments


 * See Bart133's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
 * First request for adminiship, February 2005: Requests for adminship/Bart133.



Discussion



Support

Oppose
 * 1) User's last 500 edits look good, except that they cover an entire year. Not really active enough. — CharlotteWebb 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per weak answers to all questions. You're supposed to be thorough in your answers to these questions. Also, your last RfA failed with a vote of 9/8/5. That's not close at all!  Nish kid 64  15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No obvious need for tools. – Chacor 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The answers to the questions don't reveal a requirement for the admin tools or a knowledge of policy and process. The user's low rate of participation over the course of this year indicates that they wouldn't be much assistance in clearing the admin backlogs.  I suggest that Bart133 withdraws this RfA and seeks an editor review instead.  Then, with perhaps 500+ edits per month for a few months in 2007, they can go for some admin coaching to prepare them for another RfA in six months' time.  The intervening time can be filled with finding references for articles; creating articles from the requested articles lists; reverting vandalism and warning vandals and participating in XfD discussions, where they can demonstrate their grasp of policy and process. (aeropagitica) 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Answers to questions fall far short. --Deskana talk 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. His answers to the three questions have a total of 12 words. His description of having almost suceeded in his last RfA (with less than 55% support) leads me to believe that he doesn't quite understand the RfA process. Given that he put virtually zero effort into his RfA, I don't see any reason to grant adminship at this time. SuperMachine 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, per SuperMachine. Most responses to your RFA are longer than your RFA itself. -- Renesis (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Sorry, but your answers to questions aren't particularly compelling :) You can help prevent vandalism without admin tools, and if you up your contribution rate, spend some more time looking around the place participating in XfDs and such, and request an editor review, an RfA sometime next year might just work out. Good luck! riana_dzasta 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I see you're already on review. I'll try to drop you one sometime tomorrow, if you like. riana_dzasta 16:21, 1 December 2006 (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.