Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brylcreem2


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

Brylcreem2
Final: (1/11/0) Ended 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

- Hello there, Although I am only new to the Wikipedia community, I do feel a strong sense of intermutual spirit which helps enforce the strong rules and conduct set by JimboWales and other administrators which enables Wikipedia become a not only impressive but also exceptionally beneficial encyclopedia to all those who edit and read the thousands of articles produced every day. And because of this I am very pleased to announce that I shall be nominating User:Brylcreem2 as not only have they given me much advice on how to revert vandalism, revert mistakes, correct spellings, prove external sources amongst others, but they have shown me the three revert rule and shown me how to create/improve articles successfully, which I am glad to say, I have done. And because of this I believe administratorship is the only way to reward such a valuable member of this internet society, as then they wouldn't only be helping me but others also. Radio orange 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my nomination - Brylcreem2
 * Optional Nomination Acceptance: I would just like to say a short appreciation notice to User:Radio_orange, I do do many of the things they noted but I also do more. Thank you for noticing my laborious efforts, I have long strived for notability, and also I would like to repeat as I said before, thank you. - Brylcreem2

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: As I'm an operative and fully willing participant in all kinds of areas throughout the English Wikipedia, such as WP:Afd, WP:Cfd, WP:Ifd and such, (even though I do take more participation in Afd, as I a more familiar with that particular policy). I haven't tagged many articles recently, due partly in turn to many important tests which shall decide my future in life. There are many admin tasks which I would fully co-operative in contributing to, such as WP:AIV and WP:ANI, because I am not only intrigued with the system but also impressed with the way the present administrators deal with persisent vandalism. But as many of you may or may not well know I am yet to take a significant role in this policy enforcement.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Wow, well I usually take part in minor edits due to the lack of time I get on my computer, but the longest article which I have produced is this which I believe is the maximum length you can note upon a school. Some of my minor edits have been drawn to the attention of administrators which have commented positively on suggestions I have made on pages. I am in the process of making templates and unfortunately for me I have neglected my Wikiproject on Automobiles, which I have an extensive knowledge on.


 * 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 have been in this exact situation, but not very often so it must mean my edits are somewhat exceptionally correct. But on the occasion when this did happen, a user decided an article I wrote on a local recreational ground/park was incorrect and non-worthy of a place on Wikipedia. I first aplogised for the inconvenience that I had caused him and then inquired what he had meant in the presiding response, which, well didn't have much to do with the article. Later on, I made examples of contributions which directly contradicted the argument he was trying to force against me. This is the way with most causes I deal with in real life, I try to always find an example to contradict or to just look at my argument in the first comment and see if I had made a mistake (and if so apologise again), so therefore this is how I will deal with it in the future.


 * General comments


 * See Brylcreem2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Moral Support - your answers are fine and your a good but inexperienced editor. I've no doubt that in a few months you'll have built up a lot more experience on WP and will be ready for another go - Alison ☺ 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Not enough experience yet, and adminship is not a reward. Try back in a few months with more experience and a nomination statement which doesn't include "rewarding" you. Amarkov moo! 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Adminship is not a reward. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support - you are obviously a dedicated Wikipedian, but most administrators have more experience - I hope you will continue to edit and apply again in the future. Also, please try to use edit summaries more frequently. Edit summaries help other editors when they are going through article or contribution histories. --BigDT 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Intermutual oppose. Inexperience.  A  Train ''talk 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Agreed that you should focus on improving edit summary usage, and that more experience would be helpful. (You don't have many more edits than I do, and I certainly don't think I'm sufficiently prepared for adminship yet, for reference). JavaTenor 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to lack of experience. 652 edits in total and an admitted lack of participation in the policy areas of Wikipedia with a further admission that exams are taking up your time demonstrate that you are a long way from requiring the admin tools to perform your chosen tasks.  Up your participation in all major spaces and try again in twelve months' time. (aeropagitica) 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per lack of experience. I'm also perturbed by the 13% usage of edit summaries for major edits. Finally, as has been said many times already, I believe, admin is not a reward. Goodnightmush  Talk 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose unfortunately the one article you mention that you are proud of has no sources so is unverifiable: verifiability is one of our three core content policies. You mention in your answer to Q1 you say: "even though I do take more participation in Afd, as I a more familiar with that particular policy" but you've only participated in one AfD debate. So, I'm afraid I have to oppose this. I'd suggest spending the next few months contributing further to articles and AfDs, building up your knowledge of policy and then seek an editor review. Good luck, Gwernol 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Too soon. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Thank you for your desire to serve but I think a bit more time is required. I'm not too far ahead of you in the counts and I know I wouldn't be ready. Rack up some more edits and we'll see you again soon.  Jody B   00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - Lack of Experience, lack of Wikipedia Edits and your Edit summary usage is too low..Maybe next time....Be an all-rounder editor..-- Cometstyles 00:14, 15 April 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.
 * 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.