Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Conrad Devonshire


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

Conrad Devonshire
Final (1/17/9) ended 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been active in RC patrolling and more recently new username patrolling. I have also participated in maintenance tasks such as Wikification and cleanup and have started several information pages regarding notable vandals. I have not been quite as active in adding new content to the article namespace thus far. If I were asked to discuss my faults, then these would probably be what I would cite:


 * I have only been a Wikipedian for about four months.
 * I have not always made best use of edit summaries and have made improper use of minor edits.
 * I have made some controversial and undiscussed decisions.

I don’t particularly expect to gain adminship this time, but I think this nomination will help me to see what others think of me and the ways in which I need to improve, if nothing else.– Conrad Devonshire  Talk  21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate the acceptance the nomination here: Self-nomination

Support
 * 1) Support. Meets my criteria, is a good user and will not abuse admin tools. DarthVad e r 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose- incomplete nomination (no questions, end time set up incorrectly), RFA shouldn't be used as an editor review, it's about deciding if you should be an admin now. Petros471 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, incomplete and malformed RfA. RandyWang (raves/rants) 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I move that a bureaucrat end the RfA early and that Conrad Devonshire seeks an editor review instead. Admin status is not being requested for the right reason, which is for the improvement of Wikipedia.  This is not a test of a user's standing in the community.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per reasons raised above. Sorry. G . H  e  22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Your worst points are in your nomination. Your answer to question 1 doesn't give me the impression that you really need the tools just yet, you pointed out RC patrolling which any user can do. You haven't been here that long and haven't got a considerable amount of edits. You should re-apply in at least 2 months time when you have more experience.-- Andeh 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per experience (esp. mainspace edits) and question. Improve on these and come back in at least 2 months. --WinHunter (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not enough experience in Wikipedia. Needs more experiences. *~Daniel~* 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose A distinct lack of expereince is a concern here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Start an editor review instead. Viridae Talk 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose not enough experience and please start editor review if you want to know your weaknesses as said above. -- Will Mak  050389  02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Take to WP:ER I know it might look good to start an RFA to see what you can improve on, but I would have rather seen you at WP:ER or somewhere else to ask people how you can improve. — The King of Kings  11:11 July 01 '06
 * 12) Oppose. Per above, and a lack of enthusiasm. -- Steel 12:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per above. Suggesting withdrawal and taking this to editor review. --Zoz (t) 14:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per all above. Suggest withdrawal. Roy A.A. 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose this half-hearted RfA per numerous reasons above. Please close it. Ifnord 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Too new. I'll support in four months or so. SushiGeek 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose per all above, suggest withdrawal and participation in Editor Review -- Samir  धर्म 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Neutral. I have seen you patrolling usernames, so I don't think it would be such an unreasonable idea, but your answer to question 1 doesn't inspire me as to your readiness. Also, I've found you to be less than ideal in an argument, which I think is a potential problem in an admin. However, given more time/activity, and more evidence that you can collaborate well with others, I could support. Mango juice talk 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, no point in opposing. Have a look at the criteria I use for approving admins. User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project also has a useful collection of standards, if your ultimate goal is to become an admin. Also try editor review. Grand  master  ka  03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I've seen you around and have seen your work, but using the RfA as an editor review doesn't give me the impression that you're ready for admin YET. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral You have adminship potential, yet you don't really seem to want or need the admin tools yet. Your honesty and humility are admirable qualities - it is extremely rare for a user to point out their own flaws at an RfA. If you became keener, I'd probably support in several months' time. Brisv e  gas  07:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - You have few mainspace edits, that makes me think about whether or not you are helping building an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, I believe you can become a great admin if you edit and improve some more articles and if you keep fighting vandalism. Afonso Silva 11:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral has not adequately explained why he needs admin tools. Eluchil404 16:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) M e rovingian { T C @ } 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8)  Oran e  ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral. Good user, and like Darth said, I doubt that he will abuse his administrative powers. However, the reasons mentioned above I don't think I can give him a support. Fr e ddie Message? 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry about the incomplete nomination. I didn't see instructions on how to do it and tried to do it the best I could hoping that someone more experienced would correct me if need be. And also, I'm not using this nomination strictly as a personal evaluation. I would actually be willing to accept adminship if I was granted it and I was just saying that if I didn't receive it, I would at least get some idea of what qualifications I would need in order to receive it in the future.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The missing parts of the nomination should be all here now.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Conrad Devonshire's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username	Conrad Devonshire Total edits	2175 User groups	user Image uploads	8 (5 cur, 3 old) (browse) Distinct pages edited	1034 Edits/page (avg)	2.10 Avg edits/day	15.22 Deleted edits	83 First edit	2006/02/08 02:21:30 Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits (Main)	643 Talk	80 User	199 User talk	625 Wikipedia	519 Wikipedia talk	59 Image	6 Template	31 Template talk	5 Category	6 Category talk	2 Move	39 Username	Conrad Devonshire Total edits	2782 Distinct pages edited	1354 Average edits/page	2.055 First edit	02:21, 8 February 2006 (main)	776 Talk	97 User	378 User talk	721 Image	6 Template	44 Template talk	6 Category	6 Category talk	2 Wikipedia	678 Wikipedia talk	67 Portal talk	1 Questions for the candidate 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:
 * Conrad Devonshire's edit count using Interiot's tool:
 * Conrad Devonshire's edit count using Interiot's tool2 (I posted this stat because the stat above is apparently from Interiot's edit counter tool in the toolserver)


 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.


 * A: I would use my abilities mainly to assist in RC patrolling and patrolling the log of newly registered users, and also in watching the Category for candidates for speedy deletion.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * A: I am pleased about my having in general put effort and diligence into my contributions. I believe that I have a good eye for perfection and am able to spot errors or areas for improvement that others miss. It is hard to pinpoint a single contribution that I am proud of, as most of them have been in the form of leser edits, but you may consider looking at Paper Mario, to which I have made significant contributions, and Sydney Carton, which I created and am the prinicpal contributor (though others have since edited it as well). I have also created several pages on prolific vandals, including WP:RR, WP:VV.
 * B: I have currently proposed two policies, the one with which I am the most happy is User:Conrad Devonshire/Better means of identifying when an article receives or loses featured status.


 * 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: My most notable past conflict involved my nominating the article "List of shock sites" (which has since been merged with Shock site for deletion. I made several mistakes regarding this. The first was that the article had survived an AfD vote just a week prior to my nomination (I did not however participate in any of the previous AfDs). Secondly, I contacted users who had voted in favor of the article's deletion during it past three nominations for deletion and informed them of this new AfD. In the future I will avoid making decisions that are likely to incite emotions and are against policy.


 * B: At various times I believe that I have aroused anger in other editors unintentionally due to the ways in which I have worded some of my comments. I feel that in general I have been able to resolve this situations well, but I admit that I do not always word things in the best way.
 * 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.