Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel 123


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

Daniel 123
(Final 1/13/3) Ended 23:18, 2006-07-19 (UTC)

– I believe the user in question is an active participant in the Wikipedia community and deserves to be an admin. Dan 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.


 * Support
 * 1) Moral and conditional Support as somebody who has made a similar mistake (putting up for election as an admin too early) I will give you my support on the condition of candidate withdrawal, make a few more article edits, do some vandal fighting, and then you will be more suited to being an admin. This follows the guide I was given when I put my nomination in too early. Seivad 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose User is very inexperienced! Has only been on Wikipedia 3 months and has only 137 mainspace edits. -- Tu s  pm (C 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose fails almost all of my standards. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, inexperienced user and the spelling errors in his responses to questions don't bode well for the possibility of him being a careful admin. Catamorphism 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry, but with only 250 edits there is no way for us to judge whether you'd be a good admin or not. Most editors who express an opinion on RfAs expect at least 2500 edits over 3-4 months, and some have considerably higher expectations. I suggest you withdraw gracefully and try again later in the year when you have a lot more experience on Wikipedia. You might also try recent changes patrolling which gives you a good idea of the issues that admins often have to deal with and good exposure to other editors. Good luck, Gwernol 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Daniel 123, you should withdraw and have another go at it in a few months. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose no way is this user admin material yet. --Alex9891 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Try to get at least a thousand edits before trying out to be admin. -ScotchMB 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Don't take this the wrong way, but is this nom a joke or something? TruthCrusader 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Eagle 101 and Gwernol. - Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per above and bad spelling/grammar. Please don't take this offensively, but the way messages are written in discussion namespaces, reflects your abilities in the article namespace, both in quality and attention to detail. In one question you spelled "i" not capitalized, and mispelled "content", "priviledge" and "professional". Sorry, H ig hway Batman! 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong oppose. I'm not a huge edit-counter, but it's funny to remark that if you multiplied all his edits by 10, the nominee would barely qualify most people's requirements (only 17 total edits to Wikipedia namespace is particularly low). Weak answers (Q1 doesn't even explain what tools are being looked for), typos in the nom's answers didn't help either. Please do not be discouraged, continue to contribute and wait perhaps 6 months before accepting such a nomination. Themindset 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Although age is rarely considered relevant, the fact that the nom is 11 years old (as stated on his userpage) may be worth considering. Themindset 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. Sorry, but you onlly have 250 edits. The problem is that if you only have less than a thousand edits on your account, you need more. It's better that you should withdraw nomination, work on more edits, try to join VandalProof, and come back in a few months. Thanks. Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Let's wait a little longer and see how he measures up to the criteria in maybe 6 months to a year. Inexperienced. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Just to avoid a pile on. It will never come to a close vote. Suggest User withdraw. Viridae Talk 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I suggest withdrawing from this RfA.  If you have any questions on how to become more involved in Wikipedia, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.  Also, if you want some more experienced advice, perhaps sign up for admin coaching.  This program will set you up with a mentor of sorts who is currently an administrator on Wikipedia.  He/She will be happy and eager to help you get involved with some "administrative" tasks that any user can perform.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral WP:AGF notwithstanding, like TruthCrusader supra, I wondered whether this nomination was a facetious one, not least because the article adduced as a significant contribution is, though well crafted, not that which one would hope a user would note as his best work, and in view of the sundry grammatical and orthograpic errors in the question answers. Assuming arguendo that the nomination is sincerely essayed, though, I'd suggest that, even as the user may be eminently qualified for adminship (as, for example, a pensive and civil contributor well acquainted with extant guidelines such that he would be unlikely to abuse or, through ignorance, misuse the admin tools), the body of his contributions simply doesn't provide one enough of a history from which to apprehend judgment, but that, as others have suggested, should his quality work continue, it's most probable that an RfA in six to twelve weeks should succeed.  Joe 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * See Daniel_123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username Daniel 123 Total edits 250 Distinct pages edited 118 Average edits/page 2.119 First edit 20:56, April 17, 2006 (main) 137 Talk 30 User 43 User talk 10 Template talk 1 Help 2 Help talk 2 Wikipedia 17 Wikipedia talk 6 Portal 2
 * Edit count: — Mets 501 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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, 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 anticipate greatly being able to better help fellow wikipedians by helping to stop vandalism on pages, as this is a hinderance to the article's ability to improve.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am particularly pleased with a page I wrote called "1984 Pulitzer Prize". I feel that i did a good job writing it in a very proffesional way, with good formatting and factual contenet.  This was on the "most wanted articles" list at the time i wrote it.


 * 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: I try to avoid a conflict over editing as much as i can, and rarely run into this problem. When i can clearly see I have a minor point of view, I usually decide that it is better for Wikipedia, as a whole, if I let others decide rather than revert the majority.  Unless, of course, i know that i can find an undisputed factual source that shows my opinion to be true.

I believe that I (Daniel_123) should be and am deserving of the privaledge of being an administator. I have contributed to Wikipedia in many different areas. (Literature, Sports, Biographies etc.) I often work on articles that are either "most wanted" or "in need of improvement". I often start or expand my own articles. (1984 Pulitzer Prize). I believe that I am good at maintaining a neutral point of view and am an active contributer to wikipedia. Thank you.
 * 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.