Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123 2


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

Danielrocks123
[ Voice your opinion] (7/12/3); Scheduled to end 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- I am a good editor with 2500+ edits to Wikipedia. I have a previous failed RfA in which I attempted to become a sysop before I really had any idea of what Wikipedia is all about. I spend a lot of time monitoring Special:Newpages and tagging articles for speedy deletion. Because these articles get deleted, they do not show up in my contributions. Also, I have lately not had access to my normal computer on which I have installed AmiDaniel's VandalProof, but when I am able to use that computer, reverting vandalism is another use of my time. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nomination. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:50, 4 March 2007 (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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: The ability to block vandals would help me out in my efforts to stop vandalism, but my main concern will be continuing my work monitoring Special:Newpages and deleting articles that clearly don't belong here. I have occasionally become frustrated when I have tagged an article on a clearly non-notable subject for speedy deletion, and the creator simply removes the speedy deletion tag.  It has occasionally taken me days to get articles on random high-schoolers deleted.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I would have to say that I am most pleased with my efforts working with the Wikipedia Mediation Committee. I am an active (albeit fairly new) member of that committee, and the opportunity that I have had so far to help resolve disputes has really made me feel good about my contributions.


 * 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: Of course, as a member of WP:MEDCOM I deal with conflicting parties all the time. However, by remaining neutral throughout the proccess, I am able to avoid directly arguing with anybody.  Many people tell me that I am too non-confrontational in my nature, but I feel that it is a positive attribute to be able to deal with other people without becoming angry or upset.  I intend to maintain this attitude while I work on Wikipedia.


 * General comments


 * See Danielrocks123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion


 * Ok, well it's clear that this RfA won't succeed, so I'll withdraw. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - My only nitpick is that I don't see any uses of nn-warn, though you claim to do speedy deletions. ST47 Talk 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this user does have 397 deleted edits.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good user overall. An RFA is not about who often a user will use a sysop tool but if he/she will use the tool right.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As a NP patroller myself, I know exactly what you're talking about. We need some fresh blood of administrators working the speedy backlog, and you're doing a great job so far. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - high volume of Speedy work shows a clear requirement for the mop, coupled with obvious evidence of the cool-headed Wikipedian we need from his MedCom work. anthony cfc  [ talk] 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, looks okay to me. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nice editor.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - all the oppose votes are based on pure editcountitis. I haven't seen a single intelligent reason to oppose this RfA. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose sorry, but less than 300 edits since November 2006 shows lack of activity, plus a lot of your recent edits seem to be using VandalProof and AWB, I'd like to see more real-life interaction with pages and other editors. However, this doesn't mean to say that you're not a good contributor to WP and the last thing I want to do is discourage your edits here.  Spend some more time making edits to articles, communicating with other editors, to show the community how you react in a variety of environments, and re-apply!  All the best... The Rambling Man 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I'm not one for counting edits necessarily, but the user has less than 300 edits in total since the beginning of November 2006. He simply has not been active enough to demonstrate the level of commitment to the project that admins must have. Suggest withdrawal, increased participation, and retry several months later. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my answers to the questions, many of my edits have come on pages that have been deleted. Also, as I mentioned before, I have not had access to my home computer.  This should change soon, though.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Data 34 days old shows this user has 397 deleted edits.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above votes. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per The Rambling Man. Michael 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Less than 2 edits/day for the last 4 months. If you are having trouble with speedy deletions and improper removal of the tag, I would expect more warnings in user talk, or reports to AIV. &mdash;dgies tc 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not enough edits, dude! --Mr. krabs 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This vote was cast by a user blocked as a disruptive sock. Jesse Viviano 04:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose First, I absolutely commend the user for participating in MedCom. I wish one of the default admin questions dealt with helping users through various dispute resolution processes. So I'm sorry you did something I think so highly of, but I cannot support.  You state as a reason that you long for the delete button but after reviewing your deletion voting and nominations (particularly) I cannot trust you with that tool. SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant but firm oppose, I do think it is only a matter of time before you get the buttons, but as SchmuckyTheCat points out, your reasoning on Articles for deletion/Northgate, Seattle, Washington indicates a lack of familiarity with AfD notability guidelines. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, isn't that what AfD is for? As an administrator, I would never delete an article without knowing that deletion was the community's concensus.  When I say that being able to delete articles would be helpful to me, I am mostly talking about speedy deletions and proposed deletions where it is pretty clear what the result should be.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, needs more experience generally and should have better knowledge of notability guidelines. Lack of edits, hope to see more editing. Terence Ong 11:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per lack of activity over the past few months.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't deny that my recent editing has been limited, but I also have lots of older edits that should make it clear that I have no intention of misusing admin tools. My edit count is not as high as that of some other users, but I don't think that should be a reason to oppose.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - You need broader activity as well as more time spent familiarizing yourself with policy and procedure. Come back, though, you are headed in the right direction!  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Kukumi & others Johnbod
 * 3) Oppose per lack of contributions in the past months. Anyway, happy editing, Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral- Lack of edits. But you are still a good user, but I'm not sure if I should support. --Garfield the Cat 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per concerns raised above. - An as Talk? 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral oper the questionable AFD nomination.-- danntm T C 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral To avoid pile on, please withdraw, do some article writing, and try again in three months. Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - Give it a few more months than come back please, alot of users are like you keep it up though. Artaxiad 00:51, 6 March 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.