Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Beals


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

David Beals
Final tally: (0/4/1) ; closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I revert disruptive edits and warn user, and now I also want to be able to protect pages and block users. David Beals (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Block user, and protect pages.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Create 5 new warning templates because we want to be able to warn user about redlinks.


 * 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: No

General comments

 * Links for David Beals:
 * Edit summary usage for David Beals can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/David Beals before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats on the talk page courtesy of Frank.  7  02:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) NOTNOW  7  02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Given the difficulty you had transcluding your RfA I don't think giving you the tools is in anyone's interests right now. Try again when you have more experience. Crafty (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
 * 1) Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
 * 2) Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
 * 3) Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
 * 4) Negotiate a compromise.
 * Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. ArcAngel (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose With only 147 edits, I don't think you're anywhere near ready for Adminship. The prior user covered that perfectly well.  Let me talk about something else.  Your answers to the questions are quite short.  For me to support you in the future, I would like to see much longer, more detailed answers that show your understanding of Wikipedia and its policies.  Maybe in a few months you'll be ready, but not right now.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I do not feel that you are ready for adminship. For someone to get my support, I would expect them to have been an editor for a bit longer than 4 months, with quite a lot more edits than the 147 that you currently have. I also want to see more rounded experience - some experience of SD, PRODs, AfDs, MfDs - plus contributing on AN, ANI, AIV and other RfAs. To be honest, I'm not even confident that you would know what all those acronyms are - and that is the main problem. I do not have evidence that you have enough knowledge of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:N, RS, NPOV, COI, AGF, BLP... I could go on! It's good to see enthusiasm, but it's far too early for you to be considering adminship. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:25, 27 November 2009 (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.