Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecw.technoid.dweeb


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

Ecw.technoid.dweeb
Final: (1/8/3) Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Bradjamesbrown (talk) at 04:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Nomination
– Ecw.technoid.dweeb = myself. I have been *active* at Wikipedia for, admittedly, a very short while, but I feel that I might be able to help a bit with stuff like deleting CSDs people have tagged, were I provided with these tools. Thank you for responding to my request, whether in opposition or support — any advice will help me know how to further help the encyclopedia. (Even if it's "please leave, you are just making a mess"!) :-) Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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: Things such as deleting rubbish (i. e., things tagged for speedy deletion); blocking spammers, vandals, and trolls; and participating in discussions at WP:AN/I, which I frequent, though only as a reader, to keep track of what's happening. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Probably WikiGnomish work like new-page patrol, copyediting, and researching/improving disaster articles. I also have started a few articles (one example is Lyndley Craven).


 * 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: There have been a few minor tiffles. (See this, this, this, this, and this). However, they all resolved peacefully.

General comments

 * Links for Ecw.technoid.dweeb:
 * Edit summary usage for Ecw.technoid.dweeb can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Moral Support as this candidate appears to have good intentions. I would like to see less repetitive tweaking edits to articles and more use of preview. The response to the hasty initial closure of this RfA shows a level of maturity that is an admirable quality for an administrator. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supporting because you think he has "good intentions"? I takes more to be an admin than that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be missing the meaning of "moral support".--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but considering this RfA is currently your #1 most edited page in the Wikipedia namespace, I simply have no indication of experience in admin-related areas. Get some experience in WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, or any of the other admin areas first and I will be happy to support. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - basically per Shirik. I'd like to see some more experience in admin-related areas. I'd say give it another 6-9 months of active editing. Sorry, Airplaneman  talk 02:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - ditto. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. As above, not yet enough experience in admin-related areas to be able to support. I'd suggest following up on at least one or two of the suggested areas above and see what admin areas you like. But otherwise you seem to be a good area: I don't regard any of the "tiffs" you highlighted as actual disputes, and in my view your response to the premature closure of this RfA was very positive.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose While I thought the previous close was premature as did Juliancolton, I have to say that this is probably going to be closed the same way because you just don't have enough experience.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've concerns about speedy deletion notices on the user's archived talk and declined speedies. I would like to see the user gain greater experience. Please seeUser:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA for more suggestions. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, I see several hundred deleted CSD taggings, so I look forward to supporting in the future.  Dloh  cierekim  03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Going "no !vote" per interaction with user. No concerns w/ maturity.  Dloh  cierekim
 * 1) Oppose. Serious concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and maturity.  Recommend early close per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough experience. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, concerns about lack of experience to an appropriate degree. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - The candidate looks promising, but I would like to see a little bit more experience.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral On the right track but not enough experience in admin related parts of Wikipedia for me to be able to support. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I second the advice given by Shirik and others above. You really don't have any experience in the WP namespace areas (this is your top-edited page), so I can't support you for adminship. We need to see more involvement in administrative work (and mainspace articles, too) and look at demonstrable knowledge. As a candidate, you do look promising - you seem like a level-headed, decent editor. Try gaining more experience (in varied areas) and return in at least a few months from now. Keep up the work, stay out of trouble, become more familiar with process stuff, and I think you could get a strong level of support in the future.  Jamie S93 ❤ 03:28, 11 March 2010 (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.