Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eduemoni


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

Eduemoni
Final (0/6/1); ended 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW -  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)  (Originally scheduled to end 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Nomination
– Well, I can't describe myself perfectly, but I'll try. It has been 5 years since I joined wiki family, I aided others in writing featured and good articles, and I wrote a good article (as a solo work), it was my master edition, even though I couldn't maintain its status because it was raided by fans who don't comprehend how wikipedia truly works. I'm also a member of some WikiProjects (WikiProject Texas because I'm a Texas fan, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music because I love R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Userboxes because I like creating userboxes, Department of Fun because editing wikipedia makes me happy and it fits well my philosophy of life), but I actively contribute to (and within) R&B and Soul Music project scope, I wish it was a great project with many members contributing. Well that is all, anything I didn't put in here, about my background will be throughly explained in the Q/A section.  E d u e m o n i ↑ talk ↓ 06:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: In spiking off trolls, recurrent and insistent vandals, in helping in high rank discussions like RFA itself and speedy deletion as it requires a quick admin action, but I'd like also to finish an XFD discussion, or else in protecting or deprotecting articles, adminship has many roles, I'd try them out, to see which one I'd adequate myself with, once I got comfortable doing something I'd focus on it.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I didn't have a high volume of relevant contributions in articles these past few months (like raising article status), but I helped to and wrote good and featured article few years ago, but my best contribution so far is undoubtedly the R&B and Soul Music Wikiproject. In the past I used to assess and rate articles related to them Wikiproject.


 * 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: Yes, I've engaged in war edit few times in the past and also I have engaged conflict over editions, but I tried to resolve it through common sense in the talk page of the article, or if it was done intentionally by a vandal or a troll, I'd ask an admin to help me out.

General comments
Edit count added to talk page. Strikerforce (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


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

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per lack of recent experience. Flurry of activity from April-July '07, then a slowdown from August '07 through May '08, and then almost no activity (in more than a handful of months no activity) until last month. User fails my standards, at this time. Strikerforce (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'd really need to see a good bit more activity in general, but more importantly, there's no real activity since 2007/8 - just a couple of hundred edits since the start of February. I'd suggest you spend some more time here, get back into the swing of things properly, and don't think about admin until you've got a decent track record of recent activity. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, unfortunately. I'd prefer to see a little more experience first, specifically in admin-related areas. For example, I don't see many (any?) reports to WP:AIV. If you're interested in vandal-fighting, some activity there would help demonstrate understanding of policy. Also, with less than 1000 mainspace edits, I'd hope to see high-quality edits to make up for the low quantity, but recent article creations like "When I Had the Chance" and "Good to Me" don't demonstrate that quality: they're tiny stubs (which is OK) sourced only to Twitter (which isn't.) Come back with either a solid anti-vandalism record or high-quality content contributions (or even both!) and I hope to support. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too low activity in the recent months and very low number of edits in the project namespace. It also concerns me that he wants to deal with vandals, and to which WP:AIV also belongs, but has only 2 edits on the page. He made one report to AIV in April 2007, which was false. The answer to question 1 is very vague and the wording of it doesn't everywhere makes sense. XfD discussions are closed not finished. Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per lack of overall and recent experience alike. It's a little too soon, Eduemoni. I like to see about 4,000 edits, about six months worth of continued activity, and a decent amount of experience in the Wikipedia namespace at the minimum. Sorry. Take any advice you get from this RfA, get some more experience, and come back and I'd be happy to support you. Regards,  Swarm   X 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per the comments of Strikerforce and Boing! above--Hokeman (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral support - This looks like it is going to WP:NOTNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (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.