Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flubeca


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

Flubeca
FINAL (8/7/1); withdrawn by candidate August 29, 2007

- I've nominated myself because I feel inconfortable about asking another editor to nominate me. I do mostly Gnomish work around wikipedia. I try to be active in xFD to get familiar with the policies. I strongly believe in the five pillars of wikipedia. I try my best to be civil at all times, because without civility, you get a big mess. I'm involved in several wikiprojects including Military History (Weaponry Task Force) Wikiproject Canada, maintenance related wikiprojects like Wikiproject Wikify, as well as the vandalism patrol, and recent page patrolling. Even if I do a little less vandal fighting than I used to do. Even though my edit count is relatively low, I think I gained enough experience and trust in my 8 months of wikipedia to become an admin. Thank you for reading this and have a nice day. - Flubeca Talk 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to help with various tasks, such as AIV, CSD, AFD Closure, WP:UAA, Prods, or any other backlogged task. I would also keep an eye on the Administrator's Noticeboards/Incidents and Administrator's noticeboard/3 Revert Rule. I will continue doing the Vandalism Patrol, but with the ability to react faster to serial vandalism, or the really troublesome ones that come by. This would save me time, and maybe keep 3-4 pages from being vandalized.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:I am most proud of my vandalism fighting, the time when I faught the hardest was my vandalism fighting night on July 4. There was a sudden rush of vandalism, I've never seen as much vandalism in my whole life. I worked until 4 am, I went to sleep after the vandalism calmed down. And got many thanks messages the next day.


 * 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:The closest thing I had to a conflist was on Victoria Cross (Canada) 's promotion to Good Article by Tarret. I had put the article on hold, and explained why on the article's talk page. Tarret then came and passed the article. I asked him why on his talk page, but he never answered me (I also think he deleted my message). I then went and asked users what to do on WP:GAC's talk page. . I walked away from the situation afterwards.  The situation was eventually resolved, the Victoria Cross (Canada) article was put on GAR by someone else, and delisted.

General comments

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


 * Links for Flubeca:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Flubeca before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support No reason to oppose.  Cheers,JetLover  02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nothing in your contribs leads me to believe that you would misuse the tools so I support. -- Hdt 83    Chat 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - ugen64 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'm confident that this user has proven themselves trustworthy and capable. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I don't beleive this user will abuse the mop. --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I believe that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Mainspace is low, but I HIGHLY doubt he will abuse the mop!! Politics rule 12:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, edit counts might be on the low side but there are enough to get a feel for this editor. Nothing in there leads me to oppose, as the contributions I do see are positive and show a willingness to help. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;">Talk ]] 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose- I am unsatisfied with this user's mainspace and talk space contributions. --Boricua  e ddie  02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Editor doesn't have very much experience in Wikipedia space, but more concerning they don't seem to have any experience writing and collaborating on articles, with only six edits their most frequent talk page, and their talk page count looks like it would be extremely low if it weren't for things like tagging wikiprojects. A quick look at their talk page contribs shows no signs of collaboration in the past month at least, and their User talk log shows no signs of collaboration either, just a couple social comments and a lot of vandal taggings. Also seems to have poor understanding of deletion criteria, given their defense of (a rather low number of) GHITs as criteria for keeping an article and also using GHITs as a reason for deletion. Also using an internet meme affecting the name of a topic as grounds for it being a hoax is incredibly shaky-- as there are plenty of notable subjects that go against that (Such as LOLCODE), and only using notability as a backup is somewhat concerning. The combination of a lack of any apparent collaboration, combined with a poor understanding of deletion criteria, and a user contrib log that looks more like a human monitored bot than a Wikipedian is concerning. How can a user that has never collaborated help in a conflict, or someone with poor understanding of what is deletable be trusted with CSD? -- lucid 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was on vacation in the past month.- Flubeca [[User talk:Flubeca|<span
 * Ok. A slightly less quick (500, instead of 50) look at your talk page contribs shows no signs of collaboration ever. I don't see any edits in your talk page history that show me that you've actually tried to work with other editors in the past to improve an article, the few that you do leave that aren't just dealing with talk page templates are generally about something you did to the article, and not real requests for input or help from other editors-- which again is evidenced by your most contributed talk page having only six edits. -- lucid 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right. I need to work on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 August 2007
 * I agree the comment on roflsnooker was misplaced - Flubeca Talk 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it was still only a few days ago. I could understand if it was a month ago, but three days ago, combined with other things, is still very concerning. And I don't mean to be rude or offensive here, but your replies seem very much like you're trying to brown nose your way into adminship, which is also concerning. I'm sorry if you're just recognizing your faults, but as recent as they are they show no signs of improvement since then, even if they are sincere. -- lucid 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of overall experience.  Jmlk  1  7  04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. You may remember me as the one who welcomed you last December when you first came. I'm impressed by how much you've developed, but I would really like to see some sort of collaboration and general experience.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Prepare to be deleted! 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose worried about question 2.  Mi r a n da  13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per question 2, a general "doesn't get it". <font color="#0A9DC2">~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The answer to Q. 2 shows a lack of experience, failure to recognize what the encyclopedia is about -- vandal-fighting is very important to the encyclopedia, but fighting vandalism shouldn't be one's whole focus while here. Xoloz 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, towards support per Boricuaeddie. Although I have no evidence that this user will abuse the mop, I'm kind of worried how this user will help out with conflicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs)


 * 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.