Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FrankWilliams


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

FrankWilliams
[ Final] (2/8/10) Ended Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:10:46 (UTC)

– Admin Application FrankWilliams 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)This of course is a self nomination. I have been a contributor since December, 2005. I work on wiki articles as much as I can. Most of my edits have generally been favorable.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. FrankWilliams 13:11, 12 October 2006 (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 voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I anticipate contributing mostly to: Deletion, Vandalism, and Controversy, although I would obviously contribute to the other categories as needed. I would like to be an Admin to help with RC patrol, Vandalism work. Having access to tools such as rollback and blocking IP #'s quickly when necessary would be beneficial. I also anticipate helping with speedy deletions and backlogs (e.g. WP:ABUSE).


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am generally pleased with all of them. I see wiki articles as only getting better with time and see the admin role as keeping the articles on the right track from users who go to extremes.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have had differences of opinion with others. I always try to remain calm and try to argue from logic and within the Wiki guidelines.  This has mostly not been a problem and will probably continue to tackle these issues in the same way.

Question from 
 * 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A:


 * General comments

FrankWilliams's editcount summary stats as of 16:42, October 12 2006 using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See FrankWilliams's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.


 * You may want to expand on your self nomination explanation. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)


 * Answers appear to be rather vague. Fellow editors appreciate that you give specific details as an example to demonstrate the you have understood the policies and process of the workings in Wikipedia. Editor is well-intentioned in his RfA though. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Weak Support intentions seem good enough, and you've been here more than long enough. Weak because of the concerns expressed by Gwernol below. Cynical 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support candidate is to be commended for taking the initiative to step up and offer to take on some extra responsibility. The candidate seems to be acting in the best of faith and is a good contributor.  The opposition makes some good points, and if the advice is taken and applied to editing, I'm sure he'll get the added buttons at a later date   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak Oppose you are doing good work, but I can't support you just yet. Your RfA nomination is weak; I'd like to see more detailed and specific answers to the questions and your answer to Q1 suggests you don't fully understand the role of an admin. You are also relatively new with only about 1200 edits to Wikipedia; it isn't a substantial enough record to get a good sense of what you'd do with the tools. Your use of edit summaries is low - this is something you need to improve. Overall, keep contributing to Wikipedia, get more experience, particularly with admin-related activities like recent changes patroling, and AfD discussions and I think you'll have a much better chance at becoming an admin in a few months time. Good luck, Gwernol 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Gwernol. Side question, is "Frank Williams" your real name? Otherwise, it may violate WP:USERNAME (Frank Williams). – Chacor 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Yes, my name is Frank Williams. FrankWilliams 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, that's not listed at WP:USERNAME. I think "Frank" and "Williams" are fairly common names. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "# Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person." Frank Williams is a well-known living person, so unless his name is also that (in which case I have no objections), he probably shouldn't use this name. – Chacor 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Yes, my name is Frank Williams and am living last I checked. :) FrankWilliams 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one did you have in mind?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd rather assume in good faith that his name is common indeed. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Needs some more experience. Michael 17:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose: not enough WP edits, doesn't really show a need for admin tools. Seems like a good editor, though: basically a case of "Not now, but do come back later". Moreschi 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Poor answers, particularly A1 seems to state that the nom will contribute to vandalism. Themindset 23:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per two things. Weak answers to basically all of the questions, and lack of experience. You're doing fine so far, but I suggest you withdraw this RfA and come back after 3,000+ edits and hope for the best. Nish kid  64  00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, doesn't need tools at the moment, lack of edits. --Ter e nce Ong (T 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. A good editor who needs a bit more experience, particularly in the Wikipedia space, before becoming an admin. Zaxem 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral please expand your answers. --Alex (Talk) 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral — This RfA is just to weak for me to assess + sparodic contribs. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral until answer to question 4, however self nom with weak intro and lack of detail in answering questions has be leaning to oppose. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Your answers don't provide any evidence upon which to support an opinion as to your worth as an admin. You need to provide difs and cite examples for each question. Anticipation of assistance implies that you do not currently assist the project in any of the areas stated in question 1.  Please provide examples to refute this. Question 2 - which articles are you pleased with and why? A couple of worked examples will be sufficient. Question 3; provide difs of the conflict and explain with reference to policy and guidelines how you overcame it - reporting to WP:PAIN or WP:ANB? Mediation? These questions are excellent opportunities to demonstrate your understanding of and contributions towards the project, yet your answers fail to satisfy.  I may change my vote on the basis of evidence.  If you have no evidence then withdraw, request an editor review and work towards admin status using the guidance that this will provide. (aeropagitica) 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Weak answers to questions. Other than this, a sincere editor. I suggest you request an editor review first. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral (edit conflict) weak answers, but a well-intention editor.-- danntm T C 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral per Gwernol and (aeopagitica). You're a good editor, but you might need more time with a more consistent rate of contribution. Also, people's standards are higher for self-noms, so you really should have made a better case for yourself. Up your activity here and try reapplying later. Regards, &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 03:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Not a bad editor, but I'm not sure you're ready for adminship just yet. Charlie MacKenzie 08:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral pending proper answers to questions/noination. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral   Doctor Bruno    01:41, 14 October 2006 (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.