Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenboxed


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

greenboxed
Final (1/7/0); ended 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

- I am a user of/contributor to wikipedia, and love the community. I enjoy learning new information from wikipedia's articles, and I love to help others learn new things by adding information to pages and editing pages. Greenboxed 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept the nomination. Greenboxed 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. Greenboxed 00:02, 7 April 2007 (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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: I intend on helping wikipedia with issues such as vandalism as well as continuing to contribute to wikipedia in a positive way and become more involved in the wikipedia community.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am very pleased with my contributions to several aviation related articles, such as Air Canada, and helping out with vandalism on the McDonalds' Canada Menu page.


 * 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: When i have to deal with stress, i try to respond in a positive way, that will help develop a positive solution to the problem at hand. I plan on using this tactic in the future.


 * Additional question from Kelly Martin:
 * 4. In your own words, explain what Wikipedia's purpose is. How have your contributions in the past furthered that purpose?
 * A:


 * 5. You have a relatively low edit count (about 400) for someone who's been here a year. Many people will likely think that this disqualifies you for consideration as an administrator.  How do you feel about this?
 * A:


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support. User has a year of experience and has hundreds of mainspace edits. There's no reason to think he'll abuse or misuse the tools, so he should get the mop. --Rory096 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Weak answers. Not enough experience and low edit count. You need much more participation in the project-space (XfDs, AIV, etc.). — An as  talk? 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too few mainspace edits and infrequent use of edit summaries (only 50%). WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too few edits. Real96 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too few edits, not enough experience, very weak answers. Strongly suggest withdrawal. HornandsoccerTalk 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits. You have currently made just over 400. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admin are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 20 times. The general expectation is that editors become more involved in the Wikipedia community before they become admins, not after. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience. Zaxem 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Far too little experience in all pertinent areas to qualify for use of the admin tools at this time. You need to increase your participation on the English Wikipedia significantly and for a sustained period of time in order to demonstrate your application to your chosen tasks.  Things in which to become involved include - adding to articles, either factual information and/or sources and references for extant facts; policy areas - XfD discussions, where you can demonstrate knowledge and interpretation of policies and guidelines; new page/recent change patrols, where you can show that you understand WP:CSD/PROD/XfD tags and/or categorising, stubbing or formatting articles to conform to established styles for their subjects; welcoming new users and warning vandals that you come across when on patrol.  These are just a few of the many things to which you can successfully contribute to Wikipedia.  I would withdraw this application now and start participating in these and other methods before reconsidering a further RfA application in six-to-twelve months' time. (aeropagitica) 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Part of your answer to question 2 is now listed for deletion. It raises concerns over your knowledge and understanding of policies. -- Nick  t  23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.