Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halgo123


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

Halgo123
'''Final (1/4/0); Closed per WP:NOTNOW. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Very nice and easy guy. Will help as much as he can. Halgo123 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: Well, I enjoy helping people. So editing peoples work to make them correct is a fun and enjoyable past time for me. Deleting pointless and unnotable articles.And having false infomation is never good or useful.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: It would have to be editing. As i said above,I love helping people.Its really annoying have infomaion that isn't true so if I edit it them and put the right information,everyone is happy.


 * 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: Well, im a very easy guy I dont usually get annoyed or get into conclicts with people over editing. All the editing i have done, no one has ever complained or agued with me about it.

General comments

 * Links for Halgo123:
 * Edit summary usage for Halgo123 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Halgo123 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked the candidate to withdraw this request . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support per whynot for the sincere answers. delirious  &amp; lost  ☯ ~hugs~  01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
 * 1) Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
 * 2) Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
 * 3) Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
 * 4) Negotiate a compromise.
 * Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. ( X!  ·  talk )  · @018  · 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Normally I consider edit count irrelevant, but in your case you have far too few to even make an approximation of your abilities. Furthermore (this may seem a bit odd) I am hesitant because of your lack of conflict with other editors. While it's always good to avoid unnecessary argumentation, any bold editor will sooner than later butt heads with a fellow Wikipedian. This lack of conflict leaves me inclined to think that you're unwilling to make controversial edits.  Angrysockhop (and a happy new year ) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per above rationale.  IShadowed  ✰  00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:26, 2 January 2010 (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.