Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hennessey, Patrick


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

Hennessey, Patrick
(4/8/5); Ended 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn. Acalamari 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

- I have decided to nominate myself for adminship because I see too much vandalism and the like on Wikipedia and want to do more than I currently can do to help put an end to it. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:  Accept Withdraw (Self nomination)


 * I have decided to withdraw my application as it has become obvious it has very little chance of success. I will continue with my counter-vandalism work, try branching out to other forms of editing, and apply again for adminship at a later time.  I would like to thank everyone who participated by voting and / or leaving comments as I will find this information useful as a guide to what I need to learn.  Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to do whatever I can to combat vandalism, such as monitoring WP:AIV, blocking persistant vandals when neccesary, and continuing to scan recent changes for irregularities. I will also try to help out with any other admin work as I learn how.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think the vandalism removal I have carried out is my best contribution thus far, because I have done more of it than anything else, and also the article I created: University Golf Club, because it is, I believe, well laid out and to the point.


 * 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: Only a very minor conflict. A user accused me of reverting an edit he/she believed was not vandalism even though it very clearly was.  I responded by explaining why I reverted the edit and why it had no place in Wikipedia.  The record of this conversation can be found on my talk page under section 1.1.5: Vandalism.  In the future I will do as I have done thus far, I will answer the challange as best I can without getting angry.

General comments

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


 * Links for Hennessey, Patrick:

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

Discussion

 * I have suggested withdrawl. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support. You have ~500 edits and an irregular editing pattern (8 edits in Nov 2006, virtually disappeared until Jul 07, then disappeared again until last month) and neither are good for a prospective admin. Get more experience and don't disappear months at a time and hopefully another RfA in about six months will yield better results. X ENON 54 | talk | who? | 01 Feb 2008 13:21GMT
 * 2) Support - good vandal fighter. If this request doesn't work out, then suggest you re-apply in a few months time. Addhoc (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support - you need more experience, in general, and I recommend you focus on article development the most.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support You'd make a pretty good admin, but you might need a few more edits to swing these other guys... RC-0722  communicator/kills 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, but you've been an active contributor for only a little more than a week. Your userpage says it: you're a novice editor. You're doing a good job so far, but you're still new to Wikipedia. Keep up the good anti-vandal work, maybe see if anything else suits your fancy, and consider adminship again at a later date. That said, I don't mean to be an antagonist really, but I don't think this RfA really has a good shot at passing and suggest that you withdraw it, continue your constructive contributions, and again, consider an RfA in at least a few months. WODU P  06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Same as above. If you can keep up decent activity for six months or so, I'm sure you'll see better results.-Wafulz (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough experience. Jmlk  1  7  06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, suggest withdrawal. Sorry, but a week isn't nearly long enough for you to gather enough experience to become an admin. You have gotten off to a good start, though. Keep this up for a few months and you should get better results if/when you try again. --Coredesat 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per all the above concerns -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) While I applaud enthusiasm, and 500 edits in less than a month is certainly a good start, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Noms with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful.
 * Please read WP:Admin
 * Please read the admin reading list.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, noms returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Noms need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect  and unprotect  pages. Noms 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.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution.
 * My suggestion to any nom with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More article building experience will also be helpful. Dloh  cierekim  16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, due to only having been a regular contributor for one week and not having much experience in other Wikipedia processes such as FAC's, Articles for deletion or show any real skills in mediation. Id say come back again when you have done some of the above and shown a good and broad understanding of wikipedia policy. Seddon69 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Good editor - but more experience and active editing is needed. - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I look forward to supporting you someday, just not quite yet. Keep up the good work and come back here in a few months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Seraphimblade-- you're doing good so far, try again in a few months.   jj137   (talk)  12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I would suggest a few months of solid, consistent editing.  Malinaccier (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral A few months more experience and I will support. I didn't oppose because WP:DEAL. Tim  meh  !  17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I can't support you because you do not have much experience. Experience is very valuable. Wait a few months before trying again. Sorry.--SJP (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2008 (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.