Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I Seek To Help & Repair!


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

I Seek To Help & Repair!
(1/5/1); Ended 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC), closed prematurely per WP:NOTNOW by PeterSymonds.

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: Deleting pages that have been nominated for deletion and have proper circumstances for deletion, I would like to have some of the other privileges that Sysops have, and I have familiarized with the how to guide, and not abusing Adminship


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: List of King of Queens episodes: I provided information that violates absolutely no copyright, all plot summaries are created, worded & phrased by me. Also, I really enjoy cleaning up vandalism, cleaning up vandalism is a very important part in Wikipedia housekeeping.


 * 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: Yes. I have had disagreements with other editors and admins. I have too admit, sometimes I was a little demanding but now I watch out for that and I try to do what's best for the Wikipedia

Also, I am prepared to answer any questions during the run of this RfA, Please, I would love to hear your questions

General comments

 * Links for I Seek To Help & Repair!:
 * Edit summary usage for I Seek To Help & Repair! can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/I Seek To Help & Repair! before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Left note with candidate suggesting he withdraw. Candidate is new, has only been here for 6 weeks and has only 2K edits.  Will not !vote as I don't want to byte him and encourage others not to either.  Suggest speedy closing this per WP:NOTNOW--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support Please take the advice of the opposers and come back in three months and I'm sure you'll pass.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, You've only been here a little over a month which suggests that you do not have sufficient experience at this time to be given access the admin tools. Nakon  23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. If you keep editing, learning more about how Wikipedia works, and helping out, especially in admin-related areas, I'll support another RfA in a few months. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. In particular, I saw few if any deleted articles, which tells me you do not have enough experience reviewing articles and tagging CSD candidates. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
 * Guide to requests for adminship
 * WP:Admin
 * 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, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees 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. 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.
 * 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. 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. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in more RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I see several signs here that make me say that you're not ready.  First, your contribution history tells me that you don't know how to use the "Show preview" button, and while your contributions have been generally positive, the fact that you're saving your changes after every little change really clogs up the history of the article, and inflates your edit counts.  Second, you only started editing less than two months ago, and I really have to question how well you know the guidelines/policies.  Keep at it and try again in a few months.  Matt (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW and the short answers to questions which show little understanding of the adminship role and other Wikipedia processes. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need some more experience here before you should consider adminship - you need to demonstrate that you can hold the trust of the community first, and with only a few weeks tenure that isn't possible. See you in a few months. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Your user page and your name makes it seem like you are less serious about working on the encyclopedia. You might want to tone down the user page and be renamed if you honestly want to pass a future RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how his username makes it seem like he is less serious about working on the encyclopedia. Shouldn't we base our !votes on his edits and interactions with editors rather than an overly decorative userpage anyway? Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd actually second this, at least the userpage part - you'll get further in a future RFA if you have good editing work and your userpage doesn't blind those who look at it. ;-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ottava Rima and Hersfold. You've got almost as many edits to your own userspace as you do to article space.  Not many people can claim that (and it's not a good thing).  Matt (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2009 (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.