Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Immunize


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

Immunize
Final (0/7/3); Ended 20:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination
– I feel I can make excellent use of the admin tools, particulary in the areas of vandal-fighting and new page patrol. Immunize (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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:

I intend to take part initially mainly in vandal-patrol and WP:AIV, as this is where I feel the most comfortable in, as I am (in my opinion) fairly experienced in this area. I would then, after learing to use the tools, move into the areas of WP:RPP and deletion/new page patrol, including closing AfDs. Immunize (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:

I feel my best contributions to Wikipedia are maintaining the encyclopedia by participating in recent changes patrol, as this is (in my opinion), the area that I have assisted the encyclopedia the most. Immunize (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:

The most major conflict I have experienced with another user is with User:Riffraffselbow. What occurred was that riffraffselbow, editing as an IP, received a cluebot message that was given in error. As I was not aware that the warning was erroneous, I reverted riffraffselbow's removal of the warning. The user in question then became frustrated, and began to use mildly unhelpful edit summaries, which then reinforced my incorrect view that riffraffselbow was simply a vandal who was Angry that they had been warned for vandalism. Once I realized that my thoughts on the matter were incorrect, I immediately realized that the behavior that had just occurred was a violation of WP:3RR and, seeking an experienced wikipedian to resolve the issue, I left a message on the help desk asking what to do (in retrospect, I probably should have contacted dispute resolution or left a message at WP:ANI). Immunize (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on talk. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) As xeno has stated, your lack of knowledge about transclusions is rather troubling, however minimal it may be. I looked through your edits and you seem to be good at revert vandalism, which is something that is needed. Little things such as ill-formatted text in your answers just make me a bit more hesitant. I think in a few months you will be good to go. –Turian   ( talk )  20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry Immunize. You need more rounded experience.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Sorry, but I cannot support at this time. Your intentions are admirable, but you just haven't been here long enough to be ready for the additional tools. As Xeno says below in Neutrals, 6-9 months more experience, with the dedication you have shown so far, and you will probably be ready. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're ready yet. That doesn't mean you cannot be ready or will never be ready, but as of right now, I don't think you're there. Your activity levels are good, but I don't see the breadth of experience necessary to be an admin. TN X Man  20:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To Tnxman and Wifione above: You both responded to this candidates's help desk query about setting up this RFA. Don't you think it would've been helpful to let this user know they had very little chance of success rather than helping them start this snowball rolling and then subsequently opposing? – xeno talk  20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Xeno, You're right. Unfortunately, I had no idea about the fact that he was talking on the helpdesk about publicising 'his' RfA. And when I saw his next query, I realised he was already onto transcluding his RfA.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As little as a couple of weeks ago you had so little confidence in what was an acceptable use of rollback you asked at the helpdesk. As an admin you would have the ability to add the rollback flag! You're clearly a commited editor, but this is very much a WP:NOTNOW - your edit count may be high but the above prooves that your tenure creates a lack of knowledge about the administrative part of this wiki. Pedro : Chat  20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have became more confident with use of the rollback feature. I was only erring on the side of caution, which is often a wise choice to make. Immunize (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not even formatting replies here correctly (you need to prefix with a # and one more : than the person above you). Honestly - withdraw this RFA, it will only go downhill from here. – xeno talk 20:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Being a WIkipedia Admin is a minefield. Your early block experience and your later vandal patrol reverts do not give me confidence that you have the experience to handle difficult people yet. I would be happy to be proved wrong over the next few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen B Streater (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you refer to "my early block experience", I assume you are referring to my week-long block for adding unsourced content. Immunize (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Concerns with limited experience, policy knowledge, judgment/maturity, and breadth of exposure. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Your head is in the right place, but I think it is premature to be standing for adminship. You've been here only about three months and it doesn't seem like you're ready to take on the mop and bucket. In particular, the fact that you didn't know how to transclude this RFA (see WP:TRANSCLUDE), and this recent proposal as well as various other comments you've made at the village pumps lead me to believe that you could do with at least another 6-9 months of service to integrate yourself with the ebb and flow of the 'pedia. – xeno talk 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that proposal, I have realized that what really matters how the rollbackers perform, rather than how high there edit count is. If there is a rollbacker with 350 edits who uses it extremely well, then it does not matter that there edit count is low. I think in the past I put to much weight on how high the users edit count is when what actually matters is how the user uses his/her rights. Immunize (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would suggest withdrawing this RFA. 3 months is not enough time to become acquainted with the nuances of en.wiki. – xeno talk 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'm not sure. Loads of contributions, but only 3 months of experience. In my opinion he could be a future candidate for adminship. Not now though, I'm not sure if he understands all of the existing Wikipedia policies, especially the more complicated ones like Notability and Neutral point of view. Minima  c  ( talk ) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral The experience level is too low to get my full support. I also don't see a ton of content contributions. ~ N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (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.