Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/London UK


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

London UK
Final (0/7/2) Ended 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

– On 12 January 2006 I stumbled across Wikipedia and was amazed of the number of articles Wikipedia had, back then it had less than 1 million articles and I thought that Wikipedia was just another encyclopedia written buy people who have a good knowledge, and that most of the articles would be out of date, quite old or have not got much information in them.

But I was wrong as it says on the Main Page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

After 5 days of looking I decided to contribute so I joined under the name EGC on 17 January 2006. Also on my first time of being a wikipedian I started my very first article all about my home village of Tupton.

At the start of my wikipedian membership I was confused of what most stuff on wikipedia was about such as licenses. Ocassionaly I did do wrong stuff such as putting logos on my userpage when logos are fair use and can't be used outside the article name space. I did get help from another wikipedian named Redvers who mostly told me what I was doing wrong and gave me info on edit summeries, sockpuppetry and copyvio.

Since knowing more about Wikipedia and what is right and wrong I am using it more and by contributing more I know that I am making a difference.

I joined Esperanza on 8 April 2006 and I am enjoying being a member of it

I would like to be an admin because I think that I could do more to help Wikipedia, such as blocking Wikipedians who do not follow rules or help them to make Wikipedia a better, bigger and a more positive place to be. After 10 months, 2500 articles I have edited and 10 articles created I think it's time to do a RfA  London UK   |    talk  11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I positively accept, -- London UK   |    talk  11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate withdrew at 20:07, October 24 2006.

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 voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Is I said in the script above I would like to help Wikipedians whether they are new or old


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: My very first article created (Tupton). Originaly it was up for deletion by User:Redvers due to it being very short, but was withdrawn because the article was cleaned up very well and expanded. Today it's still on Wikipedia.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: At the start I was doing stuff wrong and was constantly warned about my edits but these where mainly about fair use images on my userpage and uploaded images. But I have not made any major bad edits to articles.

Please feal free to ask more questions. -- London UK   |    talk  11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE .

They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.


 * 1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?


 * A- Although it is not forbidden to do so I would give this user a warning about sockpuppetry and if it does not stop a another warning, still does not stop then the user would be blocked.


 * 2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?


 * A- I would respect what the admin had done. But I would continue to engage in conversation over a different method.


 * 3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?


 * A- As long as it's simple to use, there's nothing on Wikipedia that I would change, it's perfect as it is.


 * 4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?


 * A- The constant use of silly random editing, foul language and abuse.


 * 5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A- I would say no concensus


 * 6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?


 * A- There should be no minimal number for the discussion of AfD's, RfD's and CfD's, everybody should get involved.


 * 7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?


 * A- Although stress is a big thing I don't feel stressed possibly due to the fact that I do excercise everyday.


 * General comments

London UK's editcount summary stats as of 14:49 October 24 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See London UK's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.


 * Random diffs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/London UK. --ais523 11:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Only 25 edits to Wikipedia namespaces.--MONGO 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) No need for admin tools indicated. – Chacor 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Very weak answers. No recent admin-oriented tasks whatsoever. Wikipedia Space edit count very low. Your enthusiasm is most welcome, but I suggest you to self-withdraw, carefully read Guide to requests for adminship, and try again in a few months after you've gained a lot more experience.-- Hús  ö  nd  11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose You don't need admin tools to help people; also there are no Wikipedia-space pages that you've edited at least 5 times in your last 2000 edits, so it's not clear what you'd do with them if you had them. I'm worried that you might inadvertently make mistakes in using the tools due to insufficient experience. --ais523 11:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. More experience needed. Suggest withdrawal of nomination. utcursch | talk 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, no need admin tools at this moment and lack of experience. Looks like a good guy, but needs more experience. --Ter e nce Ong (T 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose and advise dignified withdrawl. There are many reasons for me to oppose at the moment, such as no use of edit summaries, poor quality of edits, lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures and policies, lack of understanding of what sysop tools are for, failure to learn from mistakes and  the world's longest signature. Please come back in a few months. ➨  ЯEDVERS  18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral — On the right path it seems and you have good intentions but i dont see an immediate need for the tools, yet.. maybe come back in a few months with a little more experiance ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You are a good editor and I think that you will make a fine admin in time, just not this time. Two deal-breakers for me are only twenty-five Wikispace edits with less than ten being to XfD discussions, and no vandal warnings present in your user Talk edits.  There is also the case of a distinct lack of edit summaries, so you should force the use of edit summaries in your preferences to prevent this in future.  If you were to open an editor review, I would offer the following comments; get involved with patrolling the new and recent changes pages - you will learn to recognise vandalism and how to revert it, warn vandals and report them to WP:AIV when they persist; participate in XfD discussions - you can use your comments to demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures; continue to interact with editors in Wikiprojects such as Esperanza mentioned above; assist new users at the Help and Reference Desk pages and lastly, keep editing articles with an eye to supplying verified and well-sourced information.  Keep doing and or all of the above and you will be a fine recruit to the admin ranks.  Lastly, I suggest withdrawing this RfA with no loss of face.  You can try again in two or three months' time, giving you plenty of opportunity to build experience that is essential for an admin. (aeropagitica) 15:04, 24 October 2006 (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.