Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Londonfella


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

Londonfella
(talk page) Final (2/5/5); Ended, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW

- Self - nomination Londonfella (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, my name is Londonfella and I first started editing on Wikipedia in February 2007. Since that time I have been editing articles where I think I can make contributions to in order for these articles to expand and get better. The majority of my work has focussed on Wikiprojects, but I have also fought against vandalism when I have spotted a user misusing the tools given to us. In addition, I have also taken part as a member of the welcoming team.

Putting myself forward for nomination was not a light decision, but I feel I can make a significant contribution to the Wiki community. I also feel that the way in which I can grow as a contributor within the community is to hear the opinions of my fellow users.

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 have spent my time primarily as an editor, but also have put work into fighting against vandalism within the community and this is an area which I wish to peruse to a greater extent. Although I haven’t used tools such as twinkle or huggle, when I have seen vandalism ongoing I have been quick to deal with the offenders in an adequate matter. In my opinion, there is nothing worse than when a user deliberately sabotages a fellow contributors page and incidents like that must be cracked down on and I hope to play a continued role in this area.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have worked extensively within the NFL:wikiproject, especially concentrating on the player pages, many of which were out dated and on occasion incorrect. The one I would say was my best was that of Ted Washington which I had to input a lot of data, make a number of edits and reference accordingly. However, in the future, I would like to delve into different areas at the same time. My university course enabled me to expand my knowledge of different topics and I believe that I still have much more to offer.


 * 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: When I first started editing on Wikipedia, I believe that I was a little naïve in the way in which I approached matters and subsequently I was pulled up by a fellow editor as I wasn’t following the correct structure that had been outlined. Thankfully the contributor in question realised that I was new to the community and he pointed me in the right direction concerning where and what to edit. Since that early incident I have gained a lot of experience and believe that I am now a better editor as a result.

When looking into the future, it is natural that editors will have differing views of opinion. If it were to happen again, I would seek to look into the guidelines of Wikipedia policy and hope that any disagreements could be settled in the appropriate way without resorting to arguments amongst editors because then no progress would be made. In this way I am a very logical person and will not seek to provoke any editor. Ultimately, Wikipedia requires proper, truthful documentation and presentation of facts and this will prevail.


 * Additional question from VG:
 * 4. What is you opinion about the current WP:ATHLETE inclusion criteria? VG &#x260E; 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Londonfella:

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

Support

 * 1) Moral Support please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in half a year or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is no big deal and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future one's will. Kind regards. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  18:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support — I recommend you heed the advice given by others here by withdrawing before this is taken off per WP:NOTNOW. This doesn't meet you won't succeed in the future, it's just the time isn't currently right to give you the tools :) Keep up the good work on the en-wiki. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I feel bad to be the first one to do this. However, you have practically no Wikipedia space edits. Administrators maintain that space and delete the poorly created ones. Gain some more experience there, bud. &mdash; Sunday  ·  Speak  15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with supreme moral support. Your answer and statement in question 3 is impressive, and we need more editors who hold the same values. Per WP:NOTNOW I must oppose, but I'm sure I'll be able to support 3-6 months down the line. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose and recommend withdrawal, you have less than 2000 edits, and all of them to the mainspace. Erik the Red  2    16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose you need some more experience overall. Come back in several months. Good luck! --Banime (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per WP:NOTNOW, get some experience and try adminship later. — macy 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) You have almost no edits in the Wikipedia-space, thus I cannot judge how you would handle those related tasks, like fighting vandalism. You should fight it as a user, warning vandals and reporting them to WP:AIV and reapply for adminship when your work in those areas can be judged correctly. I suggest you withdraw your RfA for now, lest it will be closed as WP:NOTNOW soon. Regards  So Why  15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: While I suggest you withdraw soon, I want to express my moral support. You will make a good admin if you do more work in the project-related areas and such. As PeterSymonds states, your answer to Q3 is quite good and shows you got your head screwed on right. Regards  So Why  16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral and recommend withdrawal / closure per WP:NOTNOW. SoWhy is right on above.  Best wishes. Townlake (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I helped out Londonfella somewhat a few months ago when he was really new. I know his intentions and motivations are in the right place, but unfortunately not enough experience in the Wikipedia space for me to adequately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures. If you have any questions about what I mean, don't hesitate to ask. Useight (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm sorry, but without more experience, it is impossible to judge your abilities as a potential administrator. Get out there and dig around for stuff in the Wikipedia namespace to do. :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Your enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but your candidacy is a bit premature. Keep up the good work, though, and soon time will be on your side. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:17, 30 September 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.