Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Hawk


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

Lord Hawk
(0/12/0); Ended 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

- Works against Vadalism and Rumors Lord Hawk 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I plan to work against vandalism of Wiki pages and limit the spread of rumors, especially with those rumors with little basis in reality.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions would be preventing users to add unverified data because Wiki is a encyclopedia and not an area for rumor mills. People see Wiki as a source of information and rumors would be deceiving them of the truth.


 * 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: I would have to say there have been some disagreements in the past over what is truth and what is rumor, but I felt the best way to resolve such differences was by communicating via Talk Space messages. Other times, I feel it best to just walk away from the computer when I am dealing with stuborn users because it is best not to edit when I am upset.

General comments

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


 * Links for Lord Hawk:
 * As an FYI, this candidate has approximately 1600 edits in total. Gwernol 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lord Hawk before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Because Mathbots edit summary tool is not working I've skimmed your contribs and your edit summary usage is very low, you only have 33 edits to user talk, which means you have little experience of communicating with other users which is important for an admin, as well as the fact you have 1000'ish edits over a one year period seems a little to inactive for an admin. Sorry but make some improvements and you could be an admin in the future. Tellyaddict  17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Tellyaddict. Consider raising your level of activity, and editing a little more frequently.  Pastor David † (Review) 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose While adminship is no big deal and I understand that real life issues can interfere, I cannot support a candidate with less than 200 edits in the last six months, especially when none of those edits have been in Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk. I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination as well to avoid a pile on of opposes. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as above. Well intentioned, no doubt - work on edit summaries and getting a tad more experience with the project, and then make another run at it.  Philippe 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Very few edits in WP:NAMESPACE. We need to see that youy have experience in admin-related activities, which as of now you do not appear to be able to demonstrate.--Anthony.bradbury 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You don't need the mop to revert vandalism, and per above. Evilclown93 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Less than 500 edits. Suggest you withdraw or, failing that, somebody close per WP:SNOW. --kingboyk 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He has about 2,500 edits, but over nearly a year.--Dacium 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The candidate has no appreciation for good literature. I cannot in good conscience support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 May 2007
 * Is this a valid reason to oppose? Having different interests is not something that is normally expected in admins. Captain   panda  20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above comments. You need more experience for adminship. Captain   panda  20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not sure why user wants the tools, but they obviously don't have the experience to use them. Jmlk17 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Not enough experience-- $U IT  21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for a relative lack of recent participation in the project - less than 100 edits per month since December - and a paucity of communication with other editors in on their user Talk pages and in the policy space too. Work on admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols; warning editors who contribute CSD material about their edits; report vandals to AIV, 3RR, etc if discovered; demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines with contributions to XfD discussions.  Try again in six to twelve months' time with that experience and you should have a much more improved RfA. (aeropagitica) 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.