Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maltesedog


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

Maltesedog
final (0/18/2) closed 05:32 original ending 15:30 4 July 2005 (UTC) Having done only a few articles, he used to contribute as user 212.56.128.186 before he signed up for Wikipedia. His interests are primarily articles concerning Malta, and he has worked hard to give information on the island and combat vandalism. Maltesedog 15:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the articles written without logging in should also influence my contributions to Wikipedia. It is not true that I have only been a contributor for about a month Maltesedog

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Only been here a bit over a month and only has 63 edits. Not nearly enough material to base the administrator trust decision on. Would need a really strong argument to overcome that. And the butchering of the RFA template isn't helping, either. Kelly Martin 17:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Very strong, über oppose. Only has 63 edits, messed up the RfA template, accepted his own self-nom, has no user page, doesn't have the idea of Wikipedia yet and in general has to go through the learning curve yet. Way too early to become an administrator. Hedley 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) My previous concerns still stand, but having seen quite a few IP edits (albeit without edit summaries) and some moves such as creating a user page, i'll now just oppose due to lack of time as a user, and lack of knowledge of Wikipedia (practically no involvement in the Wikipedia namespace, VfD, etc. aswell). Hedley 20:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Has not been around long enough to show if he is trustworthy or not. --Allen3 talk 17:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I'm sorry, but you're way too green. Come back, show some good contributions, stick around for roughly three months, and reapply. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. A new user who should have familiarised himself with the usual standards we expect of candidates before nominating himself. If you wish to battle vandalism there's no need to be an admin to do so. Come back after a few months and several thousand edits. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 17:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Much too soon. His edits are not only too few (and very narrowly focused), but tend to need cleaning up, and his understanding of Wikipedia is weak (he made something of a mess of the self-nomination.  In a few months, maybe. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. While the user seems to be a good contributor, much too new to Wikipedia.  Still, I encourage him to re-nominate himself in a few months.  You (Talk) 18:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Sorry, not enough edits yet. --Idont Havaname 20:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Sorry, but the edit count is WAY low, even if we count earlier anon edits (below). Would possibly support after more interaction and experience. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  01:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Sorry, even the anon edits (which shouldn't be counted, since they could be anyone) don't add up to enough experience for you. You are a good faith editor, so definitely come back when you have more edits under your belt, and more experience in the Wikipedia: namespace. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 05:52 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Sorry, but too soon. What work I've seen is good, but, as Deathphœnix and others have said admin now would be too hasty. If you keep going as you are I've no doubt you will become an admin, just not now. Grutness...  wha?  28 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, too new. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, way too new. I would suggest trying again in 3-4 months when your edit numbers are closer to 1 or 2,000. I would suggest joining one of the major cleanup projects, like wikification or the Cleanup Taskforce or possibly a WikiProject. --Woohookitty 1 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose way to new gkhan July 1, 2005 10:33 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose on the grounds of being too new, but please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. One day you may make a fine admin. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose He's still a youngling (pretty much like me) --Shreshth91 ($ |-| rE$ |-| t |-|  )  . 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Extremely few edits - definitely unable to determine suitability.      2 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Applying for admin status after only two months of contributions indicates anxiety.  There is no such thing as an anxious admin.  Denelson83  4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Will support when sufficient dedication to Wikipedia is shown. Please try again later, or wait for another's nomination. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 19:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't worry, do not rush into a nomination. It's still to early and there is  still alot for you to do, such as editing, chores and contributing articles before you even consider becoming an admin.  Look at me!  It took 260+ articles originated by me, over 5,000 edits and a featured article before I was promoted to admin.  Just work hard in the project and in the furure you can count on my vote.Tony the Marine 3 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)

Comments
 * I tidied up his self-nomination and put it to the correct template. It had been a bit messed up; I suspect it was typed out, rather than taken from the template on the main RfA page. Hedley 18:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain your timestamp on your signature? It seems to be showing GMT +2, instead of the uniform UTC used by Wikipedia. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 19:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * "We are the Borg" ? &mdash; 12.207.151.144 9:17 PM in the Midwest.
 * Which articles written when you weren't logged in? Which IP address(es) did you use? Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Edits were as User:212.56.128.186. There are several hundred edits for the IP, but the same problems still exist - A lack of edit summaries in most edits, for example. Hedley 20:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Specifically, 312 edits, 276 in the main space, only 102 of which have edit summaries. Kelly Martin 22:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Mainly to combat vandalism accross Wikipedia and to maintain its integrity as user built encylopedia. With regards to the contents I will give imporance to layout
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Malta. I contributed to the article a lot when it comes to the economic history. The information is a result of my personal research. I am also proud of removing vandalism from various articles in the English wikipedia which were written in the Maltese Language and hard to identify unless it was for me.
 * 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. Yes, in particular users deleting my work in the Malta article. I placed a note in the talk page and this is subject to further discussion. Conflict is to be avoided at all times.


 * 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.