Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Member 2


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

Member
(talk page) Final : (0/8/5); closed early per WP:SNOW by A l is o n  ☺ 18:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- See a 'description' at my old RfA. hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Self nomination --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  03:25, 3 September 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: The tools provide a nice set of usable commands for various tasks. Particular tasks (excuse my lack of vocabulary; having a slow day) I would like to partake in include assisting with proposed deletion (AfD, TfD, CSD, etc...), AIV, and RFPP as backlogs are horrifically long everywhere. The tools will also allow me to better combat vandalism and I also look forward to helping mediate conflicts such as edits wars (while remaining neutral), and better assist newer users. I would stay out of wheel wars.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Perhaps John Needham and Goleta, California. The latter was a good article that had some serious problems; after a large number of edits, I was able to get it to GACR standard. The former was the by far largest article I created (no kidding).


 * 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 have never had any problems with any persons (users) here on Wikipedia, excepting, perhaps, vandals. Assuming such an incident occurs, I would most likely back off to maintain a sense of civility, WP:BOLD notwithstanding.

General comments

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


 * Links for Member:

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

Discussion


Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per lack of experience and answers. Jmlk  1  7  05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - you don't seem to have given your RfA much thought (the description bit inparticular). The answers are OK, but more contribs should have been made by an admin candidate in the time you've been here. And don't forget to use that edit summary!  Lra drama 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose over serious concern over lack of experience in area in which candidate propose to help with (XFD). I can count with one hand the number of AFD nomination that the candidate have taken part in this year, and I only need one finger in terms of TFD. Also am generally un-convinced with answers to question. KTC 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Not quite there. --Isis 4563 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, sorry. Inexperience, see-old-RfA intro.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose- per the inexperience. Also, your participation at AfD is not satisfying. This shows that you're not actually willing to discuss the fate of articles, and this and this shows poor judgment and understanding of our notability and verifiability guidelines. This, along with the other diffs I provided, shows me that you think AfD is a vote, not a discussion. Admins should know better. Since you don't, you're not ready to be an admin. --Boricua  e ddie  17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose In your last RfA people advised you that they wanted to see more detailed answers to questions, more policy knowledge, and more experience. Suggest taking this advice. Suggest more detailed answers addressing these concerns directly. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - While your willingness to help in backlogged areas is commendable, it's about the only justifiable reason you gave for needing admin tools; mediation and new user assistance hardly require you being an admin, and your level of participation in deletion discussions leaves me concerned about your experience in those areas. Referring people to your previous RfA instead of creating a proper introduction for this one also shows a slight lack of attention to detail. Also, though your desired areas of work are mainly administrative so your editing credentials are theoretically not as important, I noticed one of the articles listed at Q2 is still a stub which concerns me as you consider it to be one of your best contributions. A bit more work in these areas will help. Roadmr (t|c) 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Netural I am netural for now. His edit count is ok, but I still see some gaps between edits. I will likely be swayed by additional questions, and futher review by myself on this user. I am as of now, leaning towards support. Politics rule 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Heh, they say Editcountitis can be fatal :P --SQL(Query Me!) 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Your answer to Q1 leaves me with the impression, that you don't know what admins do. I'll wait and see if it gets better. --SQL(Query Me!) 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *What is suspect? I certainly do know what administrators do, having been here for so long (if not having so many edits as I should have). Excuse me if the answer to that question is a bit shaky, I'm a bit absent minded a this moment. Did you check out my previous RfA? --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of Q1 shows that Member has no idea about what admins do? He states clearly that he will use the tools to take part in administrative areas, and there's nothing about what he has said that shows any sign of him having no idea of what they do.  Sebi  [talk] 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't feel a need to oppose this RFA. Although there was nothing wrong about what you wrote in your answers, I felt that they were a bit bland, and you could have put a little more effort into them to convince people that you deserve administrative tools.  Sebi  [talk] 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Netural I think, it would be good if you participate more on WP:XFD to gain more experience, I only see 5 contributions to WP:XFD since your first RfA. However I must admit that you are doing a good work on main space. Keep with your good contributions. Carlosguitar 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - This is the first time I saw a snowball Neutral :O . This user doesn't et a oppose vote because he has been constantly editing since 2 years ago at a pace. What I'm worried about is about his experience in solving disputes. --Hirohisat Kiwi 07:41, 3 September 2007 (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.