Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mww113


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

Mww113
Final (0/5/1); withdrawn by candidate, 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

- My name is Mww113 and I am nominating myself for adminship. I am experienced in fighting vandalism and will not abuse administrator tools if they are granted to me. My main reason for nomination is to assist in cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia and assisting users in any way possible. I know that my edit count is somewhat low but as Jimbo Wales said "...becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." and "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." Thank you! Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) At this time I would like to withdraw I can clearly see that I cannot pass and I have much to work on before requesting adminship, Thank you to all who commented/voted. With regret ,Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Definitely WP:AIAV and CAT:SPEEDY. I also intend to handle things such as WP:RPP and WP:RM. I will also assist in managing user rights such as WP:RFR. Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I don't want to define any of my edits as "better" than the others, but I will say that my vandalism reverts, user warnings, and requests for deletion are the most notable. Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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: Honestly, I have never engaged in edit warring with any other user, nor do I plan to. However, if I was involved in a conflict with another user I would first revert the edit and inform the user in a way that conforms to WP:CIVIL. Of course, this does not apply to reverting vandalism.  If the user replaces there edit, rather that removing it again I would see if I could compromise with the user and conform to WP:3RR. I would never use any admin tool in an edit war, or block a user that I am in a conflict with. Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Mww113's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Mww113:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mww113 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, but it appears as though you lack vital experience, especially in the areas that you wish to work in. I would give yourself 5-6 months of straight moderate to heavy editing in both the main space and project space and come back. You may want to try administrator coaching at one point in the near future.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per User:Wisdom89. You lack of experience on the areas you want to work. Macy (Review me!) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it fair to say that, However, I might add that I am not totally lacking of any experience in these areas. Cheers! Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A lack of experience doesn't necessarily translate into the absence of edits - It's partly number and partly diligence/quality of argument. The latter is the most important.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose you've been here for a week. No one has ever passed adminship in such a short time. I find knowledge of various policies in the answers troubling for a week old user. Have you ever had another account?  Majorly  (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I haven't had any accounts with connections to this one. I know my account is fairly new but I was under the impression that there is no criteria for adminship unless I am mistaken. Isn't the legenth of time my account has been active slightly irrelevant? Adminship to me is "No big deal" it is simply a set of tools that just cannot be granted to everyone. I see how you might be wary to support me though. Cheers! Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How come you know so much already? From your first edit you knew exactly what you were doing. That is the sign of an experienced user. The length of time is very relevant. And there is criteria, although it's not codified anywhere. A week old account doesn't normally have any kind of feelings about what adminship - most users wouldn't even be able to find the RFA page.  Majorly  (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am flattered. I am experienced with MediaWiki (I previously had my own wiki) But for, other accounts, I have had them before but I no longer use them. They had small amounts of edits but none than would make me "experienced" . Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While there are no official requirements to becoming an admin, you'll need to have been editing for several months and at least 2000 edits. Please see my personal requirements for more information on what is typically needed. Useight (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you I will look into that! Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I have seen great work from you, but only one week? Sorry, that does not give me enough time to make a adequite decision on whether or not you will abuse the tools or clearly understand policy. Keep up the good work, wait 3-4 months and come back.  Tiptoety  talk 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. However, thank you for complimenting my work. Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop replying to every single !vote. Cheers!  Majorly  (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral This RfA has 0% chance of passing. Knowing that, I can not in good faith support, nor oppose.  ArcAngel (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, this has a low chance of passing, but it's really "No big deal" (my quote of the day). Adminship would just make my task of reverting vandalism slightly less difficult. Again, Cheers! Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that your only reason for requesting the mop? Tiptoety  talk 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, it is a primary factor, but not my only reason. Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have rollback. That's sufficient enough for a week old account. Cheers!  Majorly  (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is quite useful. Adminship would be better, and allow me to assist more users and contribute more. But, yes for now it should be sufficient. Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why request adminship? Tiptoety  talk 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Things would be much easier, and it would allow me to contribute more. I think I will withdraw seeing as this will not pass. Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:28, 10 April 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.