Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N734LQ


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

N734LQ
Final (4/15/4); Ended 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- I am N734LQ, and I'm offering to serve the English Wikipedia as an Admin. I feel I hold every trait and Admin should. I take responsibility for my actions, have never and will never maliciously vandalize, or otherwise degrade any item in the English Wikipedia. I realize it takes a lot of trust to promote me to Admin, and I know that I can and should be trusted as an Admin. In all of my years on Wikiepdia, I have made over 1,000 edits, of which none were vandalism. I take every chance to improve the quality of this resource, correcting typos, and helping others when in need. If upgraded to Admin, I will exercise my new power with restraint, and continue to help improve Wikipedia, until I am sure that Wikipedia is all that it can be, and help foster its growth. By voting for me, it takes a lot of trust in me, and I know that is difficult, but I am genuine in my efforts. Please seriously consider my candidacy. If I do become an Admin, you will not regret it. Thank you, and please think deeply about this. N734LQ 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, I am N734LQ, and I am making a candidacy for Adminship. It takes a lot of respect and trust to allow me this privilege, and if given that privilege, I will do everything that is possible, to improve the English Wikipedia, and use my powers with responsibility, and always ask for a second opinion before making major changes. It takes trust in me to vote for me, and rest assured, I am one to be trusted, and I will keep that very trust. Wikipedians, it would be my honor to serve every user on the English Wikipedia, and if elevated, I will do my best to see to it that Wikipedia is at the forefront of the Internet.

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 fully intend to take part in everything that is humanly possible. I will see to it that Wikipedia prospers, becomes a resource for everyone, contains vast quantities of knowledge. People today don't realize that there is much more than meets the eye. Wikipedia isn't just a dump for knowledge. Wikipedia is a place for all mankind to share discoveries, and to help foster the growth of the world as we know it. If I see a place that nees work, I will stop at nothing to accomplish the task. Everything that needs doing, will get done.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I cannot name a specific contribution, of the many I have made. Some of my best contributions are also the shortest. If I see a red link (meaning the page isn't created), I will create it. Albeit, it is short, but someone who may come along, may know more on the subject, and can help to improve the article in question. This is important because that grows without bounds. The article is like a plant. First it was just a seed, but with contributions, it grows to its full potential, and flowers with vibrant buds. Another one of my best contributions is that if I see something I think should be linked, I'll link it. People may not grasp the concept, because there is not foundation. Let's use another analogy. Think of a house. The top floor is the article, but you must a have a first floor, the foundation. Without it, the house will collapse. I ant to see people become intelligent beings, capable of knowing the whole story, with a foundation that is unbreakable.


 * 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 before. I created an article about my Junior High School, and it was nominated for deletion. I felt hurt, because it was part of my life. I felt angry, I wanted to swear and insult the user who deleted the article. I was under distress. However, I took it with a grain of salt. I found out what was making me angry, the fact that he took away something that meant a lot to me. I knew that hurting him, like he hurt me, wouldn't do anything. I went to my bedroom, and lied down. I then figured out he wasn't doing it to personally hurt me, so I had to let it go. I took deep breaths, and let it go. I felt so much better about my actions, that I didn't retaliate, I just forgot about it, and went on. In the future, this is what I will do. If someone puts me under stress, I will get to the root of the problem, and figure out the best solution.

Question from WODUP

 * 4. In your opening statement, you say that you have amassed over 1,000 edits in all of your years on Wikipedia, however, as of 09:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC), N734LQ's edit count is 435 and the earliest edit was on 16 September 2006. How did you get 1,000 edits and years on Wikipedia; did you previously edit anonymously or under a different username?
 * A: Yes, I edited anonymously. During my edits anonymously, that's where I got my years.

General comments

 * See N734LQ's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for N734LQ:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/N734LQ before commenting.''

Discussion
Support
 * 1) Moral Support&mdash;although I advise pulling out at the moment - take this as a learning oppurtunity, and come back in 4-5 months with some WP:RCP experience, WP:XFD contributions and keep up the enthusiasm. You'll make a fine Administrator some day ~ Anthony 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - Your eloquent self-nom demonstrates your enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but unfortunately your answer to Q1 doesn't demonstrate that you understand fully what admins do. I suggest withdrawing this RfA early and gaining a few months' more experience. Wal  ton  Need some help?  09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support per Walton. You're a good user with a clean record, and it's fantastic to see new users who are interested in helping any way they can. I would suggest clicking on your "my preferences" link and enabling "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under the Editing tab, which should allow you to fix the problem of not entering an edit summary. Cheers, Lanky ( YELL ) 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support - your willingness to help the project is amazing, but I'm somewhat disinclined in my support. I think that it is best to learn specific means to improve Wikipedia before becoming entrusted with adminship, if only to prove (beyond a doubt, if not a shadow of one) that you're in it for the long haul. Grace notes T § 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) I'm puzzled by this... You say you have over 1,000 contributions, yet your contributions list shows under 500. (Did you edit under an IP previously?) Also, you are certainly not lacking in eagerness, but your nomination statement and answer to question one don't show that you know what an admin does. Get more experience and come back in a few months with a clearer idea of what you want to do, I would say. Grand  master  ka  05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Great enthusiasm which is a credit, but way to low on edit count (not edit countitis but <1000 really is too low to show experience). Also I note you have been proactive in creating new articles, but most remain as stubs - often with just one or two lines. I can't see any need for the tools here, but you are obviously a keen editor. Why not focus on developing the work you have started instead, and pop back here a few months down the line. Also - please start using the edit summary !!! Ta! Pedro |  Chat 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Inexperience, no demonstration of abilities required to be an administrator (this != demonstrating that you're not here to hurt Wikipedia), and hasn't yet showed dedication sufficiently enough to this project to be entrusted with the extra tools.  Daniel  12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Lack of demonstrated experience with policy. No XfD participation.  No AIV, RfCU, RFPP, AN/I, etc... participation.  Only policy/process related participation I see at all are a question from February about whether he is allowed to blank his talk page and one from this month about putting two flags on the article. That both are questions is a sign that he isn't ready yet even for answering questions about policy and process, much less for taking administrative action based in policy and process.  GRBerry 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sorry, (I feel guilty, in a way) but I have to Oppose this due to a lack of edits (total no. of 434), I frankly cannot see how you could have had enough experience on Wikipedia to become an admin. However, I will point out that you have been here for quite some time... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Lack of experience, and I'm sure you don't know most of everything there is to know at Wikipedia. Also, answer to Q1 worries me. You say that "it is a place for all mankind to share their discoveries". I'm not trying to be picky, but this might show that you've never read WP:OR. Cool  Blue talk to me 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not so much about original thought as it is about the accumulation, and even culmination, of mankind's collective achievements. Just my take on it, though; such an attitude towards knowledge is rare. Grace notes T § 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even if that was his take on it, I still have other reasons for my objection. Thanks for pointing that out, though. Cool  Blue talk to me 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Grace notes T § 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Lack of experience. Also edit summary usage is poor, I suggest changing it in preferences to making it forced.   Or f e n    <font color=#FF0000> User Talk | <font color=#000000> Contribs 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose You do not have 1,000 edits, you have 434; unless you edited previously anonymously. Of these edits, only a tiny fraction have an edit summary. I am sorry to say that I do not, at this time see any evidence of significant experience in admin-related activities; I urge you to withdraw this RfA and re-apply in a few months.--Anthony.bradbury 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose You have the enthusiasm, but severely lack in the experience. Less than 500 edits is exceedingly low experience, and while I'm not throwing out editcountitis, I don't agree with giving tools to someone with so little (apparent) knowledge of what Wikipedia's inner workings entail.  Try again in the future after some months of work. Jmlk17 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: You have, like I did, applied for adminship with too little experience. Nearly a month ago I did exactly the same thing. Your answers, whilst enthusiastic, don’t really demonstrate deep understanding of Wikipedia policy. I admire your thirst to do “everything humanly possible” to help Wikipedia, seems a little too noble to me. Also, it would be good to name some specific examples of your finest work. Speaking from RfA experience, I would say you need to use talk and other non-article namespace pages more. It will stand you in good stead for the future. Please, don’t take this as an attack on your ability to contribute to Wikipedia, I’m just trying to look at the situation objectively, if I can. Good luck, and don’t be put off! Max Naylor 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your take on your edit count and ‘years’ of experience on Wikipedia also worries me slightly. Max Naylor 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I have the same questions about edit count as raised above and am concerned that your answers to the questions do not reflect knowledge of the function and duties of an administrator or any review of the ARL. Also am put-off by the 9% edit summary usage. Goodnight  mush  <sup style="color:blue;">Talk  14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per everyone else - it's great that you're willing to help the project, but I'm afraid you just don't have enough experience - don't let his put you off from contributing, though - with more experience, you can make a good admin. Oh, and can you explain what you mean by "thousands" of edits? Tim.bounceback( review me! 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Recommend Withdraw.  I'm sorry; I'd be one of the last editors to succumb to editcountitis, but I see little evidence of any understanding of Wikipedia policy or procedures. &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Extremely low Wikipedia space edits and total edits. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per everyone else. But I like your matzie, kid. Now you know what to do, try again in a few months. Dfrg.msc 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'm trying to assume good faith here but you have little experience, get some XFD work and some good contribs and generally use an edit summary much more and you'll probably pass, as well I suggest re-wording and being more precise to your Q1 answer, but I would suggest withdrawing this RfA. Regards &mdash; &mdash; <font color="00DD00">The Sunshine  <font color="00DD00">Man 10:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I too AGF but note the low numbers and a curious conflict between the stats and your claims. Maybe best to come back later. Perhaps and admin can SNOW this quickly. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial Bold"> Jody B talk 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I would recommend that you come back a bit later, as I do not feel that you know the admin side of things yet. But with a little bit more experience I am sure you will make a great admin! <b style="color:red;">Dep. Garcia</b> ( Talk   + |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  ) 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, some work at XfD will probably seal the deal and you'll be good to go. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 16:03, 20 May 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.