Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nick carson


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

Nick carson
Final (5/11/3); Withdrawn by candidate at 11:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

If this is a question of wether or not I would be able to perform administrator duties, I can assure you the only reason I have not thus far is that I don't have the ability to. I fix spelling, grammar, organise article sections and subsections, add tags and source references, but I'd like to be able to do more. I would also like to see what contributions I can make with the tools at hand. I would ultimately like to perform mediation and conflict resolution duties in Wikipedia, particularly those involving Wikipedia policies, in an effort to reduce systemic and mainstream bias and shift importance and significance to include lesser known but by no means less significant subject matter. See my user page for more explanation of this. I would like to see Wikipedia used as a source of general and detailed & specific information, and I would like to make it happen rather than sit around waiting for it to slowly evolve up to speed. So give me the chance, give me the launching pad.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Deletion of images and pages, Protecting and Editing protected pages, Performing requested moves and resolving incidents that may require admin intervention.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Creating or expanding articles of varying percieved significance in Wikipedia drawing from a variety of resources. Contributing information about Pre-European Australian history, which is currently lacking.


 * 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: Only a couple of isolated, minor disputes regarding matters such as spelling or naming. I continuously learn to deal with conflict better each day, as do many of us.


 * Additional questions from Ncmvocalist
 * 4. Scenario. You come across an article where 2 editors, A and B, are in a dispute. A's claim: B is inserting content without citing sources, and keeps removing the content that A inserts. B's claim: A is inserting content that does not adhere to a neutral point of view, and cites unreliable sources while removing the content that B inserts. Which position prevails?
 * A:


 * 5. If you find that edit-warring is occurring on an article you are uninvolved in, what would you do as an admin? (NB: this is a deliberately broad question, so try to cover a few different scenarios.)
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Nick carson:

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

Support

 * 1) Moral Support Good contributions, civil editor. Needs more work in admin related areas and better use of edit summaries. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a little while or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is no big deal and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  02:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can assure you I will continue to contribute to wikipedia regardless. Nick carson (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith) and as candidate has never been blocked. --A NobodyMy talk 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Candidate displays annoyance at RFA process, clearly demonstrating sanity. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, seems trustworthy. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - not yet, although you do have a good amount of useful contributions. You're going good so far.   jj137   ( talk )  02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; sorry but there's a couple things wrong here, especially use of edit summaries (or lack thereof). The answers to the questions were relative short for my standards. Almost suggest closing via WP:NOTNOW . Not enough admin-related work, I'm sorry but you just don't meet my standards for adminship. RockManQ  (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have demonstrated that I now contribute edit summaries, even if I may not have in the past. And keep in mind that the way I treat standard user access is by no means an indication of how I will treat admin access. How can I contribute admin work without access to admin tools? Nick carson (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict, dang you Wisdom I was writing a paragraph) By working in areas that require sometimes require the use of admin tools (such as WP:XFD, just an example}, you can demonstrate that you have the experience and knowledge of policy to be an admin. I'm not saying you'll never be an admin, just that you need some work. RockManQ  (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry dude : ) Just use the back arrow  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh, should of thought of that before :) RockManQ  (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Does not meet my criteria.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this criteria, I will never be eligible for admin access as I have; in the past contributed few edit summaries, still need 400 odd edits, and apparently the fact that I lived away from home in 2007 and didn't contribute many edits that year. Wether we have the time to or not doesn't mean we shouldn't treat each case for it's individual worth. Nick carson (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. macy 04:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Definitely on the right track, but not enough experience yet for me to accurately assess his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Useight (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try talking to me. It seems there is too much voting and not enough discussion. Nick carson (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Not exactly an active contributor. Out of eighteen of the past twenty-one months, there are less than 20 edits, with only the last three months with some activity. Relatively low discussion, with less than 15 at the most on any type of talk page, excluding candidate's own. Definitely not now.  DiverseMentality  (Boo!)  05:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My edits, though comparatively few, are time consuming and have alot of time spent researching and sourcing references behind them, if I was slapping tags on everything all the time of course I'd have 40,000 edits by now. You can't take things for face value, there's alot more to it than that. Much of the same thing here, more WP:NOTNOW than actual discussion. Nick carson (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add that much of the subject matter I contribute to bears little discussion on talk pages, it's hard to discuss things with people when barely anyone replies. Nick carson (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Although I don't like to oppose for any reason, this users edit count is frightfully low for adminship. It might pay to withdraw and try again in a few months so this RfA doesn't negatively influence any future chance at adminship. Best wishes, Matty (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and recommend withdrawal — almost no relevant experience in speedy-tagging, images, AFDs, requesting protection, page moves, etc., which is pretty much everything you said you wanted to work on. A hint for next time: replying to almost every opposer tends to get pile-on opposes for badgering them. Especially when your opposition, like to DiverseMentality and Useight, is so hostile. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Seriously no no no. User not active, negative influence, I dont trust him to become and Admin, its a big mistake. Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Good content building, not enough experience overall. The way you are handling this RfA has pushed me over into the Oppose column. --Banime (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Uber Oppose Candidate did not read (or didn't comprehend or even worse, ignored as he did with the above withdraw requests) Guide to requests for adminship. Enough Said.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't be monitoring wikipedia at every moment, I have to work and eat, I apologise if my need to earn money and consume food has led anyone to believe that I had ignored anything purposely. Nick carson (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who seriously supported this RfA, I feel offended that you find this RfA as ridiculous as you do. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous is your words, reality would be mine, Past experience has shown that this users RFA (no matter how noble his intentions are) will WP:SNOW very quickly because most people expect very high standards and work of admins ;), especially in the WP namespace. In this case WP namespace edits are severely lacking  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Basically neutral I'd like to provide some clarity about the "edit summary" comments. People are looking for indications that you will use the admin tools properly.  Since we can't observe you blocking users, protecting pages and such, we need some basic proxies.  What most people look for as a proxy is that you are communicative and trustworthy.  The consistent use of edit summaries falls into the "communicative" end of things.  If (and this is largely, though not always true) you consistently use descriptive edit summaries you are more likely to telegraph your actions and intentions to other users.  Of course, that isn't perfect.  I could have 100% edit summary usage but never edit a talk page (though that would be seen as well).  But by and large it is what we have to go on.  I hope this helps explains some of the "opposes" above. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, though distrust is a terrible thing, we can't keep letting the minority ruin it for the majority. Nick carson (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral WP:NOTNOW... Townlake (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm leaning one way already, but whether I'm leaning strongly or weakly will depend on more Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:50, 22 October 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.