Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/P Carn


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

P Carn
(2/10/2); Closed per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW by &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // at 09:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Nomination
– I have become more involved in Wikipedia recently, and would like to become an admin so that I can serve the community even better. There are many times I have seen a vandal keep vandalizing while an admin has not blocked him, and I would like to be able to change that. P Carn (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Reverting vandalism, and blocking those who repeatedly vandalize according to Wikipedia's policies.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Quick reversion of vandalism, and kindly helping users who need it.


 * 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 followed the policies of Wikipedia, and explained to the user why their edit did not belong. After that, the user understood, and I would do the same in all future conflicts.


 * Additional question from Phantomsteve
 * 4. Your last RfA was in December 2009.:
 * a. What has changed since that was closed which has helped you decide that you are ready to try again?
 * A:
 * b. What contributions since that RfA do you think show that you have an "administrator" attitude, and why?
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for P Carn:
 * Edit summary usage for P Carn can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Stats added to talk page --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support this RfA is not going well but you are headed in the right direction. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 03:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support per PR459. I think you need more experience in admin areas (and more detailed answers to the questions) if you would like to have another try at RFA. Keep it up! Airplaneman  talk 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Almost dormant until December last year, when editing picked up probably in preparation for this RfA. There are quite enough blockhammers wandering around wikipedia already, don't need another one. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of my December edits were after my previous Rfa, when I had little over 1,000 edits. I now have over 5,000.  P Carn (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While your anti-vandalism work is impressive, an admin needs experience in many areas of Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell you've never done anything but Huggle/Vandalism reversion except for some edits 3 years ago. Add to this the fact you've only been actively editing since December and I just don't think you're ready for the mop right now-- Jac 16888 Talk 02:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) No real evidence of admin-like work to go on, and these A7 nominations from a month ago are not good. Kevin (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Anti-vandalism work is commendable and is an essential part of the project. But with 75% of your 5,000 odd edits automated, I'm not seeing enough experience in other parts of the project (eg XfDs) to be confident to trust you with the broad range of administrative tools. I would also like to see a record of content-building as the best way to demonstrate an understanding of core policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) The A7 nominations that Kevin brings up are concerning. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - The speedy deletion nominations that Kevin pointed out cause me to believe that you should not have the delete button. Sorry, mate. But please keep contributing to wikipedia. Will an admin please close this RfA early? - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Not seeing enough activity to judge the knowledge of a wide range of policies that an admin should have. Great vandalism work, but you're not just requesting a block button. I would like to see that someone has enough knowledge and experience to be trusted with access to all the tools, not just the block privilege.   S warm  ( Talk ) 03:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, and high proportion of automated to non-automated edits.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, but do keep at it. I'm concerned that your responses here (and in your last RfA) are very short and lacking in detail; the deletion taggings noted above are also concerning, and there isn't enough here to indicate that you fully understand all the policies involved. Keep at it - do some proper article work as well, and involve yourself in other areas of adminship, including AfD, discussions on AN and ANI, and similar areas. If you keep this pace up, and learn from what mistakes you make (such as the ones Kevin points out), then you'll probably be good for another run in four to six months. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Lack of sound judgment and understanding of basic Wikipedia speedy deletion policy.  It makes me wonder what other aspects of Wikipedia policy he doesn't understand.  It looks like he couldn't be bothered to check and see if the assertion of notability really was credible for those edits Kevin pointed out, or even put the right template on the page for the person article speedy deletion candidate, putting a club/group one instead. Moogwrench (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Consider this moral support. Answers 1-3 need a bit more meat to them since your edit history is largely automated with Huggle. Suggest you increase involvement with article writing. Consider writing a few DYKs. Thats a good place to start. Content building is a must if your going to undertsnad when and when not to use the tools. Alos accorsding to your last RFA which was about 3 months ago, there were suggestions to run again in about a year. I would highly suggest holding off on any future RFAs until youve dealt with the concerns the other users have raised in the opposition. Happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I looked back at your last 3,000 edits (including the deleted ones), which is going back to 18th December last years. I found that only 104 edits were *not* automated. Only 25 of these were edits to articles (and they were all minor edits, even if not labelled as such). 54 of them were to talk pages (others' or your own), 9 of those were to User pages (others' or your own), 5 were to article talk, and the remaining 11 were to the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Much as I admire the anti-vandalism work, I see hardly any evidence of "admin-type" activity in the last 4 months (all the reports to AIV, for example, were automated). There are a couple of AfDs back in December, but nothing since, for example. I don't want to pile on the opposes, but I cannot support you at this time. My advice would be to work on articles (not just anti-vandalism work); to get involved in RfA discussions (it gives you a good feel of what the community are looking for in their admins); get involved with AfDs/MfDs. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:14, 18 March 2010 (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.