Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pathfinder2006


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

Pathfinder2006
FINAL (0/5/3); closed per WP:SNOW by Icewedge (Talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[ Voice your opinion] (talk page)

- I have been editing Wikipedia for a good amount of months, correcting grammer, spelling rephrasing and so on. I have patrolled a good amount of articles Pathfinder2006 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: i accept

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: I would improve and will check articles on years and time as i am a member of the wikiproject time, i will also do work on any articles that would need to be corrected as in spelling and grammer and so on.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: To the 2008 article, with over 100 edits to so far doing my best to improve just like to other articles.


 * 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:Yes over the 'nationality' of the Titanic but after some discussions me and the fellow editors had reached a compramise. In the future i will use the discussions as the means to try and reach an comprimise over a disagreement.

General comments

 * See Pathfinder2006's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Pathfinder2006:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pathfinder2006 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I'm not too sure about the answer to 1. Can't non-admins do that?  BG  7   01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Nothing you've said you want to do is in any way connected with admin powers. I don't think you understand what the job is that you're applying for. —  iride  scent  01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Opposed - Though they seem to be pleasant enough I have concerns that they lack the experience necessary to use the tools properly, and that they haven't been in enough conflicts to judge their ability to handle such. I am also concerned over the disuse of edit summaries and the apparent misunderstanding of the admin's role on the wiki. Overall a solid editor but it's just too soon for adminship. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the above reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Your editorial work aside, I just don't believe you have the first clue as to what an administrator is or what work an administrator does. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose and Snow close Frankly, I'm not sure you know what an admin actually does. Keep working at this for a few (at least 6) months, then check out Admin Coaching. You're a good editor, just not a good potential admin. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - Experience is the main issue. I'm also not sure due to your pithy answers, and well..specifically Q1. Doesn't appear as though you conceive the role of an administrator.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) (e.c.) f I see a more convincing answer to q 1 (i.e. not non-adminy) then i'll change!  BG  7   01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - per Wisdom89. Macy (Review me!) 01:08, 13 May 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.