Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qaddosh


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

Qaddosh
Withdrawn(3/12/0); please see mine and Qaddosh's talk for his withdraw by SynergeticMaggot (talk)

- I have noticed some backlogging sometimes at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD and others like it. I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 3 years. I created the Darryl Cox, Dean Blevins, John Allison (special effects designer), Luke Johnson Phone Experiment and Lake Dahlgren articles. I was not logged in when I created Lake Dahlgren. I have been interested in BLP articles for some time now. I was content with being a confirmed user, but I have recently seen a need for adminship as I will be able to do more at Wikipedia as far as deleting/cleaning up CSD articles, blocking vandals and the like. I also know that I would expand into other areas of adminship as a natural process of my curiosity. -- Qaddosh|talk| contribs 09:33, 16 May 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: I intend to be mostly dealing with vandals and vandalism, XFD closures, page protections, deletions and restorations. However, I do foresee expanding into other areas as well.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have cleaned up a lot of vandalism. I have created a few articles: Darryl Cox, Dean Blevins, John Allison (special effects designer), Luke Johnson Phone Experiment and Lake Dahlgren.


 * 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: When I created the Darryl Cox article, I had to assert notability. I was pleasantly surprised when the editor who challenged notability ended up assisting me in editing the article. I was in an edit war on the Doris Burke article over some defamatory content. I posted a notice on WP:BLPN and the issue was quickly settled. I always strive to be as cool-headed as possible and to settle any disputes quickly. I think compromise goes a long way towards settling disputes.

Optional questions from Olaf Davis
 * 4. You say that you contributed as an IP before registering. Did you have a static IP? If so do you feel like indicating which it was so we can take your edits made there into account?
 * A: My IP was [68.97.39.1]

Optional Question For Zginder
 * 5 What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
 * A: WP:NOT would probably be my first answer, but it is diffcult to narrow down what is the most important.

General comments

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


 * Links for Qaddosh:

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

Discussion

 * The day before making this RfA you requested Admin Coaching. I think it would be a good idea to complete a period of coaching regardless of what happens in this RfA.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be so trigger happy, but does anyone else feel as though WP:SNOW now applies, given the "moral supports" and such?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to comment on this myself. Here's something I can support. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Weak support. This may not pass, but I think that you will make a good administrator despite a low edit count.  You should probably take a look at WP:ARL before performing any administrator actions.  Best of luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I suspect that this user would do fine with the tools. Talk page shows user is courteous and has not been read-off for inappropriate reversion, tagging, or incivility. Of the the CSD taggings I saw, only one was rejected, and I can understand not seeing the thing as asserting significance. There was one dicey AFD nom. Again, I can understand viewing the article as needing deletion. The ten AIV reports I saw were appropriate. I did not review for article building. Clearly, this user asseses as being on the right track-- a civil, knowledgeable user. Regrettably, more edits more often would instill greater confidence in overall ability as well as having kept up with shifts n policy interpretation. I do hope to see this user try again if this does not succeed. I do not have a problem with self-noms. Power hunger would be more likely indicated by a wiki-politician wheeling and dealing, glad-handing other users into liking him, and then getting someone else to nominate. The actual tools give one very little power. Power comes from the ability to get others to agree with you or do your bidding. Self-nomming does not do that.   Dloh  cierekim'''  14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support. If you don't get it come back and try again.  Gtstricky Talk or C 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Weak oppose -- Sorry, I love the enthusiasm but experience is the main problem here. You only have ca. 2000 edits (I prefer to see a few more to prove reliability). And you have a low AIV-count for someone who 'intend[s] mainly to fight vandalism'. Sorry! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the above reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per low edit count spread over a long period of time, and pretty unconvincing answers to the questions. I'm not convinced you have the policy experience. I reserve the right to change my opinion pending answers to other questions. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On top of the above, your lack of article writing bothers me. You needn't have ten FAs, but a few articles a little more than a stub (or perhaps some dyks or GAs) would be nice. You link five articles- three of them are bio stubs that were under-categorised (before I got to them) with poorly formatted references, the one on the video has some potential, (that said, it looked like this when you last edited it) but is just a link farm at the moment, and the one on the lake is unreferenced. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough experience.Balloonman (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose with moral support. It's always good to see someone take the initiative on their belief that they can improve Wikipedia further, but 104 Wikipedia space edits does not particularly show much experience specifically around the project. Come back when you've got it under your belt and I have no prejudice against supporting you at a later date. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Not enough in the way of Wikipedia space for me to be able to justify trusting this user with the tools, unfortunately.  a s e nine  say what?  15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - On the right track, that's for sure. For someone so interested in fighting vandalism, I don't see much activity at WP:AIV, which is odd. Not to use "edit count" reasoning, but your project space activity just isn't what I like to see from a prospective administrator, especially given you claim long tenure. Also, the article writing is weak too. Sorry. But like I said, you're on the right path. Keep it up and come back in like 3-4 months.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral support but regretful oppose - This won't pass, unfortunately, but you're certainly on the right track. You simply need a bit more experience all-round and some with article editing to a decent standard (although that is simply one of my criteria, not everyone else's) and once you've done that, hey presto. Good luck and happy editing. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He has one FA and one GA... Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Wrong person... Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not nearly enough overall experience, with only 1202 main space edits over a two year spam. Editing as a whole seems sporadic and very low volume, which would fit with candidate's note that he's been "experimenting" rather than being an active editor. Also not seeing a lot of work in any of the areas of interest. Also notice candidate does not appear to have learned what is and is not a minor edit, with an extreme number of edits edits tagged as minor. That's one of the very basics of Wikipedia editing. On a whole, I feel the candidate needs a be a more active, more diversed in their activities, and get more experienced before attempting adminship. Collectonian (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. You're on the right track, but I need to see more experience in the Wikipedia namespace before I can support. Useight (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose with moral support - Regretable, i dont think you would abuse the tools however its only recently that you,ve really started editing. Please continue as you are doing, come back in a few months and i would willingly support. Very best of luck. Realist 2  ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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.
 * 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.