Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raggonix


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

Raggonix
(0/5/0); Ended 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Closed per WP:SNOW by -- how do you turn this on  22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

- YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER

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: I intend to block vandals and help people when help is needed.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are when I put stuff on speedy deletion and reverted vandilizim. They are my best because I got to help the wiki.


 * 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 once had a bad night and fought in a revert war in the sandbox.

General comments

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


 * Links for Raggonix:

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

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry, but you have 155 contributions, which is not enough for me to determine if you would be suited for adminship. Please consider gaining more experience editing and reapplying down the road.  MBisanz  talk 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
 * Guide to requests for adminship
 * WP:Admin
 * the admin reading list.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect  and unprotect  pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A look through his contribs shows him to be, well, a vandal. See and .  Wizardman  22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Had not gotten to that one yet. Make that 6 months of constructive editing and then maybe.22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey--those were in the sandbox. Still, needs a long course in how not to be offensive, etc.  Dloh  cierekim  22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * UCK- Wizardman just indef blocked as VOA. Dloh  cierekim  22:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, you posted that right as I unblocked, since maybe I acted too hastily. Still, I'm wary of him editing after seeing those diffs. Wizardman  22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OH. I glad you unblocked. There are constructive edits. Oh, wow. I need a drink.  Dloh  cierekim  22:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Um, the form is not filled in right, the answers are very short (with poor grammar/spelling), and the edit count is lower than the # of times I have accidentally edited without logging in. I do not yet see this as a benefit to the project.   BMW  (drive)  22:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - You have a fairly low number of edits here on Wikipedia, and I don't see a lot experience in the areas you stated. Your logs say you created your account in late August 2008, which makes you kind of new to the project. Try waiting a few months and improve your work on the desired areas and I'm sure your next RFA will be better. Schfifty  Three  22:54, 9 October 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.