Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47


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

ST47
Final (2/5/9) Ending 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

– I am applying for adminship, not because I think the mop and bucket need me to wield then, but because I think I need them to expand my contributions to the wiki. My service is not necessary to the wiki; I am only online when there are several other editors active. But with admin tools I could help improve Wikipedia, and would not harm it. You may be thinking that I have only been active for the past month, so how could I possibly know what to do? I submit that I know as much about policy and convention as the next guy/gal, and that very few of the 1000 sucessful RfAs that have come through here had experience with the adminship tool, and the few that do only have that experience because you, as the community, trusted them a previous time or on another project. I ask if I have, through my vandal fighting and activity on WP:AfD and WP:AIV, gained the trust that you gave to those 1000 previous candidates, and, if not, if you would be willing to give me a chance to prove this. Feel free to ask any questions, I will answer them truthfully and to the best of my ability. ST47 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdraw for a month or two or five ST47 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I've read the page and scanned through the reading list, I'll go through that page in a moment. I believe I could assist with several long-neglected areas and some active areas that sometimes are backlogged:
 * Protected edit requests seems backlogged, and also seems like something I could help to fix
 * WP:CSD is another area that tends to have a backlog and is a more obvious area of the wiki, as deletions are in the public's sight
 * Unblock Requests I think I understand how to do this, and it seems to be one of the most important areas of the wiki, as we don't want to have people banned who shouldn't be
 * Requested moves I could keep an eye on this and fix anything that cannot be fixed through the conventional pagemove
 * WP:RFI is another area I could help in
 * WP:AIV is sometimes backlogged while I am online
 * WP:AN and resolving the issues that appear there
 * WP:AfD and the like, to close or extend the *fDs with/without a clear consensus


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am pleased with the type of contributions I make, the vandal-fighting and *fD are areas that would affect the community negatively, were they neglected.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Stress, no. There are ofcourse the vandals who believe they are right and who leave rather impolite messages on my talk page, case in point being User_talk:ST47, which I didn't respond to, and this one, who didn't come back to explain himself. But I don't believe the Wiki causes me stress, because I don't let it, because that's not why I'm here.


 * Comments


 * See ST47's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Total edits	2823 Main:	1125 Talk:	85 User:	125 User talk:	1008 Wikipedia:	447 Wikipedia talk:	5 Image:	14 Image talk:	3 Mediawiki:	0 Mediawiki talk:	0 Template:	4 Template talk:	0 Help:	0 Help talk:	0 Category:	2 Category talk:	1 Portal:	4 Portal talk:	0


 * Support
 * 1) Weak Support. I'll say that from what I looked over of your contributions, they seem to be very helpful, and it's my personal policy to support those who are strong on vandalism patrol, because it shows a lot about the type of person.  However, with the short term of experience, it's hard to give a strong support. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Weak Support. Per above. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Too soon - active editing for only over a month. – Chacor 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help with the noincludes! Can I ask what you think I do not know or can not do now because of time, and when you think I should RfA again? ST47 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Active editing for such a short period usually means one might not be certain about some Wikipolicy. Take the time to learn them, put them into use as a non-admin, while continuing to contribute to the content end of the encyclopedia, and we'll see in two to three months. Others may suggest up to six though... – Chacor 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose sorry, you really need experience here before you can play a role in enforcing policy -- Samir धर्म 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. A good editor, but has only been a been a consistent contributor here for one month. Needs a few months more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose You are no doubt, a great editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. But after only one month of experience, it is a bit too soon here. However, your enthusiasm must be commended here. Please do not take this personally and I would strongly recommend you to carry on your good work and re-apply again after two or three months. No doubt, if you perserver, you will get there. Based on my own past experience and RfAs here, it is only right for me to give you encouragement and assurance on this. Just be a bit more patient and I suggest that you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible before it piles up and discourages you. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I really wish I could support but I can't. Having only been here a month, you don't know how much you don't know regarding process and policy. Vandal fighting and Afd comments are necessary, but the main purpose of this place is, after all, to write an encyclopedia. I haven't seen much writing through your edits, and I suggest you get some experience with writing articles. Find a subject in which you're interested and jump in. A good way to start is Articles for creation – take a look through a couple of days worth of suggestions to see what is and isn't acceptable and why, then create articles. It's one of the best Wikistress relievers I've found. With more time, more writing, and more balanced contributions, I would almost certainly support your nomination by the end of the year. Good luck! Baseball  Baby  09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral I think that its a little too early for you, ST47, though you're heading in the right direction. May I suggest that Editor review might be a good forum for you to learn more about your next steps towards becoming an admin? Best, Gwernol 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * to note, I did here, and that made me think the editor review area was inactive. ST47 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fair. It sometimes takes time for people to get to the editor reviews. I'll add some comments to yours. Good luck, Gwernol 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I second Gwernol's comments.  You seem to be a very good, dedicated editor; however, as you should know, if you regularly follow requests for adminship, many editors prefer candidates who have several more months of active editing.  In your response to Chacor, you ask what he thinks you can't do because of the short amount of time you've been actively editing.  It isn't necessarily that there is something that you don't know or can't do; it is merely that many editors would be reassured if you would continue editing actively for several more months. Good luck. Picaroon9288•talk 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a good amount of your Wikipedia space edits seem to be adding "per nom" type statements to afds. ,.  An amount of actually commenting, while citing policy, might convince people that you fully understand the deletion process.  This, at least, is promising. Picaroon9288•talk 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Promising, but unfortunately incorrect as I pointed out in my contribution to the editor's review. CSD:G4 only applies to articles that were deleted as a result of an AfD consensus to delete, not ones that were speedied. Gwernol 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I obviously didn't look hard enough. I was searching for a contribution of his to an afd page that didn't say "delete per nom."  Thanks for catching that, Gwernol. I'm going to have to change to Neutral, leaning oppose. Picaroon9288•talk 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Looks like a great editor. Keep working hard and watch other's WP:RfA's. Just need more experience. JungleCat    talk / contrib  19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment, rather in response to the question from candidate above. I would recommend waiting at least 3 more months. Only superb, well-known candidates are sysopped after 3 months activity. I would recommend becoming more involved with policy and Wikipedia discussions, but because you are rather new it is hard to recommend that you focus in any area. You should do what you are interested in, participate when you come across things or if you find something good and if it happens to be in areas where admin tools would be helpful, you can nominate yourself again—or someone else might nominate you. That could be several months, but the admin tools aren't that spectacular and you can participate in administrative and maintenance areas without them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. You are a very dedicated editor, but as others say it is too soon to become an admin. However, in 2 months' time I would almost definitely support you then. -- Al e  x  (talk here) 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I would also prefer the editor review option for relatively new editors before they take the RfA route. (aeropa gitica)  21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea... Patent pending? JungleCat    talk / contrib  21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Only one month of regular editing is not enough. Michael 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Merovingian - Talk 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral &mdash; Plenty of edits, but a lopsided mix. Your initial edits are most fascinating &mdash; very few editors come to Wikipedia for the first time at such a dedicated level of vandal fighting.  Plenty of vandalism patrols &mdash; over 1000 vandalism reverts &mdash; extremely noteworthy dedication &mdash; action on AfD&mdash; clear progression delete per nom to more thoughtful comments citing actual WP standards &mdash; no compelling arguments noted, but solid enough&mdash;no evidence of retrieving an article on its way out by improving it, but you’re not alone there&mdash;nothing fatal. I decided to support if I could find one major edit or a couple of significant contributions!  Looked for major edits &mdash; thought I’d found some before August 16th, but upon reviewing over 1000 edits in main I realized that was when you moved over to the use of Tools/Navigation popups.  BOTTOM LINE: Please broaden yourself a little further (e.g., spend some more time in Requests for adminship seeing who gets selected and why), do some serious contributing (create several new articles or research and add to existing articles), Wikify a few of the crummier articles, & I’ll be happy to support you as an administrator. Williamborg (Bill) 04:30, 6 September 2006 (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.