Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Saint-Paddy


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

Saint-Paddy
Final  (4/19/4) ended 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

– Saint-Paddy has been on Wikipedia since June of 2003 and has made just over a 1000 edits but has worked diligently and quietly behind the scenes of Wikipedia never attracting to much attention to himself. The user has contributed many images, mostly in the form of logos. The user is a sysop on Wikinews under the username [n:user:TUFKAAP


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. I withdraw my nomination. --Saint-Paddy 18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support Has been using Wikipedia for more than 2 years. Deserves to be an admin. S iva1979 Talk to me  16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, a good admin on Wikipedia and unlikely to abuse admin tools. Ral315 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, per Siva1979. --  Tvaughn05 e   (Talk)  (Contribs) 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive.  23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose; sorry, I'm sure you're a great user on Wikinews, but under 500 edits per year, with low edit summary usage and almost no Wikipedia: space edits make you unsuitable for adminship on Wikipedia at this time.  smurray  inch e  ster (User), (Talk) 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose Only has 1307 edits. Lack of Edit summaries are a problem, but nothing unfixable. I like the fact that he has been with Wikipedia since 2003 but his inactivity shows he might have no working knowledge of the current policies. M o e   ε  16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, sorry. Lack of familiarity with policy and process aside from a bunch of AfD votes.  Lord  ViD 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) weak Oppose simple wikifying does not require admin powers. KI 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Very low edit summary usage, low-ish edit count, and practically no work on Wikispace. Thor Malmjursson 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Lack of project edits suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above. Nacon  Kantari   e |t||c|m 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose lack of participation in Project areas, low use of user talk (effective communications are important for an admin) xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  20:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per above. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: Sorry. Edit summaries and edit count aren't a problem for me but doesn't seem to have much experience in some key areas. Doesn't seem like he would have much use for admin tools or much experience in the areas where they would be useful. Would support later if activity increases. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose unfortunately. Activity isn't a problem for me but the lack of experience in admin related areas is. Raven4x4x 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose 1000 edits in two years isn't good enough. joturner 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose lack of experience Wikipedia space.--Ugur Basak 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose as above.Blnguyen 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose: amount of participation and use of summaries too low at this time, sorry. Jonathunder 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose: need to broaden participation. psch  e  mp  |  talk  04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose for now per Standards. Essexmutant 12:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Needs to be more active  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 08:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Better have more experience.--Jusjih 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, user is dedicated to the project edvidenced by the 2-year timeframe, but the amount of production and afd-only participation is undershadowed by these factors. -ZeroTalk 06:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, seems reasonably experienced, but 1300 edits in 2 years looks a bit infrequent. I managed ten times that in half the time, but I'm a Wikipediaholic. =) J I P | Talk 07:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral based on the answer to question 3. The word bragging doesn't sit well with me, for which I apologise.  I also think a little apology to Dwain would not have gone amiss. Hiding  talk 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral clearly a good Wiki user, but not regular enough on Wikipedia. Robdurbar 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 76% for major edits and 28% for minor edits. Based on the last 128 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Saint-Paddy's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



Questions for the candidate

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:
 * 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 would most likely do chores that come down simple wikifying, mergeing and deleting articles that have been approved for deletion.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. The stub on PDD-NOS, since I am afflicted with that disorder. Other than that, nothing I'm really pleased about. I like all my work. I dont usually have favorites in anything.


 * 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. I have never been in a edit conflict, to my knowledge. However, a few days ago I edited the Republican celebs page on User:Dwain's namespace. I messed up with the layout by mistake when adding a simple note to one of the people on the list. I was planning on correcting it until the recent server troubles cause the servers to go down. Then I completely forgot about it and the next day, Dwain messages and says Please don't edit or I should say vandalize my Rep celeb page anymore. I just blew it off and ignored it, I didn't even message him on his talk page, I just ignored it and then bragged about the little incident in #wikinews about how silly it was and continued on with my day.


 * The above 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.