Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shapiros10


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

Shapiros10
Final (1/14/0); Closed per WP:SNOW by Tiptoety at 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 

- ♥ Shapiros10 Wuz  Here ♥ 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing I've only been on for 10-11 months, I know I probably won't make it this time, I just want to see what I need to do.

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: Mainly editing articles, definetly some AfD work and vandalism reverts. I also want to have the power to (fairly) block offending users.  Another hobby is WikiGnoming.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Probably my work in the Wyn Matthews AfD, because some users thought that my adhering to WP:N was biased. I proved that the subject of the article wasn't notable for wikipedia.


 * 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 not really been in any edit conflicts, aside from a little minor tension in AfDs. I intend to deal with it by always keeping good faith.

General comments

 * See Shapiros10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Shapiros10:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Shapiros10 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Might I recommend adoption or editor review. Tiptoety  talk 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) This is advice that User:Dlohcierekim gives to any user with <1000 edits ( he isn't online at the moment, so I hope he doesn't mind my stealing it ;-) ):
 * While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits 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.
 * My suggestion to any nominees with < 1000 edits 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. Good luck and happy editing. (end of advice) EJF (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose A little under 500 edits. This does not show enough experience to be an administrator.  The large focus of these <500 edits are user and user talk.  Spend more of your Wikitime with article work and policy-based work before applying next time.  Metros (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Metros. Inexperienced in many areas. Rudget . 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose With twice as many edits in userspace as in mainspace, and only around 500 edits total, I am afraid that you have not given the community enough evidence on which they can determine your ability to be trusted with the tools. Perhaps after more time and on-wiki experience, but I must reluctantly oppose for now. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Metros. This request is very similiar to my own failed request not long ago. I too thought I had enough experience and edits to be a sucessful admin. Since then I have realised that I didnt have enough edits and needed to review my situation, I propose you do the same. Also I would concentrate on more mainspace edits! Good luck next time! --Camaeron (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Sorry pal, lets take a look in about 1500 - 2500 edits shall we? I know that edit count != good editor, but we really can't tell until then. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per points made in EJF's support. 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
 * 7) Oppose Syas that his main area of admin work would be "editing articles" - this can be done by any user and does not generally require admin tools. Still good luck in your future editing. Guest9999 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Yeah, gonna have to oppose, sorry. It looks as though you may lack understanding ofthe role that administrators play on Wikipedia. WP:ADMIN might help. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - While i can see that your intentions are good, you just do not have enough experience under your belt. Along with how rushed this RfA appears and the lack of quality answers to the questions, I must oppose.  Tiptoety  talk 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I am sorry for opposing but you have less than 500 edits and very short answers to the questions. I recommend an editor review and maybe 5-6 months from now another RFA would be appropriate Alexfusco5 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose While your enthusiasm is commendable, you just don't have the experience necessary. Harland1 (t/c) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Sorry. 12% edit summary usage, and 0% ESU for minor edits isn't acceptable. Come back in a couple of months. Go through admin coaching, get adopted, etc. I will be glad to support in 3-4 months. Also, 82 edits in the mainspace is a little to low. Sorry. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Per above concerns, mainly number of edits and terrible edit summary usage. ArcAngel (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose - aside from poor edit-summary usage and abysmal answers to questions (editing articles is not admin work!), this editor appears to be merely looking for an Editor Review, given their opening sentence, and this isn't the right place to be making such requests. —TreasuryTag talk contribs  18:18, 2 March 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.