Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ShawnIsHere


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

ShawnIsHere
Final 0/7/0; Closed at 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) by ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) per WP:NOTNOW.

Nomination
– I decided to throw my hand up and request adminship. I've been around for a couple of years, contributing to the community in various instances here and there. I'm a rather quiet, unassuming, but direct person, but thoroughly commited to Wikipedia and what it stands for. If anyone wishes to ask me any questions, feel free. Shawn Is Here : Now in colors 09:54, 11 May 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: If accepted, I hope to take part in some of the more 'shovel-ready' tasks that admins have to do on a regular basis, in addition to any normal duties required of an admin.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: While I like all of my contributions, my favorite contributions have to be UTStarcom CDM1450, two sections on College of the Mainland, and The Popsicle Twins. While fairly random, they are some of my better pieces of work.


 * 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: Once, over Michael Atkinson, which was not one of my best moments. I had included a contribution sourced from Zero Punctuation about his record on R18+ Video Games. After a minor tiff with another user and an admin, I took a step back and analyzed things, and decided my time was better spent elsewhere on Wikipedia before moving on.


 * A question from Phantomsteve
 * 4. Your answer to question 1 seems to be a bit vague! Could you perhaps amplify on what kind of 'shovel-ready' tasks you would do, and which "normal duties" you believe are required of an admin.
 * A:If I may answer the second part first, my view of the admin's normal duties revolve around maintaining the site (through actions such as RFCs, dealing with users, etc.), setting an example for other users, and otherwise making sure Wikipedia doesn't fall into decay. As for 'shovel-ready' activites, I wouldn't know any offhand, but I would do them nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnIsHere (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for ShawnIsHere:
 * Edit summary usage for ShawnIsHere can be found here.

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

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I hate to be the first, and I added my question before checking the candidate's contributions - but I cannot support someone who has a total of 166 edits (including 3 deleted ones) - I do not see sufficient evidence that the candidate has an understanding of the policies and guidelines in use on Wikipedia. This looks like a WP:NOTNOW case to me --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not enough edits to properly judge you. What is there looks fine though. Try again later.--Atlan (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Absolutely not. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Thanks 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 3-6 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.    7  11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I am opposing, but let me say that you seem to have made a good start as a contributor and I am sure that if you keep up the good work you will become an admin some day. Cheers, Cocytus   [»talk«]  12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support – but from your answers to the questions, it doesn't seem that you quite know what an admin is for to be honest. Sorry. :) – B.hotep •talk• 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – I am sorry, but IMHO you are not experienced enough yet. --Leyo 13:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral supportThough your edits don't throw up any flags your answers to the questions so far do seem vague, inferring a insufficient knowledge for adminship for now, but I think your on a good track. Mlpearc   Pull My Chain   Trib's  13:49, 11 May 2010 (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.