Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 2

Stormtracker94

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

FINAL (1/11/3); closed per WP:SNOW by Phgao 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

- Hello all. I have been an editor here for about three months as Stormtracker94 and have been an IP viewer and editor since about January 2007. Since my last application, I have taken advice of editors that voted, and have since improved. I have participated in WP:AFD frequently and due to that, have become very familiar with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:OR. I have also become a newpages and recent changes patroler and have 100% edit summary usage since my last applicaion. Thanks. STORMTRACKER  94  21:03, 22 October 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I will try to be involved in many areas of admin work, such as:


 * WP:AFD- closing discussions and deleting failed pages
 * WP:NEWPAGES- deletion of articles that fail WP:CFD.
 * WP:RCPATROL- reverting vandalism
 * WP:AIV- blocking users who have recieved a final warning and have still violated policies.
 * WP:3RR- blocking users who have violated the 3RR Rule
 * Editing the Main page (Current events)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been on RC Patrol and NP Patrol because I have constantly reverted vandalism and kept Wikipedia clean. I also have frequently participated in AFDs and have had a say in the deletion of many articles.


 * 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 been in come conflicts mainly due to vandalism patrol as conflicts are hard to come by, in which I have reported the users to WP:AIV and have had them blocked. In the future, I plan to do the same and possibly block the vandal or disruptive juser myself.


 * From  T Rex  | talk
 * 4. How have you improved in the last 20 days?
 * A:


 * 5. How would you deal with page move vandalism?
 * A.


 * Optional questions from O (talk)
 * 6. What is the difference between blocks and bans?
 * A:


 * 7. What would you classify XFD as (vote, discussion, etc.)? Explain why.
 * A:


 * Optional question from jj137
 * 8. Could you explain why you seldom mark edits as "minor"?
 * A:

General comments

 * See Stormtracker94's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Stormtracker94:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Stormtracker94 before commenting.''

Support

 * Weak support I don't consider "a violation of WP:SIG" to be a horrible thing. His signature was a little large, so what? He fixed it without complaining.  C O  00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I guess I am assuming good faith somewhat here. I've seen you around a lot of the sports articles, and I know you're a fine editor, and would fit the job well. jj137  ( Talk ) 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) What I said last time. I believe candidate has learned a lot since then, but some more time is still necessary. Acalamari 01:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Candidate gives the impression of being immature, and lacks any substantial experience in mainspace and in administrator-type areas. The fact that this user needed to be told by a number of users, myself included, to fix his signature as it violated WP:SIG only earlier this month shows distinct inexperience. User is not ready for the tools.  Daniel  23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the last five "votes" (as this user describes them) at AfD show a distinct lack of knowledge about the consensus model:    . Merely citing acronyms does not contribute to the discussion, as noted here.  Daniel  00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Daniel. And his use of the summary box could be better. Lord Dreamy   tm  23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Upon second review, your first RfA was less then a month ago. You need more time to address concerns.  C O  00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Sorry, not quite ready yet. You still have to address the issues raised from your last RfA. GlassCobra 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I'm a little concerned about experience dealing with other editors on vandalism patrol. It's been about a month since I contributed to his editor review, and at that time I noticed that he had twice issued warning to an editor for vandalizing a page that the editor had not, so far as I can see in the deleted contributions log, touched. More recently, I see a lot of good vandalism clean-up, like here, but I'm not seeing any warnings to editors. I believe good communication with editors who make inappropriate edits is an important part of recent changes patrol, and without seeing some example of the user engaging in that communication, I can't guess what skills he could apply in that area as an administrator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I've seen you round, Stormtracker, but I don't think you're ready yet. Your comments in AfD show you're inexperienced. This isn't exactly a good argument to use in an AfD discussion - especially when you cite WP:POVFORK without specifying which article. You've tried hard to revert vandalism, but one month isn't enough to fix all of the issues from your last RfA. Wait a couple of months, read WP:ATA, then come back here for another RfA.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above. Tim Q. Wells 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I would like to see mainspace contributions from this candidate (i.e. improving articles).  Miranda  02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Sorry ST.  It still looks like you need more hands-on experience.  Keep plugging away, give it a month or two, and perhaps you can try again.  Good luck!  --Folic_Acid 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose -- I don't think that 3 months is a long enough experience span, and I am moved to oppose by the candidates lack of answers to questions 4-7. -- FastLizard4  (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per all the above reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after six months. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - I'm not sure yet here. The number of edits are fine, maybe a couple more months of experience, though. jj137  ( Talk ) 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. A good editor, but not enough time has passed since previous RFA to demonstrate a sufficient improvement.  I recommend taking another 6 to 8 weeks before trying again.  Bonus points for having exactly 1394 edits last month.  Useight 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty cool. I didn't notice that! jj137  ( Talk ) 02:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral because his heart is in the right place. In his editor review, he wrote last month that he planned to apply for adminship in January or February 2008; he should indeed probably wait until then. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:26, 23 October 2007 (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.