Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TREYWiki


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

TREYWiki
(1/7/1); Ended 07:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

- Hello, All. My name is Trey, know here as TREYWiki. I have been on Wikipedia for a few months now, and I feel I should be and administrator. I have edits all around the board. I like to tag new pages for speedy deletion, and I cringe when I see a page like GEORGE IS STUPID (well, you all know what they really say and I'm not about to put that in my RfA) get put in a backlog at CAT:CSD. I am knowledgeable on policy, I study it sometimes. I would really like the tools of an administrator to deal with the ever-present vandalism on this project. -- TREYWiki  02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to remove the backlog from CAT:CSD, Close AfD's, and monitor AIV. I would keep a watch on WP:UAA. I would love to sit down at try to remove backlogs from administrative pages. I think anything that gets reported/nominated on an administrative page should be taken care of quickly. Vandals make me cringe, and I would like to block them for specifically what they did wrong. Many times I see a vandal requesting a unblock because they didn't know what they did. I would let them know, because I take that extra minute to explain things.-- TREYWiki  02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: By far, my best contributions are to Erie, PA and related articles. I am working extremely hard to get Erie up to GA Class, which I think it is almost ready to be re-nominated for. I have re-written almost the entire article. I work closely with WP:ERIE to give Wikipedia more complete coverage of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Also, I believe my many vandalism reverts are good contributions because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for trashing your friends. I monitor RC and the new page feed on a daily basis.-- TREYWiki  02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: Now this is the tough question. I am positive you will all cringe and think to oppose me when you see my block log. It almost hurts me to look at it too. I think that the block was a little harsh, but I take responsibly for my actions. Another user came to me with a message accusing Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2 of sock puppetry. I have learned sock puppetry is a very touchy subject. Yes, we did unknowingly violate policy by confronting him and provoking him, but I don't think we were involved in edit wars with him, but this is not the time to contest that. I did not know much policy back then, and If I did, this would have never happened. I can not put into words how much I would have liked never to get involved in this. My words were very harsh, but now I have changed. I apologized on Kd lvr's talk page and I know always assume good faith. My edits are constructive, and I hope it will overcome this conflict. I hope you can trust me out there, I am very sorry for these actions. This was bad on mine and some others parts. We disrupted Wikipedia and I can never take that back. I have moved on. I have changed. I am a better person now. Thank your for understanding.-- TREYWiki  02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for TREYWiki:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TREYWiki before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Moral support: I think you have great intentions and that, with a little time, you could gain the necessary experience. Heed what the opposers have said and see if you can't make yourself a better candidate in a few months' time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose Too new. Prodego  talk  02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Serious concerns about assuming good faith. An administrator is a funnel of complaints. If you can't assume good faith, people only get more angry and a bad situation goes to worse. Sean William 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When I made the bad faith comments, I didn't know about WP:AGF-- TREYWiki  02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The incident that earned you the block was less than a month ago. If you didn't know about WP:AGF less than a month ago, you need more experience. Sean William 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been editing a lot since that block, for many hours a day. I have picked up lots of experience. After I was blocked, I read about every policy out there. -- TREYWiki  03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you're here at Wikipedia, you'll find that knowing policy backwards and forwards won't help you at all if you still don't get the basics. I don't think you do. Sean William 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I defiantly know my way around, I'm a quick learner. I know the basics, but obviously not as much as a seasoned administrator like you. -- TREYWiki  03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry, but two months is way too new; I prefer someone who has been around long enough to show sound knowledge of policies and guidelines. Between the relatively short age of the account and the recent blocking (which is also a concern; great that the editor has taken the lesson to heart, but still a concern), I just can't get behind this RfA. Don't take it personally, though! I've seen admins pass similar hurdles in the past. I'd suggest submitting an editor review in a month or so (to give the reviewing editor more to look at and comment on); take any of that advice to heart and you'll already be on much better ground for a successful RfA. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Has not shown dedication to the project sufficiently for me to trust this user with the extra buttons, and that block was nowhere near long enough ago for me to reconsider.  Daniel  03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Candidate does not have experience as an admin at this moment. — tz (Talk) (Contribs) Sat 04:15:20 2007-05-19
 * 4) Oppose strongly suggest withdrawal.--Jersey Devil 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose sorry but you are not as good to be an admin.-- JasZZZ   Talk ·  Sign here 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral the beginnings of a good editor, but not enough time here, yet. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 04:15, 19 May 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.