Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz


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

TeckWiz
Final] (6/10/6); Ended 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

– I have been here for almost a year, and though I don't have a lot of edits like many people who are nominated for RFA, I'm nearing my 2,000th edit, and I think I would be able to do more for Wikipedia with admin powers. For what I plan to do as a sysop, see the general questions below. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept as self-nom. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: As an admin I would help with closing XFD's, as well as determining consensus for anything else that needs admin powers. I would also participate in reviewing and if deemed necessary, blocking vandals listed at WP:AIV, as well as vandals that I have found through recent changes that have violated their final warning. In addition, I will help out with articles that are up for speedy deletion, as I have seen the number of articles listed grow very large. When needed, I will semi or fully protect highly vandalized pages. Lastly, I will fill any user's request that they cannot carry out themselves, liked fixed a mistake in a protected template.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Until recently, my contributions were to only a few articles. Because of this, I decided to start patrolling recent changes. I'm proud of my contributions to pages listed at User:TeckWiz.


 * 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 been in no major conflicts. I believe I have been in one or two minor conficts about the content of a page. The conflicts have been small enough to be handled on mine and the user's talk page.

TeckWiz's editor review
 * General comments


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



Discussion



Support
 * 1) Moral Support I understand that you mean good intentions but I think you should wait a little longer. You should probably start tackling the wikispace edits such as AFD, MFD, and others. &mdash; Seadog 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support per Seadog. Although I think your heart is in the right place, you are by no means ready qualified to have the title and powers of an Admin. Spend more time reviewing Wikipedia policy, more time on WP:AFD, WP:RFA, WP:Village Pump, and WP:AIV. Do more work patrolling the new pages. Actively find and document vandals. You have the abilility to become an Admin. Sharkface217 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support I admire your principles and enthusiasm: they will serve you and greater humanity well in the future. Please do not be discouraged because of the likely failure of this RfA; 12 years of age finds one bursting to fly, though here would be too much like Darius' lesson. You will undoubtedly go on to do great things in life, here and elsewhere.  Skyemoor 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. From what I've seen of you, you're a great editor: enthuisiastic, civil, helpful, and knowledgeable. I never oppose based on age; I think that the mental maturity needed for adminship shows through your contributions. However, I would recommend getting your edit count up; probably around the 3000 mark would be great per myself. Congratulations! Yuser31415 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Low edit count doesn't equal no knowledge of Wikipedia. I'm quite happy to support this user with no reservations of misuse of powers. Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This user has the right attitude, and anyhow adminship is no big deal. -- Majo  rly  22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, I must oppose. Although you seem to be doing a good vandal fight, I think that you might require some more experience before becoming an admin. Wikipedia space count is too low, and I see very little participation in XfD.-- Hús  ö  nd  18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - rather low projectspace edits. And there's the age thing. How do I say this diplomatically? Admins have to deal with an awful lot of shit, and at 12 do you really have the emotional maturity to cope? It sounds strange but until I've seen you handle a really tricky situation well I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to support. Sorry. Moreschi 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I choose to reveal my age. You shouldn't look down on me because of that. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't look down on you. I admire you greatly for doing so. However, given this, it is not unreasonable for admin standards to be just a little higher, and there's nothing that really makes me tick. You are a fine editor. Couldn't you continue to be a fine editor for a while longer? Best, Moreschi 20:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, due to overuse of JS to revert stuff. Sometimes you have to manually revert things. I wish I could give you moral support, but you simply are too good a candidate to do that. This is very odd. I expected a bunch of supports, as I'm usually borderline paranoid about script edits. -Amarkov blahedits 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen plenty of admins use "Reverted edits by y to last version by x" many times, so I don't know why you oppose because of this. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like it when admins do that, and I don't support people who do. I can't do anything about people who already are admins. -Amarkov blahedits 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And what does JS lack that a manual revert doesn't. For a manual revert, most people just put rv or rvv. JS says who's being reverted. If anything, JS is better. T e ckWizTalk Contribs@ 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * People who revert things that aren't obvious vandalism just saying "rv" are bad, too, and I don't like that. I have no less of a problem there. -Amarkov blahedits 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, due to lack of widespread experience on Wikipedia. Still need to spend a bit more time on Wikipedia, and I am sure you will soon have enough experience.  Keep up the good work! Yaf 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, You are an experienced vandal-fighter and we really appreciate you reverting vandalism, but you need more widespread experience if you want to be an administrator such as AFD. Good luck working on that!--PrestonH 02:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose I would like to see more experience as mentioned above. This can be easily fixed with time, though.  On a side note, I also noticed that you sometimes do not warn vandals on their talk pages-- this should almost always be done as it can help prevent future vandalism.  Dar-Ape 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this. Since I started RC patrol, I've reported all vandalism on talk pages, and reported people who violated their final warning to WP:AIV. T e ckWizTalk Contribs@ 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. Not enough involvement in Wikipedia space; weak answers to questions. —Doug Bell talk 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, you need to use AFD more, and I just don't see enough experience. -- S onicChao talk 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above. --t e h tennis man  21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, inexperience. It's just too early man... keep up the great work and come back in a couple of months and you'll be a much stronger candidate for adminship. There's a lot to learn. – Lantoka (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, inexperienced in too many areas. Deizio talk
 * What areas do you mean? I don't know if you're saying I'm inexperienced because I don't use it often, like AFD, which I usually don't visit yet have full knowledge about (I have nominated about 30 articles and have voted a few times) T e ckWizTalk Contribs@ 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral I won't actively oppose you as I think that for your age you are doing a great job here. The only thing that stops me from going to support is the low participation in XfD and vandal fighting.  Keep plugging away at these in addition to contributing to articles and warning vandals and I will happily support you after reviewing the evidence in three or four months' time. (aeropagitica) 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral it's a bit too soon, TeckWiz, but I encourage you to keep going after vandals, participating in XfDs and other areas of interest, and you should be good to go in a few months' time. You're doing good work, though, so keep it up, and a second RfA should go well. Cheers, riana_dzasta 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral not quite enough edits, but I can look past that. However, there is not enough participation in project and project talk namespaces. The external link in your signature is worrying, too. You're a great editor overall, but I suggest more XfDs. –The Gr e at Llamamoo? 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I have the external link, but I thought that that rule meant not linking to other sites not realated to the Wiki. Mine is pretty much related because it goes to Wikimedia. T e ckWizTalk Contribs# of Edits 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I notice that also, but basically the guideline is to not use "any" as it states "Do not include links to external websites in your signature", as you can see there is no exceptions. &mdash; Seadog 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Fixed --> T e ckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like to vote against a user because of their edit count, however I have to say that more time would be better. In a few months I would certainly vote in favor. TSO1D 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per all the concerns brought up. I hope you try to use this RfA for making a better Wikipedian of yourself. All the best. ← <font color="DimGray">A NAS ''' <font size="-3"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 12:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral to avoid pile on. Please take the advice from the RfA and use it to improve yourself as a Wikipedia.  Good luck.-- danntm T C 18:41, 10 December 2006 (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.