Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Textbook


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

Textbook
Final (0/6/0); Closed by Anthøny  at 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

- Textbook is a British university student interested in biographies of notable members of British society. Biographies that he has submitted thus far include various clergymen of the Church of England, including the Bishop of Basingstoke, the Rt. Revd. Trevor Wilmott and the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, the Rt. Revd. Nigel Stock. Furthermore, Textbook wishes to bring some level of consistency with regards to the titling of clergymen on Wikipedia, as is illustrated on the pages that he has edited. Finally, Textbook has edited and enhanced various Philosophy-related pages, including those on Theocentricism, Stewardship and Plato's Theory of forms. Having strived to make all of his contributions to Wikipedia clear and concise to read, in addition to enhancing the articles of others with greater clarity - Textbook desires to nominate himself for adminship with the most honourable of intentions. Textbook (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I, Textbook, hereby accept this nomination of adminship.

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: The main area of admin work I intend to take part in is creating some continuity in biographies of notable members of society. I myself have written several articles on Church of England clergymen and have tried to title all of these similarly - the Rt. Revd./Revd. Canon etc - and maintain a constant format. I would therefore like to do the same for all biographies on Wikipedia, in addition to making sure that biographical information is correct and referenced properly. In particular, I have noticed misuse of British noble titles - Lord, Lady etc.; an issue I would like to rectify.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are those on Church of England clergymen. Although they do not have widespread appeal, these important members of society - particularly Bishops and Deans of cathedrals - ought to be recognised. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to obtain concise biographies of clergymen with all the details of their training and interests. This is therefore something that Wikipedia can strive to provide.


 * 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: Surprisingly, I have received very few editing conflicts whatsoever. People have sometimes sent me messages saying that I have incorrectly edited something. However, I always message them back providing an explanation for my editing which they usually accept. When they remain unsatisfied, I try to come to a compromise with them as I am open to the ideas of others. I intend to continue with this method of dealing with editing conflict should I be offered adminship.

General comments

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


 * Links for Textbook:

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

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Q1 - you don't need to be an admin to accomplish that goal, and an admin should understand that. Also a general lack of experience. Gwynand (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Complete lack of experience, too few edits, answers to main questions indicate that candidate does not particularly understand the role of an administrator. Suggest WP:ER. WP:ADMINCOACH, and WP:ADMIN. Also, this should be closed per WP:SNOW very soon. Cheers!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Hi. :) I'm afraid I have to oppose this time. Adminship is not necessary for the things you mention that you would like to do, and while you seem very dedicated to creating these articles you do not currently demonstrate sufficient experience in the parts of Wikipedia for which adminship tools are required, like page deletion and blocking vandals, to judge how you would use them. I'd suggest you continue, learn your way around a bit more, perhaps join a WikiProject and get a feel for Wikipedia in whole before seeking adminship. (As a start, you might want to read about edit summaries. They are helpful in collaborating with others in building the project, since they make it easier for others to see what you're doing with your edits.) Good luck and happy editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per  Wisdom89  and Gwynand. -- The   Helpful   One  (Review) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You have less than 350 edits, I believe that you need a lot more experience before you will be ready for adminship. I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and try again when you are a lot more experienced Alexfusco5  20:19, 26 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.