Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The C of E


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

The C of E
Final tally: 0/7/1; closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am a flag-inserter enthusiast as well a firm list compiler as well as a football, rugby and stadium page editor along with assorted others. I am willing to be open and admit I have been closed minded and ignorant at times but I have made a promise to myself and God that I will try and listen more and help newer users The C of E (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (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:I intend to deal with vandals and spammers in Wikipeda and help make new members of Wikipedia feel welcome and guide them to become welcome editors of the community


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would have to say the former or demolished stadium's lists in List of European stadia by capacity and List of stadiums by capacity along with adding in missing stadia. I also created the Tunbridge Wells RFC page as well as firmly editing Martin Corry (rugby union)


 * 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: Yes, many times and I have been closed minded and ignorent when I disagreed with other editors. But as I said in my description I have vowed to listen more and be as helpful as I can.

General comments

 * Links for The C of E:
 * Edit summary usage for The C of E can be found here.

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

Oppose

 * 1) Strong oppose: Partly WP:NOTNOW, and partly because editors I respect have tried to reasonable sort things out with you and have come back with little. Your user talk page says it all. Come back in several months' time with more edits, and constructive ones at that. I would also considering withdrawring this RFA for fear of an imminent pile-on. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Four recent blocks including three for edit warring. Poor edits include the addition of factual errors to articles such as claiming Old Trafford's record attendance is 100,000, when no figure of 100,000 has ever been recorded. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough experience.  S U L   15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. T'Shael,   Lord of the Vulcans  16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose As per WP:NOTNOW.Please try again after some months.sorry and good Luck.Welcome your drive to contribute more to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, concerns raised above certainly give pause. Please take some time to reflect and gain more experience on the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not enough experience Fre  h  ley  16:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Thank you 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.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 2,000 non-automated edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times.
 * 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, and WP:RfPP] to learn when to do these things.
 * As an administrator, you would need to be able to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, and be able to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * I and many others believe that the best way to learn the basic theories and policies behind adminship is to work with articles. As everything else exists solely to support the articles' continued growth and stability, all Wikipedia administrators should know what it is like to not only defend those well-being of the articles, but to also help grow them. I recommend participation in WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:FL, or WP:FA as the surest ways to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again after four or five months and couple thousand edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. NW ( Talk ) 15:39, 23 June 2009 (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.