Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toyotaboy95


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

Toyotaboy95
FINAL (4/15/2); closed per WP:SNOW by SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

- I am an experienced user of Wikipedia as well as a full-time student. I aim to improve Wikipedia (specifically the Hong Kong stream). Toyotaboy95-Specialist in Wikipedia (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept and I hope I have much support against opposition. I do not mind if I do not make it to the 'Admin level'

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: My contributions to Wikipedia have been focused in two major points: adding content/improving articles, and deleting unnessesary articles. I am also quite helpful to new Wikipedians. If I could have some admin rights, I would be very happy. Deleting articles would be quite useful and I would never randomly use it.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Every since I joined a year ago, I have started many articles. I aim to bring articles to the B and above criteria. I hope I can be a great help to Wikipedia.


 * 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: My first and only conflict was with User:Ohconfucius, I handled it quite well. I will never take it too seriously.

General comments

 * See Toyotaboy95's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Toyotaboy95:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Toyotaboy95 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Can you explain the circumstances of you being blocked on April 2007 ? --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?)  - 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Me?? Getting Blocked..I don't quite recall it. If I did, I may have been in a rush editing. I have never rushed every since as it gets me nowhere. Toyotaboy95-Specialist in Wikipedia (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment on your block says you were repeatedly blanking pages. In any case, it was over a year ago so I don't think that too much weight should be put on it. Gary King ( talk ) 07:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was editing the MTR article. The article had a lot of trivia back then and Wikipedia doesn't quite like trivia so I deleted some. Soon, I found out what I did was wrong and I got warnings. That's how I think it went. Toyotaboy95-Specialist in Wikipedia (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: [clap] [clap] Great to see that you accept it if understood having done wrong. But you dont need admin rights for adding content/improving articles. Secondly you havent ever participated even in a single AFD discussion, so how can you be sure that you are doing right before pressing the 'delete button'. Third, you haven't understood the importance of Edit Summaries. Personally I feel your level of experience is very low , with less than 1000 edits in an year. May be you should try RFA after sometime, after a few DYKs, GA or FA contributions. This is just a suggestion --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 08:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "[clap] [clap] Great to see that you accept it if understood having done wrong" The sarcastic comment was not appreciated. &mdash;Dark talk 09:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Im sorry . You have got me wrong. I was appreciating him for his willingness to accept it if done wrong. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 10:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support - You seem like you have a good heart for the project, but not all the experience needed. I suggest looking at various admin tasks, and learn them inside and out. I would also suggest when editing, provide an edit summary. It makes things a lot easier for people to see what is going on their watchlist. =D Happy Editing! &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No worse than the rest of them.  naerii -  talk  09:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support. Rudget   (Help?) 10:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support. Please consider getting more involved in WP:AFD and CAT:CSD, but make sure you read WP:CSD for the criteria. Deletion is, along with blocking, one of the most contentious admin activities, so it's good to get a lot of solid experience before getting the tools. Your heart's in the right place though, so another few months and I'm sure you'll be fine. :) Best, PeterSymonds | talk  12:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Sorry, while I'm not a fan of editcountitis, I can't be sure you know policy if you have less than 1000 edits and 2% edit summary for major edits. I don't see any evidence to deletion discussions, speedy or XFD, and there is also limited Wikipedia namespace. I would recommend getting more experience and coming back in a few months. Soxred93 (u t) 07:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I know it was a long time ago, but a block is still a big thing for me at least. Also, edit count should usually not be relied upon to tell a user's contributions, but I cannot consciously put my trust in a user that only has 986 edits (and only 800 of those in the mainspace). Your answers are also very vague.  a s e nine  say what?  07:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And per misleading users.  a s e nine  say what?  13:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have to agree with the comments above: you need more experience beyond the 1000 edit you have before I can make a proper judgment of your ability to use the tools, and you'll need considerably more experience in working with other users via talk pages. --CapitalR (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry but without experience of the areas where you are interested in using the admin tools cannot support you. If you are interested in deletion then suggest getting experience of AFD and correctly applying speedy tags. Come after a reasonable time with that extra experience and will be happy to support then. Davewild (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose with incredibly strong moral support. Sorry, but you're simply not ready for the responsibilties that come with the tools.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose with moral support as well, per comments above. Attitude-wise I'm right behind you. Develop a habit of using edit summaries and get a few months' practice working on deletion discussions and the like, and I'd happily support. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with strong moral support : Come back after a few months with lots of experience ( lots of Mainspace contribs, AFDs, Right use of Speedy Deletion Tags, DYKs, ( preferebly GA or FA ) etc. Enable Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary on your Preferences/Editing Page --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 10:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Moral support and encouragement, as above.  When you try again (after a suitable period gaining more experience), you should also probably spend some more time on your nomination, telling the community about yourself and going into more detail as you answer the questions.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Sorry to pile it on but 'specialist in wikipedia' is not fooling anyone. Less than 1000 edits just doesn't cut it. I think your heart is in the right place though.  Roadrunnerz45  (talk 2 me) 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, user had a good attitude, but I feel needs more experience, both in admin-related tasks and regular editings tasks. -- Nataly a 11:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per the above concerns. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, Why not wait a few more months? You need a lot of expirence in the namespace to be an administrator.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose: I don't doubt that you entirely mean well, but I just don't think you've got enough experience looking at the things admins are generally required to be competent in. I'd happily support you if I could see more evidence that you need and understand the tools - you don't need to be an admin in order to contribute to Wikipedia. ~ mazca talk 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Sad oppose I applaud the enthusiasm but it would be best to wait a while on this one! I will support next time! Good luck anyway! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Alarmingly low edit summary usage, very low edits in the Wikipedia space and talk spaces. Although you have been with us a little while, you aren't a very heavy editor. Perhaps if you get a little more policy experience and up your editing a little, I will be willing to support next time. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Some more moral support - You've got the right frame of mind, you just need some more experience in namespace (i.e. WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:DELT, WP:RFPP etc) and try and read up on a few policies here and there. Given a few months of solid experience I see little reason why I wouldn't support in the future. Good luck and happy editing. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 08:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) per above While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with less than/about 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with less than/about 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
 * Guide to requests for adminship
 * WP:Admin
 * the admin reading list.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * 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, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
 * My suggestion to any nominees with less than/about 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim'''  15:43, 11 May 2008 (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.