Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyw7 2


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

Tyw7 2
 Final (3/14/1); Ended 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC) closed per WP:SNOW by User:Naerii

- Tyw7 (talk · contribs) - Hi. I am User Tyw7. I have been previously editing as User Troop350. I have made over 1000 minor edits and major on Wikipedia as both Tyw7 and Troop350. I am also the current leader of WikiProject Software. --Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.  --Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As the leader of WikiProject Software, I would probably need administrator tools, as there are currently no administrators in the project.

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: Blocking vandals, helping editors in disputes to settle them peacefully, help editors who need to learn about tools and procedures. Helping clean up backlogs keeping track of Special:Unwatchedpages, and vandal fighting.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution 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: So far I did not encounter any edit conflicts with another user. If I ever encounter one, I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.

General comments

 * Links for Tyw7:

 Comments  As the leader of WikiProject Software, I would probably need administrator tools, as there are currently no administrators in the project.

View my contributions:
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as Tyw7


 * Click here to see this user's contribution as Troop350


 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
 * View this user edit count as the previous user Troop350, which I changed due to a comment on role accounts, using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

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

Discussion

 * The editor should read WP:CANVASS. He has been canvassing. America69 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reiterate my earlier oppose and comment- It appears that the candidate has requested that this debate be reopened . And indulged in repeated outrageous canvassing to secure the mop . I must say I admire the balls of the candidate. However, since this is the case, I don't think we need to stand on ceremony. To spare us any additional unnecessary time and repetitive no votes, I'd like to ask a second admin to shut this no-chance application down. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to second the above user's comment. Either the candidate was unaware of the policy or knowingly breached it. Either way, this RfA was reopened with desperate intent to secure supports. In order to avoid gruesome pile-on, this should be closed.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am worried that if a pile on continue's the next time he decides to request adminship, there will be a lot of bad blood. America69 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the pile-on could get really bad. According to Guide to requests for adminship, "If you did not wish to have your RfA prematurely removed, you may petition the person who removed it to reinstate it." So I put it back. But if it gets much worse, as it inevitably will, I also agree that it should be removed again. Useight (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support - Glad to see you are keen, best of luck for the future, if not this time around maybe next time. Its only been a few weeks since your last attempt, it might be wise to wait about 3 months, get some more experience. :-) — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 2000 edits is more than enough Naerii 13:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes 2000 edits are good, but it is really the quality of the edits is what you should look at. America69 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to me like many of the people below are looking that that. Naerii 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Reinitiating WikiProject:Software was a great move. Expect more positive works from you as an sysop. (But how come you never encountered any edit conflicts... curious [:O]) – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: Sorry, not enough contributions to show that you know how to use the tools ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Sorry, not enough contributions yet, not enough edit summaries used on the edits you have made, and I tend to agree with kotra in his/her remarks at Editor review/Tyw7. Keep working hard as an editor and come back in some months. Happy editing! AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Certainly looks a lot better than it did in your previous RfA, but I'm still seeing a real shortage of contributions to the areas you say you want to work on. I can't see a single edit to an AfD entry, yet you say you plan to close AfDs as part of your admin duties? Equally, you plan on blocking vandals but I don't see a single contribution to WP:AIV to demonstrate if you understand the policy. Before you try again, I'd suggest you make a lot more contributions all over the project, but particularly look at the areas of administrator duties that interest you. People will feel much better supporting you if they have evidence that you know what you're going to do when you do have the tools! Good luck for next time. ~ mazca  t 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose A bit over 2000 edits isn't enough to show you have enough experience to become an administrator. Try again in a few months when you have spread your contributions to many areas of Wikipedia such as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, and of course try to make quality edits to the mainspace. Looking at your mainspace edits, I didn;t see many or any major edits. Try to make some big edits once in a while. Thanks, RyRy  ( talk ) 11:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with moral support. You need to be here at least 3-6 months to learn the Wikipedia ropes. Force edit summaries in my preferences at the top of the screen. Work on article building and development, as well as other areas like WP:AFD. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  11:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) 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. I would like to see more experience with article building as well participation/experience dealing with WP:CSD, WP:AFD and WP:AIV. You 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 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. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  13:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm sorry, but you have nowhere near enough experience. Most people are saying to try again after 3000 edits, but I suggest you try again when you truly feel ready (which will probably be after 3000 edits). Computerjoe 's talk 13:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per this and the above, I regretfully oppose.  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose, failed to thoroughly read the self-nom instructions. While this on its own would typically just put me in the "neutral" category, the canvassing tipped the scales. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) strengthened oppose, see below
 * Are you serious? For years people used to sign the 'candidate please indicate acceptance' bit when self-nominating. It's not all that unreasonable that someone who isn't an RfA regular would think to check if the rules had changed (and why should they? whether they bother to sign their name or not is irrelevant). Naerii 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We spoke about this at your talk page, I've also synthesized my thoughts on this here. Anyhow, because the candidate refuses to accept that this RFA isn't going to be successful and wishes to waste the community's time, I've switched to strong oppose. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Contributations show he is not ready for the tools, and the reason he wants them is absurd. All of the questions are not good either. You also rarely user the edit summary, and that's not a good trait for an admin to follow. One last point. The fact that this RFA was closed, and then re-opened because you wanted to, is not going to score right. America69 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed to Strong Oppose after seeing this this edit in which you are canvassing. That is a BIG no-no. America69 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - Besides experience issues, the candidate thinks there should be an administrator within a Wikiproject. Administrators are not authorities. Oh, and the canvassing above.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As if the miniscule edit count and canvassing wasn't enough, you've shown a huge lack of insight and comprehension by having this re-opened. Did you look at any of these Opposes in length? Did you read WP:NOTNOW? I'd think the message should be clear by now; you're not ready. You're really not ready, and if you can't realize that now, I'm sure you'd be a terrible admin.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) (Ec) Oppose Many of the things you stated you'd like to do with the tools actually can be done by non-admins (e.g., "cleaning up the backlog", unless you mean WP:ADMINBACKLOG, of course), and I'd like to see you get more active in such projects to demonstrate how you'll be a useful asset to Wikipedia before I consider supporting. Cheers, -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC).
 * 4) Oppose. I initially didn't comment on this RFA because I closed it, but now I'll let someone else re-close this. The candidate's desire to re-open an obviously failing RFA shows an lack of experience. The candidate's work indicates insufficient experience. Poor use of edit summaries. Canvassing is also a real problem. Useight (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) One tiny thing you might not be aware of: many users, like myself, have WP:RFA watchlisted. Your first introduction to those users is your edit summary upon transclusion. You didn't use one: .  That is often the hallmark of the premature RfA, and indeed it doesn't seem like you use edit summaries at all, looking at your last fifty contributions.  Your contributions show you are not aware of WP:CANVASS: this is typical of at least ten two canvassing messages.  Please, just relax and try to become a better user for a good long while before trying this again. Darkspots (talk) 10:00, 29 June 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.