Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WWEFAN99


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

WWEFAN99
Failed (1/6/0); Ended at 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

- I am a hard working wikipedian who works to make every article that has to don with baseball better and i do the best i can every day. Adam Penale (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Pages that have to to with Major League Baseball including players, teams, leagues, and more. The reason is that I believe that baseball is the greatest sports in the world and I try to make there pages great.


 * 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 I have, the way I dealt with it was I left a comment on the users talk page asking them what they found wrong with my edit and/or telling them the correct way the edit should be.

General comments

 * See WWEFAN99's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for WWEFAN99:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WWEFAN99 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Moral support I moved your transclusion notice down to the sweet spot so that this RfA can be included. I can't support properly at this time due to the apparent lack of familiarity with administrative work, but I have some recommendations.  First, a close reading of the WP texts included in this list.  Second, go to "My preferences", click the "Editing" tab, and then check the bottom box, so that you are prompted every time you forget to enter an edit summary.  It works wonders &mdash; when you enter a summary for every edit, your fellow editors will be able to see what you're doing and trust your edits more.  Third, spend some more time at the village pump and gradually branch out into areas relating to process and policy, which you'll need to be familiar with in the future.  In general, after paging through your edits, I see a rapid improvement from the earliest ones, so you're learning quickly.  I recently went through a badly-failed RfA myself, and would note that you can learn a lot from the feedback in these things.  Good luck.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Failure to format this correctly and put it in the right spot alone shows you aren't ready. RfAs are serious business, even if being one isn't - CL — 23:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a bit harsh, so I'll make my !vote look legitimate now. Your edit summary usage is too low and you need more edits to admin-related areas. Right now, I'm not seeing that. Mainspace edits are plentiful though. 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) User does not have enough edits and has not done anything special enough that would qualify him as an administrator. DS2434 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- You're clearly a hard-working editor, but I'm not sure what you want or need the tools for. Judging from your non-answer to Q1, I don't think you do either. I've been through your edit history and I see a lot of article work but very little on things like XfDs, which makes it very difficult to judge your knowledge of policy. I am unwilling to entrust the power to block uers and delete articles to someone without evidence they understand and respect the policies. Reyk  YO!  23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NOTNOW. Firstly, many thanks for your hard work so far. However this RFA seems a little premature - the incorrect transclusion and no answer to Q1 are a bad start. Insufficent edit summary use (admins need to be clear in their communication) and a lack of admin related contributions also don't help demonstrate how you'd use the tools without creating accidental damage that can seriously harm Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read the NOTNOW essay and the associated links - this will certainly help you. Pedro : Chat   Is grieving  23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - You're off to a good start I must say, but I fear you lack the requisite experience. Glad you want to help the encyclopedia by article building. I like that. Branch out a bit in some of the other Wikipedia areas where administrators put their nose to the grindstone: WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:XFD.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I agree, your off to a good start, but your not ready just yet. 1) No answer to question 1? Would you know what administrators are and what they actually do? Its an optional question, but it is an important question. 2) Not much experience in adminly areas. These areas include WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:XFD, WP:AN, and WP:ANI. Would like to see more activity in these areas. 3) You have quite a low edit summary usage. Administrators should explain themselves of why/what they are doing while making an edit so others know what an admin is doing. Would like to see you doing this as a non-admin also. 4) You do article writing, which is pretty good, but I think you should try promoting articles to WP:DYK, WP:GA, and maybe even WP:FA if you work hard at it. 5) I think a higher edit count with quality edits would be necessary here. Administrators should have experience in making edits. In general, administrators show good judgement, knowledge in policy, are always civil, article-writing and discussion showing--when necessary--knowledge of policy are also important to gaining adminship. Would like to see you do some of these if you want to become an administrator. Best, RyRy  ( talk ) 23:59, 10 August 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.