Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weegeerunner


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

Weegeerunner
Final (0/7/3); ended 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate (non-admin closure) TL22 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have been a user for several months now, and over 3,000 edits made. I have reverted a plethora of vandals and have engaged in many discussions. I know the responsibility an administrator has, and I will be confident, yet cautious in my every move. Weegeerunner chat it up 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to withdraw my self nomination. I'm clearly not helping the encyclopedia, and contrary to what I tell myself. I am disgustingly uncivil. I am genuinely ashamed of myself for all of my behavior for the past months. I have no idea how I am going to clean up the massive mess I have made, but I will find a way, but for now. I sincerely apologize for all of my horrible actions. Reading this over, I know it sounds like what I am saying is an attempt to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider man, or to throw my toys out of the pram, but I am serious. I have no idea how to put into words how ashamed and sorry I am for pretty much everything I have done on Wikipedia. Weegeerunner chat it up 02:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I will be reverting and blocking vandals, unblocking users if the appeal is well written and follows WP:NICETRY, resolving disputes, deleting articles when, and only when it falls under the SPD criteria or clear consensus has been made at an Xfd.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are my work on Grey Alien, Return to Infinite Space, and all the vandals I have reverted.


 * 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: I had a falling out with User:Miraclexix (who frankly, I'm surprised isn't an admin with his experience) some time ago, and I don't know how to describe it, so you should probably check out the whole dispute (find the old archives at my contributions). While I personally believe that I we were both equally at fault. I still now take extra caution (even more so than before) to not accidentally do anything that could be seen as uncivil or disruptive behavior, and with every letter I type try and see it from the perspective the Wikipedian I am talking to. Weegeerunner chat it up 23:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Monty845
 * 4. What is your opinion of the WP:DOLT essay?
 * A: I feel it's a well written essay, the points it makes and the issue it describes are well known by me, as disputes of this kind were common when I was newer. It holds ground and I don't see anything wrong with it.


 * Additional question from Cryptic
 * 5. So, um, any other edits to Grey Alien except this, which was reverted within four hours?
 * A: Ok, I'm not going to lie, I rushed that edit on Grey Alien. I should have checked the sources, but I was tired that day and should not have been editing articles at that time. It was a bad Idea to cite it, and a bad idea to rush the edit, but I recognise and own up to my mistake their and will not repeat the same mistake.
 * 5a. If that's the case, why are you holding up that article as your best work? —Cryptic 00:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from Berean Hunter
 * 6. You have some reverts with summaries "Let's keep it at the original version and go to the talk page." and "Don't we usualy keep at the original version while talk page conversation is going on?". What policy or guideline are you invoking with those statements?
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Weegeerunner:
 * Edit summary usage for Weegeerunner can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose You're well on your way but you do not meet my RFA standards. The article you have edited the most, only 16 times, is Rock Out with Your Socks Out Tour and those edits have been almost all reverting vandalism. You have some experience at ANI but in looking over your talk page, you often write very short replies to newcomers. It's important to cite policies and provide links as well as be a good communicator. Once you're a sysop you're going to need to explain your actions more thoroughly. I would say in another 3-6 months you'd be someone I would be willing to support at your current pace and maybe with a bit more article contributions. It's about content work than edit count (and keep in mind that nearly half of your edits are semi-automated). Without contributions of your own, then it makes it difficult for you to judge others on theirs. Best of luck,  Mkdw talk 23:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose experience is not yet broad enough.  Logs show no activity, so not even a page was moved or file uploaded. There have been no edits to file space. No articles created yet. On the positive side he has joined a project at WikiProject Video games and created one redirect, and used patrol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Regretful Oppose I cannot, in good conscience, support this RfA. The candidate lacks experience in nearly all areas of Wikipedia and in the standout area where they wish to use the tools, AIV, they have made only 14 reports. The single misplaced AfD !vote also does not lend confidence. On the other hand, their work so far is positive and I would be willing to support in a few months or so when the candidate has more experience. Winner 42 Talk to me!  01:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per WP:NOTYET, The editor needs to mature more through experience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose As I began to review activity, I found the new article Raymond Coxon was tagged one minute after it was created. The exchanges that followed on the article talk page and on yours were not what I expect from a candidate for administrator. That alone led me to oppose so I won't detail other reasons I found in a cursory review. Slow down and consider the impact of your activity. Broaden your activity, collaborate, learn what it's like to write an encyclopedia and then try again. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, regretfully: I'm usually lenient when it comes to candidates, however you need more contributions. Get some content and gnomish contributions under your belt and work in other maintenance areas (such as XfDs). I hate using edit counts and other statistics, but consider reapplying when you have around 5,000 manual edits (at least ≥20% to Wikipedia space), and one or two C-class articles or DYKs. Esquivalience t 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, not near ready yet. But keep working at it. Time and experience is the answer. Kierzek (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral support – Weegeerunner, with just over 3,000 edits (over 9 months), you're well on your way. And I think you're making some of the right moves... But, if pushed, I'd have to say this is a case of WP:NOTYET "not yet". Hopefully, soon, though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ¬_¬ WP:NOTNOTNOW. If you don't support the candidate right now, but the candidate is not a newbie (which seems to be the case), simply leave your honest (but polite) comments rather than just linking to an essay made for another purpose. --TL</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, didn't know that. To me, "Not Yet" means something different than "Not Now", so short-cutting "Not Yet" to the "Not Now" essay may not be the most helpful thing in the world. But, OK... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Candidate only has 1076 edits to the namespace; that may be a good number, but 844 of these edits (78%) are just reverts, though this user may have a good understanding of policies. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 00:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't support at this point. For instance, back in this discussion, the candidate reverted a BLP violation back into the article, then reported the potential legal threat made in response to AN/I, only later did anyone consider whether it was necessary to remove the disputed text. (article is deleted, but non-admins can still follow from the AN/I archive) I was hoping to see some self reflection from the WP:DOLT question, but didn't get anything specific. Likewise, identifying as one of your major contributions and article you edited once, and were promptly reverted on, seems show a lack of understanding about what the community expects in terms of content. Now I'm fine with candidates who don't do content work coming to RFA, but they need a really good resume of non-content work, and I'm just not seeing it here. Also, talking about participating at XfD despite only making one edit to an AfD ever...  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:21, 6 June 2015 (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.