Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikieditor222


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

Wikieditor222
(0/6/0); Scheduled to end 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) '''Closed per WP:SNOW at 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC) by Koji  †  Dude  (C)

- I think I would make a great admin.I have reverted vandalism and I have never vandalized.  Sexy  Sea  Clownfish   23:35, 1 June 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: I plan on working to revert vandalism and preventing it.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think all my mainspace contributions are my best.


 * 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 have had stress and I had a time of retirement. But it only lasted 3 days. That is how much I enjoy Wikipedia.

General comments

 * See Wikieditor222's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Wikieditor222:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikieditor222 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Unfortunately, given your record, I cannot judge whether or not I can trust you to wield the tools. I would recommend bulking up on some mainspace and wikispace edits and come back in a few months and give it another go. WP:NOTNOW.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry but I have to oppose, you only have ~400 edits, hardly any to mainspace, none that show that much use for tools. Reverting is something you can do already. Good luck.  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  23:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) (edit conflict) Oppose. You have only 452 edits (over half of those are to the userspace), which doesn't give you a lot of experience by which we can judge your knowledge of policies and procedures. You also only use edit summaries about half the time, and these summaries are very important because they allow other editors to see what you're doing and/or your reasoning for doing it. It is very rare that an editor pass an RFA with fewer than 2000 edits. Plus, you were on the brink of retiring only two days ago when you submitted this username change request that I saw at WP:CHU. Useight (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) 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 "3,000 edits" meme discourages potentially valuable admin candidates whenever they read it on RfA. 1,000 edits was enough to become an admin a couple of years ago. A large number of admins got promoted with considerably fewer than 3,000 edits. Are those admins (say, me) unsuitable now? What has changed that requires admins to edit three times as often? This candidate is too inexperienced, it's true, but you shouldn't be focusing on the edit count, especially not at that unnecessarily high level.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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'''  00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but although edit counts aren't a great indicator of experience most of the time, passing an RfA with less than 2000 edits tends to require exceptional circumstances; there simply isn't usually enough evidence to indicate that one is experienced enough to have use of the tools. You aren't anywhere close to 2000 edits, and I can't see any special circumstances that would indicate you are ready to use the tools.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose any editor who thinks this edit is an appropriate way to treat another user's user page is highly unsuited to become an admin. Add to that the lack of demonstrated experience and the very poor answers to the standard questions and I suggest this user withdraws this RfA immediately. Gwernol 00:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that that edit was done in a sandox created by the user specifically as a place for vandalism on his userpage. Useight (talk) 00:34, 2 June 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.