Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikimayor


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

Wikimayor
'''Final (0/12/0); ended 12:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC) - withdrawn by bureaucrat. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– This user is nominated for adminship because of his excellent past record, civility and overall good contributions to making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia for users, editors and every stakeholder in the knowledge process Wikimayor (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: Administrator intervention against vandalism and speedy deletion requests


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My contributions to Occupy Nigeria and The Future Awards because they document important times in Nigeria's history


 * 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. I explained patiently to the other editor the rationale behind an editing decision and went back and forth with civility, until another editor stopped by and saw the logic in my decisions and explanations.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Discussion

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

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

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - With few contributions outside of mainspace, restricted to a single comment at an AfD and one trip to RPP, combined with a talk page full of deletion notices, there's no way I could grant you access to the delete button at this time. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- Not yet. This candidate does not have nearly enough experience. Reyk  YO!  09:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) OpposeWP:NOTNOW Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose With 18 edits to Wikipedia namespace, this is too soon. Brianhe (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I hate to "pile on", but only ~1000 edits in 5 years of editing, practically no edits outside of articles, and only 56% use of edit summaries are just a few reasons why I have to oppose this for now. Not criticisms or any negative reflection on the editor, we just haven't had the opportunity to see the things I'd like to see in an admin yet.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Not an experienced editor, let alone sysop material. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 10:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. This editor has had multiple articles he created deleted. Also, this user is way too inexperienced. Why should I trust this editor with the Admin tools now? Consider coming back here once you've gained a lot more experience. '''Class455fan1 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Not enough experience. As noted above, only about 1,000 edits over five years; fewer than 400 edits since January 1, 2015, under 30 per month average, and almost no contributions outside of articles. No criticism of the editor. There is just not enough experience to show that the editor is ready to be an administrator, knows what is being taken on and can be confidently evaluated. I suggest WP:SNOWCLOSE would be appropriate. After gaining more experience in administrative type areas, including the ones that the editor suggests he or she would work on, another try might stand a better chance. Donner60 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose- WP:NOTNOW. C679 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, simply too few edits. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per William Thweatt. --Hordaland (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per failure to read the two prominent notices that are shown to self-nominated candidates. Esquivalience  t 12:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments



 * 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.