Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wildthing61476


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

Wildthing61476
Closed as failed by Cecropia 05:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) at (5/10/9); Original end time 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

- I humbly nominate myself for adminship on Wikipedia. I have had an account here since June of 2006, and feel I have a lot to offer as a potential admin. Currently I work on new page patrol/recent change patrol, however I have a few pages which I have created, and work on from time to time. As an admin, I would like to work with not only assisting in helping with the number of vandal and vandal edits, but also with other tasks, such as backlogs that may need some extra assistance. I tend to deal with others in good faith, and will answer any and all questions offered to me honestly and as quickly as I can. Thank you for your consideration. Wildthing61476 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would tend to take part in assisting with deletions, vandal edits and vandal users. In addition I would also work with any backlogs that they might be, assisting new users, and in general helping out where I am asked to. Wildthing61476 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: While I haven't created any featured articles or noted articles (I will be honest, my writing skills leave a lot to be desired), I feel that my contributions in assisting Wikipedia with cleaning up the numerous nonsense edits and vandal edits have helped the community as a whole. In addition I take pride in helping users who sincerely want to contribute, but aren't sure how to go about it. In addition I attempted to help resolve a conflict on the GNAA page regarding the inclusion of a non-notable group to the disambiguation page.Wildthing61476 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 not been stressed over my work on Wikipedia. I feel that while I do spend a lot of my free time here, and feel I make an impact (however big or small) with the contributions I've made, I do not let what goes on here affect my stress level. The most I have had in the way of conflict are users who I have marked for disruption who have in return attacked my user page. Wildthing61476 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from
 * 4. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I will be more than happy to do so. I wish to read the ongoing discussion first, then will give you my answer. Wildthing61476 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: While reading the discussions, and the ongoing debate, I believe I have my position. I feel that each link to an off-wiki should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and if the page that is linked is an "attack", then the link should be removed per WP:NPA, and the editor should be warned based on their prior history, as always. For a site that may contain one link to an "attack", I do not feel the ENTIRE site should be blocked, just the individual link on that site (i.e. a blog on Blogspot). If a site was created however for the sole purpose of attacking a Wikipedia editor/editors or posting their private information with out their consent, then I feel that site should be blocked. This is a very difficult policy obviously, as we at Wikipedia have to be sure we aren't censoring criticism, but making sure editors that are posting on Wikipedia are not subject to attack. Wildthing61476 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from
 * 6. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48 ♠ ♣ 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Wildthing61476's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Wildthing61476:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wildthing61476 before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support - You're mainspace edits is too low but you're overall user contribution is really good especially your wikipedia related edits.. Cometstyles 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Cometstyles. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I'd like to see more mainspace edits and/or a clearer understanding of the admin tools (as seen in the all-important Q1), but given the shortage of admins and the fact that this user has over 4700 edits overall, I think we can trust this candidate with the tools. Walton Assistance!  15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Don't see a reason to vote oppose. Manderiko 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No reason to say otherwise Lmc 169 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I trust you. But more experience doesn't hurt.  I look forward to seeing how you've improved at your next RfA.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose, sorry, I don't really think you need to become an administrator to do most of the things that you've said. Also, your editing is too low to consider running for adminship. Try again later when you have more experience (and use your edit summary more often), and I'll probably support you then. Best of luck!  *Cremepuff 222*  21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Seems to be a good vandal-fighter, but I would like to see more article editing and discussion-based edits relevant to articles. Those things are frequently sources for dilemma and strife, and I think those would be good indicators of how a user will handle him or herself as an administrator. As the user said in Q3, he/she has not been stressed over Wikipedia, which means they are not totally prepared for adminship. Adminship is stressful at times, and with no prior experience of dealing with stress on Wikipedia, I wouldn't want to see a user go in to a heated dispute with only beginner's luck on his/her side. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Your mainspace edits are quite low, and while you seem to be gaining experience, I believe you have some time before you will be completely adept here. You definitely are well on your way, and I hope to see you back here in a few months. Jmlk17 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I'm impressed by your work fighting vandalism, but your edit summary usage is a bit low and I don't think your answers to the questions reflect specific understanding of the duties and requirements of an admin. Review the reading list and accumulate a few more edits in the mainspace. Goodnight  mush  Talk  02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I'm borderline neutral, but it would probably take a few more months of editing to get me to support.  Too few mainspace edits, really only editing seriously for the past 3 weeks or so, not much in cleaning up or rewriting whole articles.  No nominations of articles to GA or FA status (at least I didn't see one).  You can see a start, but I'd want to see about 6 months of good solid activity from fighting vandalism to getting a couple articles to GA or FA status either leading the edits through a Discussion to do list or handling the edits directly.  Orangemarlin 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I suggest you get a few months more of contribs here until and if you re-run for adminship. Your vandal fighting is great (also excellent with WP:AIV) but I think you should do a little more article work and get experienced in that field of Wikipedia, you seem to have suddenly re-appeared after being inactive since late December 2006 so I suggest adjusting back to the Wikipedia community, you could certainly be an admin in the future with some improvements. Kindest Regards &mdash; &mdash; The Sunshine  Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Communication is key for administrators, and edit summaries are very important, especially in the form of deletion comments, when most users only have those few words to see why an article was deleted. 77% for major edits is just not satisfactory. — M ETS 501 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Nishkid. Philippe 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Nishkid.  Daniel  06:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Nishkid. A few months of solid editing, and I will support. Captain panda  22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Good vandal fighter, but your edit summary usage is not adequate-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You do a fine job keeping the vandals away. I suspect you would do fine as an administrator but at this point I would like to see some editing beyond reversions and typos. I suspect your level of writing competence will rise quickly with some work. Comae back in a few months.  Jody B talk 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral as JobyB said, you do good vandal fighting work, but I really can't see anything else, so what is there to judge by? Also, edit summary usage is quite low, and you didn't edit at all in April, so there could be dedication concerns.  Another 2 solid months of editing and you should get through easily.  G1  gg  y  !  23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - excellent vandal fighting but I just can't see any evidence of how this user will interact in wider areas or why they need the tools other than the block button. I'm sorry, but why not involve yourself in other areas as well as your excellent RC patrol and pop back in a few months? A bit of rounding out and I'm sure you would be deserving of the demotion if you wish it. Pedro |  Chat 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - Everything looks good except the lack of mainspace edits. If you can improve. I might change to support. -- Random Say it here! 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Nish. Riana ⁂  11:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral A good number on the edit counter, yes, but the things that you say you wish to do do not require the mop. Work a bit more on admin activities (maybe read the Required reading?) and try to raise the edit summary usage. After that I will certainly support. --tennis man  <font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">sign here!  17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral while adminship is all about being a janitor, encyclopaedia-building is a must, not just as an ideological pillar of WP, but also as a practicality necessary to show familiarity with the inner-workings of our community's most basic function, where the administrator's role is perhaps most valuable. Perhaps come back after gaining more experience in that arena.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral. No apparent need for the mop at this time. Additionally, consider changing your preferences to force edit summaries. --Edwin Herdman 02:04, 26 May 2007 (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.