Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Skater 2

Username: Skater User groups: rollbacker First edit: Jul 19, 2007 22:38:39 Unique articles edited: 2,593 Average edits per page: 1.72 Total edits (including deleted): 4,467 Deleted edits: 303 Live edits: 4,164 Namespace totals Article	1568	37.66% Talk	116	2.79% User	164	3.94% User talk	1777	42.68% Wikipedia	516	12.39% Wikipedia talk	9	0.22% File	9	0.22% Template	1	0.02% Template talk	3	0.07% Category	1	0.02% Graph Month counts 2007/07	6	2007/08	0	2007/09	0	2007/10	0	2007/11	0	2007/12	0	2008/01	0	2008/02	0	2008/03	0	2008/04	0	2008/05	0	2008/06	0	2008/07	0	2008/08	2	2008/09	0	2008/10	0	2008/11	0	2008/12	1	2009/01	0	2009/02	0	2009/03	55	2009/04	262	2009/05	897	2009/06	125	2009/07	0	2009/08	220	2009/09	1135	2009/10	635	2009/11	268	2009/12	0	2010/01	0	2010/02	95	2010/03	463	Logs Pages moved: 18 Pages patrolled: 152 Files uploaded: 3 Top edited articles Article

* 86 - System_of_a_Down * 21 - Serj_Tankian * 20 - Scars_on_Broadway * 20 - Greg_Boone * 15 - Daron_Malakian * 13 - Shih_Tzu * 11 - Islamic_views_on_anal_sex * 11 - Rodney_Alcala * 9 - Save_It_for_the_Birds * 9 - Jason_Spitz

Talk

* 38 - System_of_a_Down * 12 - Scars_on_Broadway * 6 - Hollywood_Undead * 6 - Rodney_Alcala * 2 - Staind * 2 - Lewis_Baker_(gridiron_football) * 2 - Serj_Tankian * 2 - Sean_Glennon * 2 - Daron_Malakian * 2 - Shih_Tzu

User

* 86 - Skater * 24 - Skater/monobook.js   * 6 - Skater/huggle.css * 5 - 21655/.01_Cabal/Awaiting_Approval * 3 - 21655/.01_Cabal * 3 - Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests * 3 - Skater/Status * 3 - Tw3k * 2 - ClueBot/AngryOptin * 2 - Skater/QuiFriends

User talk

* 159 - Skater * 49 - Kingoomieiii * 14 - J.delanoy * 14 - DKqwerty * 12 - Ecoman24 * 10 - 208.38.59.163   * 8 - The_Transhumanist/Archive_22 * 7 - Wiki_libs * 7 - 67.242.56.62   * 6 - Narfmaster

Wikipedia

* 80 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 77 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 56 - Wikiquette_alerts * 31 - Huggle/Whitelist * 10 - Petition_for_reconsideration_of_the_Wikipedia_Fore... * 8 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 7 - Village_pump_(proposals) * 6 - Editor_review * 6 - Requests_for_page_protection * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Devin_Frischknecht_(2nd_nomi...

Wikipedia talk

* 4 - Petition_for_reconsideration_of_the_Wikipedia_Fore... * 2 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Www.HCAZ.me.uk   * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Publishing_Technology * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Will_Hopoate

File

* 3 - Save_it_For_the_Birds.jpg * 2 - RVB_group_shot.jpg * 2 - The_Most_Album_Cover.jpg * 1 - Vampires_assistant.jpg * 1 - Splitting_Headache.jpg

Template

* 1 - Shades_of_red

Template talk

* 3 - Did_you_know

Category

* 1 - Egyptian_scientists

Retrieved from X!'s tool at 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Keepscases' Oppose
Guys, let's just squash this conversation before tempers flare. The fact that there are no restrictions as to how one can !vote is precisely why the opposers (and supporters) should just be left alone, unless they are being particularly insulting or outrageous. This is not one of those occasions. Perhaps non-RfA regulars are unaware, but this kind of discussion always creeps up whenever someone casts a contentious vote. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Regretful Oppose Appears to be under 18.  Keepscases (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I miss somewhere that, that is a reason to oppose?  C T J F 8 3  chat 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually yes it is; it's called Ageism. With all due respect, this is a valid !vote. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess if you consider essays valid for anything.... C T J F 8 3  chat 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read that essay, but I don't believe minors being Wikipedia administrators is a good thing. Keepscases (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to vote oppose based on age, please read Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A classical example of ageism. Since when was it a problem for people that are < 18 to become admins? That puzzles me.  The Toxic Mite  't 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like everything else in this section, it's an opinion. Leave him to it. f o x  11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no age requirement to become an administrator, it depends on the quality of your edits. ~  Dwayne Flanders   was here!  talk  13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not saying this to contest my own oppose, but I agree with Dwayne.-- SKATER  Speak. 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Votes like this is exactly why there are concerns about the lack of successful RfAs this month.  C T J F 8 3  chat 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Votes like these are relatively infrequent and would not significantly affect any kind of success/fail statistic, nor should it have any bearing on whether RfA is daunting.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you attribute it to then?  C T J F 8 3  chat 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A !vote in an RfA is an opinion, nothing more. You are entitled to your own !vote.  If you disagree, cast your !vote to reflect the fact that you disagree.  Just because you vehemently disagree with someone's opinion doesn't mean you should interminably harangue or harass that user.  Seriously, enough is enough. Drop it.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Harass? You might be able to claim that if this was a one time occurrence.... C T J F 8 3  chat 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, Fastily. We all have the right to question and discuss !votes. If you disagree with someone's opinion on a !vote, you are entitled to respond to them without the discussion police accusing you of harassment.   S warm  ( Talk ) 04:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hm. A little strongly worded perhaps.  Amended.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Build a better article space resume
Skater, I opposed your RfA for a very simple reason that has nothing to do with your age, demeanor or interpersonal actions on WP. I just don’t think you’ve got enough experience doing what WP is really all about—that’s creating and improving articles. When I looked at your contributions, I was really surprised to find only 6 articles created (stubs at best) and most of your article space contributions were not substantive content improvements to existing articles, but reversions and tagging. I was an editor for 3 years before someone dropped an RfA in my lap. At the time I had relatively little experience in Admin related stuff. After about 6 weeks as an Admin, I’ve come to the conclusion that the duties are pretty easily learned quickly, especially when you’ve got solid article experience and there are plenty of mentors out there to guide you through the pitfalls. It wasn’t your project space experience that I cared about, it was your article contributions.

My personal recommendation to you is this. Take 6 months and focus on nothing but creating and improving articles in the subject areas you are passionate about. Participate in Projects to help improve articles in the project’s scope. Of course you can deal with vandalism when you encounter it, but don’t go hunting it. On the CSD and PROD side, find articles that need saving and work hard to do so by working with new editors and projects to prevent deletion of worthy articles. Participate in AfDs, but with the idea that you are doing so to find ways to improve and save articles, not delete them. Move beyond web sourcing and hit the libraries to find books and journals to source the articles you are creating and improving. In other words, work very hard at being a great WP editor in the next 6 months. Good luck, eventually they will give you the mop whether you really want it or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)