Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pyfan

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Pyfan

edit

Nomination

edit

Final (27/44/10) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyfan (talk · contribs) – Hi, I wish to nominate myself for Adminship because though I have only been active since March, 3, 2008; do not have a great number of major edits (more than say, 100 - 500 words per edit) under by belt and only have ~290 edits in total; I am very dedicated to preventing vandalism (yes, I know everyone says that). I spend about 2-4 hours nearly every day (except for a short period of inactivity due to heavy schoolwork) constantly pressing ctrl-R to refresh the Recent changes page, trying to revert disruptive edits and warning the users behind them. Though I do not enjoy the latter action (the warning or if needs be reporting the user to Admins). Oli (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My work would mainly be scrolling though the recent changes and finding disruptive edits and/or inappropriate pages, if in the first case, I will revert the edit (though I will do everything in my power to avoid a edit war). If I find a blatantly inappropriate page I will delete that page (in accordance with The criteria for Speedy deletion.
I am already a rollbacker and that increases the speed at which I can get things done, but it would be faster for me (and mean less work for all the admins) if I could make administrative decisions myself.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not believe in picking favourate (or best) edits (sorry).
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 involved in any major conficts that I can remember. There was one minor instance where the author, M1z3rY of an article (Borey (LSP)) removed maintenance templates without the problems being fixed and removed Speedy deletion templates. I first put a welcome message on his talk page with the guidelines of Wikipedia attached and after he removed the templates again I placed warning message {{uw-speedy2}} on M1z3rY's Talk page

Additional questions from Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is when a user may have his/her editing privilages revoked for an article, category or, in extreme cases, the entire Wikipedia. The big difference between ban and block is that a ban can revoke a users editing privilages for one page (or more) whereas a block removes editing privilages from ALL pages, (except talkpage unless specified) without concession. Ban is the worse of the two, with a regular block users can still oppose their block on their talk page, a FULL wikipedia ban removes the ability to edit ANY pages, including talkpages, this is imposed when the general community consensus is that the user will never change his ways and stop making life hell for all the vandal-fighters. The block is imposed, usually as a definite measure to give a disruptive user time to "cool off" and think about what he had been doing.
5. Other than an extreme case of WP:BLP, when would you directly ban a user?
A: I would directly ban a user if, after being blocked, contesting the block,and being unblocked he/she abused the trust of the unblocking administrator by making more disruptive edits. Another example would be if a user gave out personal information about others in visable places (basically anywhere on Wikipedia), without their prior consent, especially things like street address.
6. <Stolen from Deacon of Pndapetzim> (Optional) Should admins ever enforce content policies like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:VER, if they have to violate social policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:INVOLVED and WP:Edit warring to do so?
A: I would say definately not, at least not at first. Instead I would try to resolve the issue on the talkpage of the article and/or the user, to find the reasoning behind the edit, I would just politely tell him/her that the edit violated some of Wikipedia's guidelines and post links to the guidelines. If that did not work I would warn the user, and eventually block the user for a definite (or if prior offences are noted, indefinite) time, then I would fix the article to the best of my ability, or speedily delete it if I find it in accordance with WP:CSD. (This would only be if the user had made the edit, I had added templates or changed false information to information I knew was right [though will always be ready to be corrected], and the user had reverted them). If I decided that I was too involved I would get consensus from at least one other third party, and maybe try Meditation, or maybe just normal Meditation :). Edit Waring is one of the worst things that can happen, it is bad for everyone involved.
Questions from K50 Dude
7. What is Patent Nonsense? In your own words.
A. Patent nonsense is when a user edits an article (usually while creating said article) with stuff of absolutely no relation to anything:
e.g. gyuags asdjgk aksuiyilf kjykjgf.
or: rude running quantum continental monkeys.
8. A banned vandal creates a page. It is a good start, with several external links. However, what happens next? Specific please (which criterion?)
A. It would most likely be deleted under Speedy Deletion G5, though if the article was well writen I might consider inproving it instead of speedy deleting it. Of course it would be necessary to block the banned users account from Wikipedia (or even their IP address), for violating the terms of their ban.
9. If something is "blatant" what does it mean? In your own words.
A. Blatant is when something is INCREDIBLY obvious. e.g. There is a page on Wikipedia that is about a company and the first line of the introduction is: "Buy now and save!". Clear violation of CSD criteria G11.

Even more questions from Imperat§ r(Talk)

10. Define the limit for "personal involvement"; that is, how far would you have to be involved in order to be considered "not neutral"?
A: I would define that limit differently in different circumstances, if it was to do with the matter of unblocking a user that I had blocked, that would definately be time to seek third party consensus, to maintain neutrality. If (like in the senario in Question 6) I was on the verge of an edit war or something similar I would certainly seek a third party decision, whether I was right, before continuing with the method described in Question 6.
11. How lenient are you in terms of WP:USERNAME vs WP:UAA? Provide examples of what, to you, are unacceptable and borderline acceptable.
A: I believe that users should be able to choose whatever username they want, within limits (I don't believe that usernames like "HicksOnline", currently at question at WP:UAA should be banned. I have never heard Hicks used offensively). To me a username like "Killeveryone", or any with course language are unacceptable. A username I would find borderline acceptable would be: "WoolworthsOne" or anything like that which could be advertising a company.(Woolworths is a supermarket chain in Australia).
12. A usually beneficial contributor, with thousands of edits under his belt, suddenly decides to turn rouge. What do you do?
A: If it genuinely is just a case of the user going insane, it wouldn't matter how many good edits he/she had made the user would still have to be blocked. If, however, I suspected that the user's account had been comprimised I would seek the opinion of other admins and if they are agreeable I would temporarily block the user from editing any pages, and ask a user with Checkuser privilages to see if there are any irregularities in the IP addresses used with that account.
13. Even though this is from Atias in FlyingToaster's RfA, I like it, as it demostrates the needed knowledge for determing whether an image should be deleted/kept/etc. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A: A non-free photograph may be used only when there is no free alternative. In addition to that the photograph should only be used at low resolution. The page with the file must have a copyright notice and a Fair use rationale stating the origin of the photograph, and to whom the the photograph belonged.
14. You see a page which has a Speedy delete and is obvious advertising; however, the creator of the page insists that he'll change the article, even though it is blatant (and impossible to make encyclopedic) advertising. What do you do (in your own words)?
A: Under Assume Good Faith I would ask the contributing author how he plans to change the article to be encyclopedic. Only if he could not think of anything suitable would I delete the article.
15. Just out of spite xD What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything in general? Also, pie or cake?
A:42! Everyone knows that! Pie.
So long and thanks for all the fish :)Oli (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

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

Discussion

edit
  • Judging by your answer to question #1 it seems you don't really have a need for the admin tools, if all you really want and are going to do is revert vandalism, rollbacker should be enough for you. And that's great that you're so dedicated at it too, we could always use more vandal fighters. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing me to that. I generally agree, however I guess what I meant was that if an editor is doing great without the tools then why ask for adminship? Not saying he is doing this, but some people see it as a status symbol and that's asking for the tools for the wrong reasons. OlEnglish (Talk) 07:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify this, I requested adminship so when when it came to deleting articles that were blatantly in violation of Wikipedia English's guidelines, I might be able to without having to report everything to administrators, you might say that: adding a "{{db-reason}}" to an article does not take long, but over time, they all add up. Same with having to report users for being disruptive in the wiki, it would take so much less time if, when they had been warned with a level 4 warning I could easily (and quickly) block said user for a set period of time (I'm not saying I like blocking people). To quote users from other RfA nominations: "There can never be enough [good] administrators", or something to that effect. Oli (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but then why don't we automatically hand out adminship to every contributing editor who has more than, say, 100 edits? It's because we have to be aware of their ability to handle these tools. Administrator tools are different from Rollback; we, as a Wikipedia community, have to be able to confirm our trust in the user who attains adminship. To gain the trust of the community, you have to be aware of all the policies that adminship is all about. And to do that, you have to demonstrate and illustrate you knowledge of these policies by correctly using them. For example, one might demonstrate their knowledge of WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN by correctly suggesting a block at WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really odd RfA. — R2 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got that right... I've never seen so many WTH or moral supports in one section. flaminglawyer 15:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is by a wide margin the least likely thing I expected when I first typed "Moral Support" and hit save a few days ago. I think we are watching the evolution of the rfa process here. Its interesting, its amusing, and it makes me glad I decided to comment here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a very refreshing sight. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a refreshing contrast to other recent RFAs and hopefully might tempt some slightly more experienced candidates into the fray. This is probably my first ever oppose at RFA and its made in the hope that the candidate will be an admin before the year is out, partly through running with a more detailed answer to Question 2. Also that was a slightly scary answer to question no 12 - treating our rouge editors almost like rogue ones. WereSpielChequers 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re Question 2: Since my main edits are vandalism related, there are seriously no edits I consider better than the others.Oli OR Pyfan! 09:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that rollback is available to non-admins there is arguably less need for the pure vandal fighter admin, and some voters here are keen to see candidates who add things to the wiki as well as defend it. I would suggest that before your next run you widen your involvement here, perhaps if your a student read the articles relevant to whatever you study - you may well find an opportunity to expand or correct them with info from the reference books you use in your studies. I suspect there are some voters who will oppose anyone who hasn't written a Good or Featured article, but there are also some of us who just like to see that vandal fighting candidates as well as protecting the Wiki have also improved it - whether through gnomish work fixing typos or redlinks, article reviews or article writing. WereSpielChequers 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly making me think I should nominate myself, I wasn't sure before that I would be able to get enough support, and I'm into 5 figures of edits. --Ged UK (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
edit
  1. Moral Support per WP:NOTNOW. Outstanding comprehension of WP:BOLD, though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support - As noted above, it is unlikely this request will succeed due to the candidate's low edit count. Even so, he has a clean block log, as well as a talk page free of warnings. He seems knowledgeable in policy, and has experience with vandal-fighting. I could not possibly oppose this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to full support per Wizardman below. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support - Agree with Juliancolton. Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral support... Look at my RfA; the feedback is all there for you... I had very few edits, but I WAS on the right track. I got moral supports, but this is clearly not going to pass. You just don't have the experience we want. Sorry! K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunate switch to oppose. I don't like the answer to question 1. K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the "opposse" are all on wikibreak and this thing passes on Moral support? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pile-on moral support. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Let-us-see-what-happens-by-piling-on-and-outweighing-the-oppose Moral Support Your a great user, keep up the good work. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why-not-support. Rettetast (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per Foxy Loxy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support, but noting that this is not the same as a support. You seem to be continuing under the impression that a "moral support" is given value as a support; moral supports mean "we like what you are doing, but don't feel you should be an admin just yet". There is a limit to what advice we can give you; when you are (and sorry to be blunt) as inexperienced as you are we are limited to general "make more edits, learn policy" comments because there aren't enough edits to identify particular problem areas. Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Another good-faithed editor. iMatthew // talk // 13:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but does that mean we should give every editor who seems to be acting in 'good faith' the bit? — neuro(talk) 13:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like me to strike that comment out? My support would still stand. iMatthew // talk // 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that was the initial criteria for becoming an administrator on wikipedia. That any user who is considered to be a user of reasonable standing administrator privilige. But that was in the beginning.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The beginning, yes, certainly, but simply being a good faith user doesn't imply that the user would make a good administrator. — neuro(talk) 14:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Real Support - Morality be buggered, I've no reason to think this editor cannot be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "morality be buggered"; I can see a lot of moral systems being offended by that, hah :P Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now now Steelgrip don't snuggle too close or you'll rust, what! X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oh, what the heck. Support. LittleMountain5 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I agree with Little Mountain. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, seconding Xdenizen's take on the M-word. Hey, other guys fail because they did something wrong. No complains here. Give hime the hacksaw and stand aside! NVO (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I guess you could call this an immoral support, because it's certainly not moral. I have no problem at all with giving this user the tools. Wizardman 20:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Wizardman. Adminship is no big deal. Trusilver 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - per Wizardman. SimonKSK 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Another real support. I think that despite the low number of edits, there is no reason to believe that Pyfan would not make a great admin. Answers to questions (especially 4 and 8) show good knowledge of policy. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Real support- outstanding and active contributor, understands all the rules of Wikipedia. Would do well as an admin. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. For you opposers there, please note that edit count does not matter. This editor edits in good-faith. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith is not the requisite for adminship, it the requisite for being allowed to keep your editing permissions. Ironholds (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. For an editor with less time and edits than most on RfA, you show a good deal of cluefulness and policy knowledge. Edit count really doesn't matter. Hell, your RfA is doing about as well as mine. :D Good luck in the future, and I hope to see you applying for adminship again later if this does not pass. FlyingToaster 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support So he's not that experienced? He has the right intentions and the drive so he could become a real asset to wikipedia Macromonkey (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Very good amount of clue, seems friendly. SpencerT♦C 03:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I can think of a dozen current administrators that I'd trade for this guy in a heartbeat. HiDrNick! 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. As is said, "adminship is no big deal". You've got several hundred good edits, and no record of misbehavior. I'm afraid that this will probably fail due to editcountitis, but don't let that discourage you (really). Come back in a few months and I think a lot more people will support you. Cool3 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Your 300 or so edits don't demonstrate the familiarity with the policies and whatnot that would be expected of an administrator. Sorry. Edit regularly for a few months, participate in more areas of the project, and re-submit an RfA another time if you'd like. Best regards, wodup 09:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Um, less than 300 edits? No. — Aitias // discussion 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support but Oppose See the moral supporters above. No matter how funny it would be if this were to pass on moral supports, it would set a bad precedent for future RFAs. You seem like a good guy but your edits do not allow me (or anyone actually) to judge whether you'd be good with the tools. As WODUP says, after a few months of regular contributions in these areas and others, you should try again. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support - I would usually put this in the support column, but... well, yeah. I think you get the drift. — neuro(talk) 12:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per everyone in oppose and support. Moral supports are still opposes, because it still means they don't want you to become an administrator. Please reapply in a few months. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per every single reason mentioned by everyone. Keep up the good work and you'll definetely be an admin someday.--Giants27 TC 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, you're off to a great start as a Wikipedia editor but I'm just not seeing enough experience to show you're quite up to speed on enough aspects of Wikipedia's policies and community norms. I think you just need some more time making good contributions and exploring the more policy-oriented side of the encyclopedia; and i'd be happy to support a future RfA. ~ mazca t|c 13:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I also agree that you're off to a great start as a Wikipedia editor but I'm just not seeing enough experience to show you're quite up to speed on enough aspects of Wikipedia's policies and community norms. I think you just need some more time making good contributions and exploring the more policy-oriented side of the encyclopedia; and I'd be happy to support a future RfA. Pedro :  Chat  13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Clearly it would be counterproductive to do a complete RFA for everyone with 390 edits, but as long as voters feel like they have something to say, let them say it, at least until we've done this a few times; this kind of general advice might be good for the RFA Guide. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Although most applications for RfA are good faith, and I believe this one generally is too, there are far too few situations in 2009 where a self-nom with this low level of activity cannot be considered at least slightly frivolous. "Testing the waters" is not the purpose of RFA. Although Editor Review is backlogged, RFA is also not the place for one - this is a mockery of what this process is for. I'm not trying to drive off a possible future admin, but there are some good essays that should be read before even self-nomming. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Too little visible experience to support at this moment - keep up the good work and I am sure you will be on your way soon. Agathoclea (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Though I don't want to call your enthusiasm into question, this should have been closed per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. Try again in 3-6 months and a few thousand more edits. :) Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. For the record, might want to retry Q2... Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Now, I'm extremely weak oppose, bordering towards support - my original point stands, but his intelligent answers to the questions I posted are very convincing. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Regretful Oppose. Now I remember what I was going to say... if a user mentions CSD, they have to have QUITE A BIT of WP:CSD experience if they mention it in Question 1. Even if I run for admin 4 months after my failed RfA with 700 edits, that still won't pass. A CSD admin needs to know the criteria very good. I'm probably going to give some questions to you... I may re-support. K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose; sorry, too little experience. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Your editing record is not deep enough at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Great work, come again when you have 1000 edits and I will support if you're still like this.--Pattont/c 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Keep up the good work and I will support you once you meet my criteria. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per SoWhy. Don't be discouraged, you have good job so far. • \ / (⁂) 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose Good job, but my RfA, when I had [a lot more edits than you] failed. You have way too few edits. I don't see thats fair for me. Good job, keep it up, get 1500+ edits, and i'll strong support. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 21:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, i'm not trying to be mean. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but shouldn't we be judging the candidate, rather than whether your RfA was fair? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, I'd consider this one oppose more unfair than the opposition in your RfA. All because a candidate has less edits than you, and has more support than you did, does not mean they should be opposed, and given a "strong oppose" at that. Acalamari 23:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your RfA came and went so fast that I never had a chance to comment on it, but after reading over it I would submit that your edit count had very little overall to do with your RfA failing. Trusilver 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. oppose I'm sure you'll be ready in a few months and a couple thousand edits, but experience is lacking at this time, there's plenty that needs doing that does not require the mop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Your edit count is way too low. Once you have a few thousand edits, I will likely support you. However, not at this point. Versus22 talk 03:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Moral Support but Oppose You'll be ready in a few months. Looking forward to it. -download | sign! 05:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The candidate is indeed off to a reasonably decent start. However, I must voice an Oppose due to lack of experience. Pyfan needs more familiarity in admin areas, more work in article building, and more experience interacting with other editors. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I wouldn't normally go back as far as Travelling back in time with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) (now a redirect), but its still in your last 500 edits so I think it fair to include it in this RFA. I don't think it has the right tone, and it struck me as a tad pointy (and haveing worked to keep Large Hadron Collider neutral and non sensationalist I'm not happy to see alternative articles in Wikipedia on the LHC). I've also noticed that you don't always use edit summaries, I wouldn't normally oppose for that provided the candidate responds by setting their preferences to force edit summary, but I do see that as a communication weakness which implies you may not yet be ready for admin. I saw at least one occasion where you reverted a user who blanked warnings on their user page, the line on that is that blanking warnings is OK and should not be reverted, as the blanking of a warning is confirmation that the user has seen the warning. I also saw a number of incidents where you reverted vandals but didn't warn them, though perhaps your warning was issued telepatically as they do seem to have stopped when you reverted them. I hope this gives you some pointers in your Wiki career and I hope to be able to support you in a future RFA. WereSpielChequers 12:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, That was my worst blunder on Wikipedia, thus far! That was when I first started and I really didn't know how to create a good article. Oh and I'll try to use more edit summaries in the future, some of the times you are talking about, after I'd reverted the edit I looked on the users talkpage and someone or some Minion had already warned the user for that edit, Thanks Oli OR Pyfan! 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oli, OK I'm happy to look at more recent stuff. Could you give me the names of good articles you have created or worked on since you learned how to create them? WereSpielChequers
  25. Oppose Just not ready yet, you've got to get experience of a wider range of WP. Keep up the good work though! --Ged UK (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Not enough edits or experience to judge candidate potential to be an administrator. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Nineteen mainspace edits in the last six months, all of them minor? I don't know what the hell is going on here or what the supports are doing – although I dare say the magic words "IRC" are involved somehow – but no. – iridescent 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I idle in nearly all major Wikipedia/Wikimedia IRC channels, and I've seen no mention of this. FWIW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll back that; the user himself isn't even on IRC...Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak Oppose Well intentioned, but not experienced enough. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I'm not one for editcountitis but I just can't judge your knowledge of the project. Sorry fr33kman -s- 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - I think you will be a good admin someday, but there is still a bit of experience needed I think so that you can demonstrate you have a thorough grasp of what is needed in taking the mop. Pax85 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose -- I feel that you are too inexperienced. Once you gain more experience on Wikipedia, I will be glad to support, but for now, I think you are not experienced enough to handle the tools of an admin. Sorry.--TRUCO 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose: 32 edits in Wikipedia area, excluding those on this page, does not show sufficient involvement in admin type areas and likely little knowledge of it if you don't participate in it. Get lots more consistent experience. ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Namespace totals
    Article 148 38.14%
    Talk 18 4.64%
    User 40 10.31%
    User talk 75 19.33%
    Wikipedia 71 18.30%
    Template 3 0.77%
    Category 1 0.26%
    Portal 8 2.06%
    Portal talk 3 0.77%
    This was sourced from Soxred93's Tools.Oli OR Pyfan! 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. There are a few exceptions, but in general an admin candidate should have some experience in writing articles, and Pyfan's experience in that department seems rather empty. When you are engaged in the business of speedy deleting articles and evaluating edits as to whether they should be reverted or not, experience on the "other side" is very valuable to gain some empathy with the problems article writers face. Without it you run the risk of unwittingly becoming an authoritarian policeman admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Moral support - good start to Wikipedia, keep working at it, then maybe come back when you are more rounded and ready for the mop. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Moved this from the support section for clarity. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Pyfan would benefit from more article space content creation before re-applying. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Moral Support, but Strong Oppose You are a good editor, but not active enough and with too few edits for me to really judge. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong, Strong Oppose This is making a mockery of RfA. Keepscases (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per the rationale of most of the opposes above - I'll add the additional reason that the editor is too guarded in his/her responses to the questions, basically parotting policy rather than showing some digestion and true understanding of it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I agree with Keepscases, should have been a WP:SNOW a long-time ago, but instead this is a mockery RFA (with no offense to Pyfan, I think more experience is needed) Secret account 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was tempted to close it as SNOW, but looking at the number of supports and good responses, I decided to let Pyfan learn more about the RfA process as it was already open. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose with Moral Support Sorry, but the lack of experience worries me. 300 edits are not enough. Work harder for a few months, and rack up some more edits. Suggest WP:SNOW, which as stated above, should have been done early.
  41. Oppose - You are certainly off to a good start, your answers to the questions are reasonable and you have shown yourself to be potentially someone trusted with the tools. However, you do not yet meet my criteria. I would like you to have more experience before taking the responsibility of administrator, and see how you react to more difficult situations. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose per same reasons as those above me. You are off to a good start and have good answers to the questions, but you need more experience to show your dedication to the encyclopedia and to show that you can be trusted. Timmeh! 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. With more broad experience across Wikipedia, you'll have my strong support, as your start proves how you can do. However, that experience is currently lacking. Edit count doesn't matter to an extent, but in terms of experience, it's a relatively telling factor. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. You seem like a good person, but I'm not convinced you'd make a good admin. Sorry. DS (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral Due to your lack of experience, I don't feel comfortable supporting. However, you seem like a good-faith editor. Keep trying, keep reverting vandalism and I might support in the future. Sam Blab 13:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I really like your editing so far. You've done a great job and helped out the project quite a bit, but you really aren't ready for the high responsibility of adminship. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged if this RfA fails. Many people fail their first RfAs and bounce back and pass a second one once they have more experience. By the way, here is a faster way to catch and revert vandalism than just reloading the recent changes. Just follow the instructions on the page to install and clear your cache. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah...this one's faster :P Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I really admire a user that fights vandalism old school style! My suggestion is to keep up the good work and come back when you have more experience in administrative related areas. Maybe this is a good start. Good luck, Changing to oppose. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral There's just not enough contributions for me to properly judge either way. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 23:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral A great help to the project, but if all you do is revert vandalism, you really don't need to be an admin. Good luck and thank you, Grsz11 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Honestly, I'm very confused why this hasn't been NOTNOW'd yet. I don't think that this user is ready yet, but I do feel that the user is doing an excellent job, has a good knowledge of policies, and could be an excellent administrator in the future. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At more supports than opposes this is clearly not the time for WP:NOTNOW. Agathoclea (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I know this. But usually, an editor with this few edits is NOTNOW'd within an hour. That might still even apply, if you include the moral supports. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Unfortunately, I wasn't able to ask my usual Q, but someone else did. The answer to the block/ban Q isn't exactly what I was looking for. Edit count = low, but ≠ NOTNOW low. Has a reasonable knowledge of policies, etc., but just not enough experience yet. Perhaps a bit overzealous...? flaminglawyer 14:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll admit that I hadn't looked at the edit count before I typed that vote. Now I see that the edit count = NOTNOW. It may not get closed as a NOTNOW, but that is the candidate's level of experience. Policy knowledge is surprisingly high for this guy, but seriously, ~350 edits? flaminglawyer 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I also find myself wanting to support as I find nothing to suggest that this user would abuse the tools. However I would be happier if the candidate had more experience of applying the policies and guidelines. MartinMsgj 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's one thing to know the policies simply by searching for the answers but it's another thing to have experience putting them to use. Wisdom is the application of knowledge and one gains wisdom from experience. He may have learned the knowledge but without something to go on from a larger edit history we just don't know if he's wise enough to apply it. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 04:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I can't support or oppose because I see a useful contributor who just isn't ready to have the tools of adminship. You haven't enough edits for us to judge how you would use them and what edits you do have are spread out over nearly a year with low monthly counts (per edit stats) which shows too little activity.—Sandahl (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Not at all a bad self-nom for such little experience. Come back in three months with a good, consistent history and I'll quite likely support. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Good faith but effectively no experience. Computerjoe's talk 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pyfan&oldid=1252102543"