Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/T

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

T

Final (9/15/5); ended 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. - extransit (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

T (talk · contribs) – I have decided to nominate T as a candidate for administrator. Since joining Wikipedia, T has been a terrific user and has worked very hard to make Wikipedia an enjoyable place and a great source of information. I have manly worked with T on Big Brother articles and while we may have had disagreements here and there T was always kind, curious and willing to work with me plus other editors. T has 3,968 total edits with 1,995 with articles and has created 15 articles to date for Wikipedia. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I am choosing to withdraw this nomination. T (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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: One of my favorite areas of Wikipedia editing is to take part in vandal-fighting. My recent changes patrolling often leads to reporting repeat vandals to AIV. As an admin, I see myself mainly blocking repeat vandals that I come across in my recent changes patrolling or ones that get reported by other vandal-fighters.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Aside from my recent changes vandal-fighting, I definitely take great pride in my contributions to Big Brother related articles. In particular, I've worked with Alucard and many other editors toward getting Big Brother 11 (U.S.) up to "Good Article" status, as well as constantly updating the Big Brother 7, 8, 9, 10, and currently 12 articles (including several seasons of the British and Australian versions) as they aired (or are airing). Also, I was pleased to see an article I created be showcased on the Main Page as a WP:DYK blurb.

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: One of the prominent conflicts over editing that I had some involvement with was based on the coloring of voting history boxes and infoboxes in Big Brother related articles. Although the argument got very heated, I managed to keep cool and express my opinion without making any controversy. As far as other users causing me stress goes, it hasn't happened to date. I just don't let anything that goes on in Wikipedia get at me, as I have a lot more to worry about in real life and at college or than just about anything that happens on here. How would I deal with it in the future? I'd probably just keep a cool head, talk out my points, and if it got to be too much, log off for a few hours and do something else to take my mind off of it.

Question from —fetch·comms

4. Since you plan on vandal-fighting, why do you only seem to have 8 edits to AIV? Is there anything you want to say regarding your low level of activity recently and/or your relatively low editcount (compared to many other sysops; while 4,000 isn't bad, and edit counts are by no means a huge factor evaluating your candidacy, most vandal fighters have significantly higher counts).

A: Well, the reason for this is that I only picked up the vandal-fighting really recently after taking a long break from the project. As far as the low edit-count and recent dormant period, I started college last year, which gave me significantly less time to contribute (and also explains any relative editing spikes during Summer months). My more recent break from editing can be attributed to going back to class on the 20th and the preparation/settling in period that comes with it (I go to college around 1,000 miles from home, so it takes some time to get used to it again).

Question from MJ94 (talk)

5 Why do you think you would make a good administrator?

A: Honestly, I heard about the supposed "shortage" recently and figured that since I'd been around since 2005 and have a decent track record that I might have enough to help out. At this point, I'm just looking to help out the project and thought maybe the mop would allow me to participate in more ways.

General comments

• Links for T: T (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for T can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted. —fetch·comms 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support No issues with the lack of recent edits. Seems trustworthy. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2. per Bastique, who is always right.--Scott Mac 22:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support to cancel out some of the frankly absurd opposes based on silly things like editcountitis or the candidate not meeting some arbitrary criteria. At the end of the day, while this RfA may be a little premature, I think T is sufficiently competent not to break anything and sufficiently sensible to ask for advice if given the mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   Everyone gets to define their own criteria as arbitrarily as they see fit. That's the beauty of letting more than one person vote. Townlake (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Support OK Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. The candidate self-identifies as a Pittsburgh Pirates fan and therefore needs all the support he can get in more ways than one. More seriously, I think it is highly likely he would perform acceptably as an administrator. Having said that, I think prudence suggests that T should withdraw this RfA for now, continue his good work as an editor, and return for a strong second attempt when he is more likely to succeed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict)Support—Airplaneman ✈ 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Seems trustworthy. I have no problem with recent inactivity, as T possesses the awareness necessary to go read current policy if he's unsure.--Chaser (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   Why didn't he here, then? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry to be the one to start this list, but I would like to see more contributions to the wiki, it's just too early. Diego Grez (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2. I love your username, but I can't really put aside the worries I have against putting someone with so few recent edits, aside from Huggle and other anti-vandalism work, into the position of administrator. I can see that you mean well but unless you can show us that you really have kept in touch with all the changes that have taken place on Wikipedia recently and are familiar with the aspects of work that you'd need to do as an administrator I can't really support an RfA at this time. —Soap— 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose WP:NOTNOW and per Soap :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and lack of recent activity. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose For a vandal fighter, I would have expected more edits to AIV. You have eight. Not nearly enough experience, in my book. In addition, with only 400-some user talk edits, that's rather low for vandalism patrol, especially with all the automated tools today. I'm assuming that you are warning vandals, so that is a lowish number. —fetch·comms 21:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
6. (edit conflict)Oppose. I'm sorry, but you have far too little experience in admin-related areas to be handed the mop — only 8 edits to WP:AIV, an area you'd like to work in... —; too sum it up, it's a WP:NOTNOW RFA, in my opinion... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict) Oppose I'm very sorry, but I have to agree with everyone above. You don't have enough experience in areas where admin work is required. Also, you seem to mostly revert vandalism, yet you only have 8 AIV reports. I'm sure as you continue to contribute, you will gain more knowledge of the policies, admin related areas, etc. When you do, that will be the time to consider adminship. Again, I'm sorry, but now is not the time.. MJ94 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think you need more experience in policy-heavy areas like AIV, AfD, CSD, UAA, etc. It seems like your edits have made an overall positive impact on the project, so I bet if you gain some experience in these areas you'd be ready for admin tools in a few months. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Your edits seem more or less good. I'm surprised at how few there are, seeing as you're a Huggler, but that's not enough to shift me either way. My concerns rest mostly with the very low number of edits to AIV when you say that that is the area in which you intend to do most of your work. Also, this !vote you made at AfD shows that you're unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's important policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL. Knowledge of policy is an important attribute in editors. You definitely show potential, but I'd say come back in a little while when you're more experienced. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Not enough experience in areas you wish to work in, 8 WP:AIV reports is not nearly enough. You're edits aren't my concern, you're inexperience in key policy areas is my key concern. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose Adminship is a permanent appointment, so we have to be confident you will not abuse the tools. You don't have a sufficient track record for me to determine one way or the other. Therefore, must oppose. Townlake (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
12. I'm sorry, you simply do not have enough edits. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose - a long-time Wikipedian, the candidate has been dormant for much of the last year (except for the current month). Very minimal portfolio in AIV, CSD, AfD and other administrative areas. I see a promising future as a sysop, but more experience is needed--Hokeman (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Not enough experience in the areas you wish to work in ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Not ready yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I think it is too early for you to be considered for adminship, for pretty much the same reasons as given in the oppose section. However, I am not going to pile-on - although I would recommend that T withdraws this RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral You should try out some more of the features, such as the move button as an administrator will be expected to know their way around the system so as to help out users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral: I can easily deal with a candidate who's been here five years, but... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Phantomsteve. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 22:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Waiting for more answers. Tommy! [message] 00:38, 30 August 2010 (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.