Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RC-0722

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] RC-0722

Final: (0/10/3); Closed per WP:SNOW by Nick (talk) at 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722 (talk · contribs) - When I first joined Wikipedia, RC was the first user to help me out and show me what to do. Yes I admit his account is young but he has alot of experience. He does alot of RC patrol and makes some contributions to some sports and video game related articles. He fights alot of vandalism. He also makes quite a few edits to talk pages. He was blocked recently for sharing his account, but, I can tell he has learned from the experience. He is a very mature and capable editor and in my opinion would make a great sysop. Burner0718 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. RC-0722 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to be an active member of Wikipedia, participating mainly in Recent Changes patrol, Good Article reviewing, and vandal fighting.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably at the Star Wars: Battlefront 2 article; where I did a complete overhaul of the article. Although I was not familiar with the Wikipedia: Not guidelines, my edits were still a significant improvement.
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: Unfortunately I have been in a few edit conflicts, one of which stand out among the rest. I usually try to reach a compromise with the user(s), but if that fails I usually concede or call for a consensus. I will deal with any conflict in the future with generally less aggression, although i will try to avoid edit conflicts in the future.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RC-0722 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I recommend a withdrawl, based on lack of experience. More time on wikipedia, and I'll consider voting for you. SpencerT♦C 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that recommendation. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Third. Useight (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that my block was not because of vandalism, it was on account of my shared account. Also, Dlohcierekim and Dreamafter, if you had read my user page you would have found out that B granted me rollback about a week ago. RC-0722 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'm sorry, but 69 main page edits and a block only a few days ago? I really do suggest that you withdraw this RfA, as it doesn't have a wp:snowballs chance in hell. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I beg your pardon, 302 main page edits. But I'm afraid that my opposition still stands. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose and echo what Malleus says above in suggesting you withdraw. None of the "admin tasks" you say you want to do in your answer to question 1 involve admin powers, and you were blocked less than two weeks ago. — iridescent 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Vandal fighting involves an admin tool: blocking. Majorly (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you wish for a vandal fighting tool, apply for Rollback permissions. Dreamy § 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    That might actually be poor advice, given the current volatile nature of WP:RFR. —Kurykh 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Given the recent block and lack of experience, I'm afraid I would be disinclined to grant rollback. Dlohcierekim 06:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose needs a little more experience. Dreamy § 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Sorry, you need more experience. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Not enough experience quite yet, though your intentions are good you have not provided the community with enough evidence to support you at this time. Try contributing to admin related areas such as WP:AFD. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - though the circumstances of your block obviously should not be held against you when it resulted from a good faith misunderstanding of policy, calling the blocking admin a bully does not give me confidence. --B (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Um, I believe you are mistaken, B. If you look at the history of Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, it was User:Burner0718 who called pats1 a bully. And besides, my block came about 2 days after the discussion occured. RC-0722 (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Uhh, dude It was me who called Pats1 a bully. I was defending my friend and I know ya'll would defend your friends if they were being "bullied". Besides I've matured alot since the incident in question and normally try to keep a cool head. BTW, I have apologized for my comment about Pats1. :-) Burner0718 (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose – Far too little experience and less than compelling responses. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: For all of the reasons pointed out above. Although, a recent block, that has merit (meaning that it was an acceptable block), for nearly any reason, will cause me to oppose. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. per above While I appreciate enthusiasm, I would recommend taking the time to read our polices and guidelines. The recent block is troubling coming so recently. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy. To be clear about this, the admin buttons allow a user to block/unblock other users, delete/undelete pages, and protect/unprotect pages. Users can and should participate in RCPatrol, vandalism reverting/reporting and reviewing GA candidates (and other encyclopedia building activities) before getting the admin buttons. As a further bit of advice, some RFA participants will not support a nom with < 5,0000 edits. I look forward to your submitting an RfA about 4,000 edits from now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    OOO, as admin, you will be involved in "conflicts". That's why one's conflict resolution skills are important. Compromise and concensus building are important tools, along with AGF, so you are partly on the right track there. Dlohcierekim 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose very little experience and a recent block. --Angelo (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral to avoid pile on. On the right track, but not enough experience yet. Useight (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I like your style. Come back in a little while, and I will definitely support you. Deb (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Withdraw and try again in a few months with more experience. I'm sorry. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (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.