Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gagueci

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] gagueci

Final (2/9/2); Closed per WP:SNOW Thursday 03:57 23 August 2007 (UTC)

gagueci (talk · contribs) - I'll describe myself in terms of interests I suppose. I am heavily into physics and mathematics, I speak 2 languages, I am a male, 18 years of age, I am highly interested in sports such as swimming, basketball, football, and tennis. I am Italian-Canadian... That's it. Gagueci 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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?
Any and all that I am capable of performing to the best of my abilities. More then likely getting more invloved (more on a daily basis) in improving articles to FA status, making more articles A class, etc.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
I have significantly improved a couple of articles that required heavy clean up. I wouldn't quite say I am a wiki Dragon, that's a little to bold for me. I think my best work has come on The Fabric of the Cosmos in terms of heavy editing. I have also deleted lots of POVish statements in articles over the past, which I usually watchout for carefully, such as Chevelle
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?
The only article I can recall is M Theory. I wrote on the talk page that I believed the section on spiritual implications in M theory was irrelevant and even POVish. I deleted it. An editor challenged me and reverted my edit. To this, I thought about further arguing my point and reverting once more, but I realized the futility in this with a stubborn editor. I left the subject alone and let him have his way. My hope was that others would see this the way I had seen it and would support me. Much to my pleasure, months later I found the section had been deleted by another editor and it has been that way ever since. It did cause me a bit if stress at the time, but I worked through it in what I thought was the best way. In the future, I think getting support from other editors seems like the best way to proceed, as I did in this esxample.
4. If you could go back and experience the situation in question #3 again, how would you handle the situation differently now, or would you? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. I have absolutely no reason to oppose giving the tools to this candidate. I believe we should give the tools fairly liberally. Although things would work better if there were a process called Requests for De-adminship to remove the tools from people who use them to do vandalism and the like, and this process doesn't exist yet, I still think it's less harmful to Wikipedia to give the tools without requiring outstanding moral standards and edit quality and high edit count. Just not being a vandal is enough. A.Z. 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Meh! Let's see where this goes! Support :) Also, A.Z. Makes a good point about not being a vandal... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. All of his Wikipedia-space contributions are to this page ([1]). Also, you can help get articles to FA status without the mop. Get some experience at WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA and I'll be happy to support. But, for now, Oppose. --Boricuaeddie 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Time for the whitestuff, me thinks. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Amen. --Boricuaeddie 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    No white stuff, please. You had the chance to give advice to the candidate, but other people won't if you close the RfA early. A.Z. 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I see no indication that this user has the experience necessary of an editor. Gagueci, most of the editors who become administrators have been around for at least five or six months, are known around the community, and have a subtle understanding of our various policies, guidelines, and norms. It doesn't seem that you have those yet. If you try again in a number of months, having become acquainted with Wikipedia, then you will have a good chance to become an administrator. Nihiltres(t.l) 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Please withdraw this. No project space participation, tools aren't needed for FA (q1 answer). No way of knowing what this user will do as an admin. Giggy Talk 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I appriciate that this makes RfA not empty, but still, the lack of any projectspace edits means that I don't know how you would handle XfDs an the like. Wizardman 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. No ...project space edits, and little comprehension of tools from what I can see. Please withdraw and try at a later date. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose and Withdraw - Please withdraw this. You only have 200 edits, and none are to the project space. --Hirohisat Talk 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, Severe lack of meta-type participation prevents a review of how you would function as an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose and suggest withdrawl or snowball close Obviously won't pass, and RFA is not a place to give people advice. Editor Review and Admin coaching are that way --lucid 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Suggest withdrawal. Most certainly not ready yet, and to nominate yourself at such an early stage in your editing time suggests both inexperience and doubtful decision-making/Clue. Daniel 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: It looks to me like you just started editing again about two weeks ago after a fairly long hiatus. That makes it a bit hard for us to see anything that would show us you're ready for adminship. I also don't see too much maintenance work on the encyclopedia: maybe some vandal fighting and work on deletion processes (WP:AFD work, for example) could be good? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Avoiding pile on - you have only 48 edits in the last year. Admins are generally more active. What you've done is good work and there's nothing wrong with it ... it's just that admin tools aren't generally given out to someone until there is a sufficient body of evidence to get to know you. --B 03:15, 23 August 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.