Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happy Attack Dog

Add links
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.

Happy Attack Dog[edit]

Final (0/10/0); ended 01:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC) per WP:SNOW --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Happy Attack Dog (talk · contribs) – Before I start this, Id just like to say that I am shaking like a leaf while I am writing this, so sorry if there are any grammatical errors, Thanks. Now, Onto the description.Hello all. I Come to WP:RFA to ask for adminship. Through the Past year, I have had over 1,500 edits, had rollback for around half of that time, I feel as If I have made a decent amount of edits to improve the wiki, most of them in regards to deleting vandalism, I am hoping that by obtaining the mop I can help, more so then before, keep the epidemic of vandalism from spreading across the wiki, (I also accept my nomination (although I am not sure I need to accept it as I nominated myself) Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I intend to take part in reverting vandalism and blocking vandals, specifically requests on WP:AIV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are Edits to revert vandalism, as those are mainly the bulk of what I do.
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: Yes, I remember last year getting in a argument with a administrator, resulting in myself taking a nice long wiki break. However, I feel that at the time I did not respond in the most civil matter. However, in regards to social communication, I have a disorder (that I, for my own safety, will not name) that impairs my social skills ability, to a extent. But, The good news Is I now have been working to restore my ability to maintain proper social skills.

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Too soon WP:NOTNOW. Article edits under 50% of all edits. Highest number of edits to any one article is 9. No confidence in nominee's judgment, considering the username they chose. BMK (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict) Oppose per WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTNOW. I am not seeing sufficient experience with less than 1000 edits in the Article space. Also, having the second largest amount of edits in the "User talk:" namespace alarms me (38%), but since the nominee only has 1500-ish edits, that concern can be nullified in a matter of months if they choose to perform edits elsewhere. Either way, I would recommend that the nominee gain more experience in venues where administrators are present (such as the various WP:XFD forums), and attempt an RFA again in about maybe a three years and at least triple five times their current edit amount. Steel1943 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Realistically I'd say a candidate with only 5000 edits would have barely any more chance at RFA than a candidate with 1700. Outside of a sudden radical reform proposal, I'd suggest not running another RFA for at least five years and 10000 edits. Also I'd like to note that this RFA was not transcluded by the candidate and I think it would be unfair to hold it against him in the future. —Soap— 01:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think that a 5-year minimum is necessary, but I do agree that I got my math slightly wrong about the edit amount, and after some of the question answers, the candidate needs more time. So. I tweaked my answer a bit. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Soap Could you explain that, I don't quite understand what you mean about transclusion. BMK (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is commenting on the fact that I transcluded the RFA based on the candidate's request at the Teahouse. I think the basic point of his comment is related to the suggestion that a user isn't ready for adminship if they can't properly transclude their own RFA. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you meant well, but if it had been me I'd have gently agreed that he had no chance instead of helping transclude the RFA. That wouldve prevented this massacre and the resulting negative effects on any future RFA's he might choose to run. —Soap— 01:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Too little project space work. I see a few AfD noms, mostly very low-hanging fruit. No participation in AfDs started by others, no NACs. No discussion at any policy boards. No significant content creation either, I don't even see much in the way of sourcing recently discovered articles in need of help demonstrating notability. A good vandal fighter, but so far that seems to be pretty much all this editor has done. Too little experience. WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTNOW. No AfC work, not much time on help desk or other user help pages. DES (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel: I'm not sure if you or Steel1943 checked what you were linking to when you opposed per WP:TOOSOON, but I'm pretty sure it's not what you intended. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @G S Palmer: Sure enough! I meant to link WP:NOTNOW. (Seems that I caused a chain reaction of bad links... Oops.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - just too soon. Agree with the reasoning of the other editors above; nothing further is needed to be said; do listen to the comments above, Happy Attack Dog; stay around, learn and spend some time on content editing/creation. Kierzek (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per everyone above - I hate to pile on but this is simply TOOSOON NOTNOW, There's no participation in any of the admin(ish) areas, I would say edit alot more and perhaps retry in 3/4 years. –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell a lie you do contribute in AIV but that seems to be it so again it's not much participation and the AFD participation isn't brilliant either. –Davey2010Talk 01:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per WP:TOOSOON. I Do Not agree with comments above that the nominee's ratio of user talk page edits is too high, given that this is a consequence of fighting vandalism -- properly done, vandals should be warned about their behavior, and except for multiple edits rolled back at one time, each instance of vandalism often results in a user warning for the vandal in question. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, which is, as you said, "a consequence of fighting vandalism." However, this alone does not prove the nominee's competency to be given the entire admin toolset. The only way I can rationalize this high ratio of "User talk:" edits is if the editor has a comparable amount of "Wikipedia:" namespace edits to show that the editor is participating in discussion forums and pages that deal directly with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia; however, this editor currently does not have an amicable amount of edits in that namespace to qualify for all-around Wikipedia experience. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose – way too early. I'm looking at Military Airspace, one of the two articles that you created (a third was deleted), and you aren't even following MOS:HEADCAPS there, and that's basic stuff. You need way more time on the project, learning policies and such, before you'll be ready for adminship. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (edit conflict) Oppose WP:NOTNOW. Also, too little edits. Even I have more edits, and I don't have any extra privileges. Datbubblegumdoetalkcontribs 01:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too inexperienced, but thank you for offering to serve the community in this role. Townlake (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Simple WP:NOTNOW. Will follow up with user own their talk page, probably overwhelming to see so many opposes and critiques. --JustBerry (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]


General comments[edit]
  • This RfA should be closed by a bureaucrat relatively soon. However, I have left a note here for the user regarding their RfA to ensure they better understand the significance of the process, etc. --JustBerry (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2015 (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/Happy_Attack_Dog&oldid=1075586864"