Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A520

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

A520

Final (1/11/2); ended 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW HurricaneFan25 — 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

A520 (talk · contribs) – I would like the administrator right to block vandals/spammers and delete/protect pages. A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 11:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: To block vandals/spammers and to delete/protect pages.

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

A: My anti-vandalism edits.

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: Well, vandals can cause me stress by vandalising my user page.

General comments

• Links for A520: A520 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for A520 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

Support

1. I'm afraid I can only offer moral support for now, but if you keep up your good work and wait six months to a year, I'd be more than happy to fully support you. Happy Holidays! Kindest regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not yet. Happy Christmas anyway. Leaky Caldron 12:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sorry, but not nearly enough experience. I had a brief look at your edit history and saw CSD-A7 and A1 tags placed within a minute of article creation, as well as vandalism warnings given for run of the mill mistakes like a badly formatted image insertion into an infobox. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Moral support. I cannot support you at this time due to your lack of experience and your answers. Merry Christmas, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Moral support for Christmas. Thanks for offering to take up the admin mop to help clean up vandalism, but you'd need a fair bit more experience first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not ready for prime time. 2100 edits so far, according to X! Edit Counter (not enough in my book). I see anti-vandal work lately but no work on articles (copy edit, creation, discussions). Not well rounded yet. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
6. 'Oppose Sorry, with 2K edits, you need one hellacious nomination statement. I didn't see it, so I think there is a disconnection between your understanding and our expectations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose: As your edits are good, but your nomination needed more information, I think. Moral support (but not for christmas) ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose . Not ready for this yet I'm afraid. Did you read all the guidelines at RfA guide, RfA Miniguide, and especially Advice for RfA candidates before attempting this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose Badly written answers to the questions. I mean, they should be much longer than just a one phrase answer. I appreciate all your help in the rollback department and you do have potential in the future, but not just yet. Minima© (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. I would like to see more thorough answers to the questions. Please come back later and try again. -- Luke (Talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose Due to lack of experience, expertise and the answers which were provided.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not going to have time to finish this review before the RFA snow closes. But there are some key skills that an admin needs to have demonstrated, one of which is the ability to add reliably sourced material to the pedia. If your best contributions are vandalfighting then I have to hunt for that in your contributions, and I'm afraid I don't have time to wade past all the vandalfighting to see if you have demonstrated that skill. So I suggest for next time that you include some examples of that in your best contributions. I'm not asking for a GA or even a DYK though there are some who expect that. But I do expect to be able to check that an admin has that skill. Also a minor point, would you mind changing the colour of your signature? That pale blue has insufficient contrast against a white background. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not enough experience, and answers that were worse than mine before I revised them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Been pointed out to me that objectively my answers were worse. Probably right about that. Moved to neutral, the user should revise the answer to questions and improve on it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:43, 24 December 2011 (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.