Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan

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.

TheAustinMan

[edit]

Final (1/8/2); ended 11:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: While at the current part I would like to take part in anti-vandalism and speedy deletion requests, as an administrator I wish to gradually work in all areas of administrative work.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that my best contributions to Wikipedia have been in the field of updating current-time weather related pages (see Early March 2012 tornado outbreak) and giving a good boost in quality to a few pages.
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: I have not (yet) been in a situation of editing stress on Wikipedia. However, if I come across an incident, I would deal with it in a calm guiding manner that results in a positive affect on both sides of the conflict.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral Support Definitely not ready, but your intentions are marvelous. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and best of luck for the future! --Bmusician 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - Thank you for your offer of service. I can not support because I feel 1,500 edits is not enough to give you the administrator tools. Best wishes, Jusdafax 03:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - A quick glance at your contributions makes me think you are a valued content contributor but not ready to be an administrator just yet, especially with only 50 contributions since the beginning of the year and no involvement outside of the content space besides WikiProject Austin. No nomination statement also shows a lack of familiarity with what is expected of administrator candidates. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" is a bad sign for a RFA. (Redacted) I expect to see that they can function on the site as an adult; in that regard, seeing the above nomination statements does concern me. Please do not be discouraged from editing the site, and do not be discouraged from reapplying when you have more experience. --Rschen7754 05:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, in my mind 1500 edits is plenty, but failing to fill out the RFA form properly ("YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER") is a worrying sign for me because it seems to indicate carelessness, which we don't want to see in an admin. Sorry. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Oppose, You need little more experince and edit counts. And also I saw that your description about RfA is inappropriate and it makes me feel that it will be immature for you to be admin. Yasht101 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Children should be neither administrators nor state personal information (age) on user pages. Oversight should erase the page history and personal information.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I did not notice any rule written: "Children should not be sysops". What is required is trust, and maturity. Any user who has these two items present in them may apply for RFA. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an opinion, which is what people offer here are RfA - it's not a rule-driven process -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notice, read, and remember the community's consensus statement, at Requiring that administrators be adults (a perennial proposal): "Editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA". If you believe that "trust and maturity" characterize administrators, then please contact me about exciting investment opportunities. (Also, Dipankan, in standard English, "count" is singular and "do" is plural.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too many concerns.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,585,998) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose but with thanks for contributing to the project. Well-meaning and positive contributor, but doesn't have the experience or maturity yet. And although age itself is not specifically a barrier, I think it will be a few years yet before a candidate of this age would have sufficient maturity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Looking through contribs, they seem pretty good. Frankly, number of contributions shouldn't matter, I would rather support a person with 3,000 really good edits than someone with 25,000 automated edits. I'm sure people will oppose because you only have 1,500 edits, but don't be discouraged. Even if you don't pass this time, you're on the right track. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 03:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not worried about the stated age of this editor. However, while I see a lot of good work being done, it's in a limited range. I can't see anything in CSD or XfD, or in other admin-related areas. I would suggest getting into new edit patrolling (or my old area of edits by new accounts - I learned a great deal there). Also, get into AfD. Good work experience available there in checking things out and possibly rescuing articles. Admins do specialise somewhat, which is probably to the good, but they do need a grounding in other areas than content creation (which is an area not normally requiring the mop). Good luck for the future. Peridon (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (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/TheAustinMan&oldid=1083312417"