Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De la Marck

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.

De la Marck[edit]

Final (0/11/1); ended 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC) per WP:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination[edit]

De la Marck (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself because I'm not a particularly social animal and I've been away for a bit (finishing university). I generally prefer to work on more obscure articles relating to my profession and hobbies so I don't interact with other users as much as some. I realise I don't have a particularly impressive record (just 4000 odd edits, a score or so page creations and a bit of work in the back-logs and vandalism sectors etc.). However, working as I do among the tail-pages, the main reason I'm wanting admin permissions is so I'll be able to access deleted records etc., which would be vastly useful in recreating old pages; there are many worthwhile subjects, especially in my fields of interest (medical and dental science, history and literature) whose pages have been deleted simply because the quality of the original work was insufficient, but having this information to refer back to makes the salvage process more efficient. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I haven't been quite as inactive as I seem. While I've been on campus I've been using library computers, and I prefer not to sign in there. Now I'm back home on my own computer. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (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: I intend to keep working a little in vandalism reversion, page maintenance ect. as I have been, but also to upscale my work on improving the minor pages, stubs etc. in my areas of expertise.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Again, I have worked in the past and hope to continue in the future to improve the information quality and quantity of pages especially of scientific interest. Glass ionomer cement is one page on dental materials that I have devoted effort to.
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 am a high functioning autist and have occasional trouble understanding nuances of communication; however, I am fairly adept online (minimal non-verbal distractors) and this is in fact often a bonus; real life interaction is sufficiently stressful that I have excellently adapted to dealing with stress/conflict. I have once or twice had conflicts with users in the past; in these situations I have appealed to other users to obtain consensus or stepped back for a day or so which usually allows rational thought to reemerge.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed. Please note that I am autistic and kindly have an eye to clarity.

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. strong oppose inexperienced because you do not have an extra permission and even you do not know RfA runs 7 days and inactive in 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, but WP:NOTQUITEYET. May have good intentions, just does not have the edit experience, only a single AFD participation which counters the desire to rescue/save articles. Needs much more experience in advanced permission area before being trusted with the abilities given to an admin.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Recently back after essentially two years of inactivity. Limited experience. Q1 is a misfire. One need not be an admin to revert vandalism or improve pages. For Q3, I want specific examples of conflict, how it was handled, and what was learned. Suggest WP:SNOW Glrx (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for now but I'm sure you'll be an excellent admin in the future and I look forward to supporting you soon! However, you've only registered one !vote at AfD and have fewer than 4,000 edits since 2015.Chetsford (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - No significant activity over the last eleven months, coupled with no clear demonstrated need for the administrative toolset (could not find any sort of recent countervandalism work or significant participation in administrative areas in the Wikipedia namespace) leaves me unable to support this RfA. If you wish to become involved in countervandalism work, WP:CVU and WP:ROLLBACK may be of interest to you. Regards, EclipseDude (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose as per WP:NOTQUITEYET though I hope you'll become a good admin someday. –J947 (c), at 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose and not to berate you but the total inexperience is off putting, the lack of understanding the toolset and the fact that your talk page is practically unreadable. Praxidicae (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose- 4K edits in 3 3/4 years, long period of inactivity and minimal activity, "not a social animal" (adminning is in large part about social skills and "reading" other editors correctly) - there's really nothing in this editor's history to suggest that they would be a good admin, or even an adequate one. I strongly suggest that they withdraw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per WP:NOTQUITEYET. Not enough experience, even though my standards for adminship are low. SemiHypercube 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, recently this has been the most activity from RfA I've seen in my time here, even if only one passed. SemiHypercube 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Very inactive; WP:NOTQUITEYET Not close to what I look for in an admin. Snowycats (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I was going to be kind and sit things out, but looking at their talk page, all I'm seeing is a (fucking impossible to use) page with the candidate demonstrating a significant lack of competence and a failure to understand what they're being told by more experienced editors. That's two massive red flags which disqualifies the candidate from RfA at this time. Nick (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral While the concept of an editor requesting adminship based solely on mainspace contributions and a desire to view deleted material is an interesting one (and one that would have been sufficient in 2005), the fact that this user made exactly 5 edits for the 10 months prior to this week is going to get this closed fairly quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
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/De_la_Marck&oldid=877973925"