Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Endofskull

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.

Endofskull[edit]

Final (3/14/2); ended 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) - ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Endofskull (talk · contribs) – I think I have enough experience to be an administrator. I've been on Wikipedia for about half a year, and I'm ready to be an admin. I spend almost all of my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism, welcoming users, and helping people out. (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (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'd usually patrol usernames for administrator atttention, administrator intervention against vandalism, the administrators' noticeboard (particularly in the incidents and edit warring department), and candidates for speedy deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say helping out with especially pages with pending changes, and recent changes. I've reported lots of people that need to be reported to the correct places (such as administrator intervention against vandalism).
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've had one problem with a user who was being uncivil. I nicely reported him, and he actually changed. In the future, I'll be very nice, and if needed I'll ban them.
Additional optional question from WereSpielChequers
4. Please can you list some article edits where you've added information with an inline cite to a reliable source?
A: Although that's not my "specialty" on Wikipedia, I'd say the one I've done most with is on Roblox. As I do play it I'll remove stuff that's not true, I'll add sources to stuff, things of that nature. But answering the question, yes I have added content with sources to it.
Additional optional question from Mono
5. What is the difference between block and a ban? In your own words, please.
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • edit stats on the talk page  7  01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Rude opposes (important caveat: not all of them are rude) should be balanced by supports. Candidates who have done good work for the community deserve a basic degree of respect whatever you think of their competence as an administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support I think that Endofskull may have to learn about more parts of wikipedia, and build more experience, before most folk are willing to switch from "oppose" to "support"; but I don't want to crush the spirit of somebody who has their heart in the right place and appears to have made positive contributions. bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. You're definitely a good-faith editor, but you don't have any substantial content work. Come back in six months to a year, addressing the concerns raised in this RfA, and I'll be happy to support. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC) And just so you know, there's a difference between a block and a ban.[reply]


Oppose[edit]
  1. [1], [2], [3], [4], an editcount target on your userpage, 61% of your edits to userpages, no substantive mainspace edit of any kind that I can see. Please, withdraw this for the moment; I appreciate you're here to help but you don't yet understand the Wikipedia policies which every admin needs to know. – iridescent 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I understand your reasoning. But as I said above, that's what I do: revert vandalism/other bad stuff and warn them. Shouldn't most of my edits be warnings? Endofskull (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No Pilif12p :  Yo  00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Iridescent. Trebor (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But as others have said, don't be discouraged. Continue with your good work (but maybe slow down a little!) and gain more experience before coming back. Trebor (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, but the discussion in the "Warning?" section on your talk page suggests you aren't clear on when warnings are appropriate and when they're not. 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed liked it was appropriate. But from that, I learned when it's appropriate to warn people, and when it's not. Thank you for commenting! :) Endofskull (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. You're obviously here to improve things, and your good work is appreciated, even if there are some concerns. Don't get too discouraged by this RfA. 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Clueless. Could be more clueful. MtD (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sorry to oppose, but the diffs shown by Iridescent shows lack of understanding in WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Hopefully this RFA will not get you too down and will return when you have had enough experience. Best of luck. Derild4921☼ 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I see what you're saying more than anyone else in the oppose section (no offense other guys! :D). Okay, it may look like I'm just making up excuses, but I'm just trying to explain stuff. I will read that, but as for now, the reason for any "wrong" sections or ones that look like they're just to boost up my edit count is because I think it's intentionally bad. Endofskull (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing 28bytes above, don't take this too badly. With more experience in some areas I see no reason why you can't become an admin in the future. ;). Derild4921☼ 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay that's fair to say. If I do get declined, what areas would I need to improve in? Endofskull (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Try creating some articles. This is an encyclopedia, after all. It would look even better if you created a good article or a featured article. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay! Wow, thanks for the advice. If I do get accepted I'll still work on that. Endofskull (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Inexperience. Townlake (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Insufficient experience and knowledge of delete policies. Courcelles 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I rarely support users who don't work with content extensively, and your relatively low edit count, concerns over policy knowledge, and lack of varied experience, don't make you exceptional enough for a support from me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Fastily, and Fetchcomms. Wait a bit. intelatitalk 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This RfA problem is getting out of hand. ǝɥʇM0N0 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose – Not enough experience, and diffs above show a lack of understanding with CSD and PROD. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Bad CSD noms as recently as yesterday, warning a user for an innocent talk page remark made in 2006, etc. Lacking in clue. The first, best thing you can do to strengthen your future chances at RFA is to show some good judgement by withdrawing this RFA now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Not Yet- didn't want to pile-on oppose, but I don't think you're ready yet. Come back in 9-12 months and you will stand a much better chance. Reyk YO! 01:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree Not Yet - Endofskull and I have had a few interactions, always good. You have my full moral support. You are a very unique Wikipedian and with more time and experience you could do well, you always have this projects well being at heart. Good luck my friend. Mlpearc powwow 01:47, 10 November 2010 (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/Endofskull&oldid=1142576264"