Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Exvicious

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.

exvicious[edit]

Final (2/14/8) Ended Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:38:29 (UTC)

exvicious (talk · contribs) – helpful wikipedia editor with 1000+ edits Exvicious 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the nomination--Exvicious 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC):[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Locking pages with lots of vandalism like Scott Keith, Emma Watson, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Superboy (Kon-El), Supreme (comics). I think if my edits last an extended period of time with out being radically altered, i did something right.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Usually I'd just try to start a concensus to prove a point. Which, of course, could go against me as well, but at least the right decision is made.
4. Optional question from Daveydweeb: You mention above that you would use the tools to protect vandalised pages. Under what circumstances would you consider protecting or semi-protecting a page?
General comments

Discussion

  • Suggest withdrawal of RfA at this point of time. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral Support - Take the advice of the rest of the comments. Withdraw, spend time in XfD, the wikinamespace, work on more articles, and do editor review -- then try back in 5 or 6 months. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support I thank you for your hard work on this encyclopedia. Please don’t let the outcome of this RfA discourage you. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I suggest you expand your answers and generally gain more experience. NauticaShades 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose solely on the fact that the user has very little experience in the Wikipedia namespace. See Interiot's Wannabe Kate tool. Also considering the steep drop off of edits in the past 4 months, I'm not confident in this user would be a suitable admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradBeattie (talk • contribs)
  3. Oppose, but I'll check back to make sure you have a proper chance to convince me otherwise. Your brief answers don't worry me in themselves, but your statement that you would use the tools to "[lock] pages with lots of vandalism" is concerning to me. Such a short answer does nothing to explain under what circumstances you would protect or semi-protect a page, and doesn't demonstrate a sound knowledge of protection itself. I'd strongly recommend that you flesh out your answers to the above questions, and use them as a chance to demonstrate that you wouldn't misuse the tools. As much as I believe that adminship is no big deal, I can't be confident that the tools wouldn't be used inappropriately. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Brad and Nautica. Far too little experience, especially concerning administrative type chores (AfD,RfC,RfA,AIV etc), and your reason for wanting to be an admin is rather worrying. yandman 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not yet experienced enough. Very little participation in the Wikipedia namespace makes me concerned that the candidate does not have a grasp on policy. Some of the answers to the questions above are puzzling. In particular, I have no idea what the third answer is trying to communicate. What in the world does "start a concensus to prove a point" mean? With more experience and an improvement in communication skills, I'd likely support in the future. SuperMachine 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per nominee's answers above. Though they were made in good faith, they reflect some lack of experience in grasping admin duties and tasks. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Not much enthusiasm or effort shown in answering the questions. I think not, adminship should fall to those with the desire and the work ethic. LittleOldMe 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, lacks of experience. Try again in six months and work on admin-related tasks. --Terence Ong (C | R) 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per answers to questions. Experience needed. ViridaeTalk 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. oppose inexperience Pete.Hurd 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Needs more experience and more talk, has poor use of edit summaries, and not much recent activity. Katr67 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. You seem like a good person, but I'd like it if you had much more experience. Try again in six or eight months. 1ne 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. You are a good article editor in the Main Space. But you do not have enough experience behind the scenes in the Wikipedia Space dealing with policy-related discussions to be considered a serious admin candidate at this time. It also concerns me that you're applying for adminship right now, even though your edit history shows that your contribution rate has considerably declined in the last three months - you were much more active up to the end of July. When someone applies for adminship, I'm looking for evidence that they're going to be a consistent contributor in that role who will know how and where to apply Wikipedia policy properly. With more appropriate experience, I could see you becoming an admin in the future. Good luck if you decide to apply again some time down the line. Zaxem 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Please take this as a learning experience to not rush into things too quickly. Don't let this discourage you from editing. semper fi — Moe 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral to avoid pile on don't let this get you down, but please withdraw and spend a few more months gaining experience in editing and learning the customs of the Wikipedia community.-- danntm T C 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Requires more experience, sorry. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral due to lack of experience, sorry (and to avoid pile on). Hello32020 14:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Firstly, withdraw this RfA asap, as it has no chance of succeeding as it stands. Secondly, get an editor review to point out areas in which you can improve. Thirdly, go and get some admin coaching after working away at improving the encyclopedia for three or four months. This will give you a heads-up as to what the role of the admin is all about and some of the tasks that you will be expected to perform. Call back after you have achieved this, say in about six months' time. (aeropagitica) 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I admire those who desire to be anti-vandal admins and protect Wikipedia's pages however, I would have definitely liked to see more elaborate answers, they seemed rather short and sysop chores can range from page protection to dispute resolution. Also it would not hurt to see some xFD contributions. All in all I think you have potential, just give yourself some more time to grow.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I sugguest you withdraw this RfA, as it seems that you will be overflooded with neutral and oppose votes. This is not an insult to your capability or to the work you have put in thus far in the Wikipedia project, but it is more of a notion that you are not yet qualified for admin tools. Get active in the Wikipedia namespace, and keep up the great article-building efforts. We really appreciate what you have done thus far, but if you want to become an admin, you have to open the covers and see what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. We have XfD's, RfA's, DRV, AIV, etc. Try to get active in these areas, and I am sure that your next RfA (in a few months and with 3000-4000+ edits) will definitely succeed. Nishkid64 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I strongly suggest you withdraw from this RfA and meet the above criteria raised by other users. In the meantime, do not feel discouraged over this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Withdraw and re-apply in a few months. You will not regret it. Keep doing a good job. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 21 November 2006 (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/Exvicious&oldid=1140227432"