Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FredSmit

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

FredSmit

(talk page) Final (1/6/2); Ended 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC) by non-bureaucrat Giants27 per per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW.

Nomination

FredSmit (talk · contribs) – I would like to be able to serve the Wikipedia community with great distinction. I have edited for a long tme as an anonymous editor, under several IPs. FredSmit (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan on working mostly to help ease the perennial backlogs at WP:AIV and WP:CSD. Also, I would update WP:DYK when the bot is down, and just generally help out wherever I can.

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

A: As an anonymous editor, I reverted a lot of vandalism, and made a lot of minor edits to pages, normally those at WP:Wikiproject Check Wikipedia.

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 haven't been in many conflicts, but some vandals can get pretty nasty... Enough said.

General comments

Links for FredSmit: FredSmit (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for FredSmit can be found here.
Promote FredSmit (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/FredSmit before commenting.

Discussion

To point out the obvious, unless you can show us which IPs you've edited as and provide some way to demonstrate that it was you using them, we have no basis to judge your suitability for Adminship. Which means your RfA would WP:SNOWBALL to an early fail. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Moral support per WP:AGF. Why make it unanimous and discouraging? I agree with the reasons below, but don't want you to feel discouraged. Please take the advice below, however. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I very rarely oppose, but 4 edits is unusually low for an RFA candidate - though I'm watchlisting this and will happily reassess if you disclose the IPs you've edited from. Also the redlink in your question answers makes me suspect that your knowledge of this place is not yet at admin levels. But thanks for offering to take up the mop, we are desperately short of admins and I hope you come back later this year when you have a bit more experience. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia; seems like a simple typo. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a typo in his RFA is not a good sign; especially with so little to judge his application on. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now Sorry, but there is no way to know who is behind an IP's edits. Make some solid contribs at this account, come back in a few months and we can talk then. Until then, there is no concrete means to tell what your contribs have been in the past. Note that I would not hold any prejudice in a future RfA based on the outcome of this one, and encourage you to run again once you have some edits that we can concretely link to you.--Terrillja _talk 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 4 edits is too few. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of a serious lack of contributions. Make some good contributions for a few months, and I'll support after that. Tim meh ! 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, needs more experience. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I don't want to pile on, but I agree with the opposition—there is no way to confirm that you've been contributing under an IP. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of one easy way to confirm that he was contributing under an IP. However, I doubt it would be permissible. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend withdrawal. There's no record we can use to determine if you can be trusted with the tools. Townlake (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (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.