Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keelan717

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

Kellan717

Final (1/5/0); ended 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Keelan717 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Loyal, honest, trustworthyKeelan717 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2012

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: I understand the criteria for a promotion to an administrator should be that the user should not have vandalised a page or article before and must have created at least one page with reliable information and sources.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: I would contact another bureaucrat and get their opinion, which I would value, and make my decision.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: I feel I am trustworthy because I have created many wikis on Wikia including Winx Club Wiki.

Additional question from Riley Huntley

1. A user requests adminship but has less than 25 edits, would you support or oppose?

A: I would go neutral.

2. A user requests bureaucrat but made the request in the RfA section, what would you do?

A: I would leave a message in their talk and tell them how to put it in the RfB section.

General comments

• Links for Keelan717: Keelan717 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Keelan717 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. I support this candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelan717 (talk • contribs)

   This candidate lacks proper experience but I support them nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.159.227 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Indent - sorry, IPs can't !vote. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose and SNOW close Far, far, far too little experience here to even think about admin/bureaucratship. Please read this essay. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose and WP:SNOW close per Floating Boat. Theopolisme 13:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW. Sorry to oppose, but this is way too soon. One cannot get my support merely in 2 days. Edits don't count much but only 49 edits in 2 days gives me no clue whatsoever about your ability. At least, I'd like to see 10 or 12 month experience and consistent editing. Other then this, the editor added contact details including mobile numbers to an AFC. This clearly shows that their understanding about Wikipedia is not proper as well as their details on their userpage are wrong thus misleading. So many issues in just 2 days lead me to strongly oppose this. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

   Do we need oversight for the AFC details? A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

4. The editor also applied for bureaucratship at the same time - they clearly don't understand what is required. GiantSnowman 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Snow close. Thanks for your work and interest in serving the community in a greater capacity. Respectfully, both bureaucrats and administrators require a significant amount of experience and knowledge of the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, along with basic editing skills. At this point, the threshold has not yet been met. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

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.