Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream

Nightscream

removed with (0/13/0) on 13 July 2005; original end 06:29 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a voracious reader, a good writer with good language and writing skills, and I really like Wikipedia and its mission. I discovered it less than a year ago, and have contributed to it many times, sometimes just minor edits for wording and/or conforming to a NPOV, and sometimes more lengthy pieces. I'm a moderator of the Politics, Legal Musings, and Friends boards at a message board website, and I think I'd make a good Wikipedia administrator. Still, it's hard to figure out how to go about this, even from reading pages like this (this page says to read the qualifications, for example, but I couldn't find a list of them). Is there anything I should do to go about this process? I'd appreciate any advice on the matter. Thanks.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. User has demonstrated a great deal of difficulty in following instructions. --Carnildo 06:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. No excuse for self-noms not answering the questions. Other than that, relatively no edits and no major contributions. The fact that you need to cite adminship at a message board screams, "Come back in six months." Harro5 08:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. To cut it short: user has yet to answer the candidate questions, has only very few edits outside of the, Article and User_talk namespaces, and does not sufficiently use the edit summary box. Seeaxid 08:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. People above me said it best. gkhan 08:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. User has a commendable dedication to the project, but needs more experience. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Maybe later. As it says at the top of the page Most new admins have at least three months of participation and 1000 edits. 209 is way too few. And none of those edits are to Wikipedia-space pages, so there's very little interaction with the community so far (vital for an admin). Continue the good work and you'll probably end up an admin. But not just yet. As to what to do to become a more likely candidate - get involved! Join a WikiProject. Add your voice to the votes on vfd, cfd, tfd, sfd. Try to help out newbies on the Village Pump. The moreyou interact with the community, the more likely we'll all be able to tell how good an admin you'd be. Grutness...wha? 10:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose, sorry. User is too new (if well intentioned), and failure to follow the proper procedures just adds weight to this. --Deathphoenix 13:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. 4 months is lots of time. 209 edits, on the other hand, don't showcase your talents enough. Also, not answering the candidate questions shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. --Scimitar 15:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Please take your time to answer the candidacy questions first. It is an important criteria before anyone considers any support for you. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose, for reasons already noted. -- JamesTeterenko 19:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose I am normally against using edits or time for use as a qualifier in RFA's but I think that 4 months ans 209 are a little low, I would also be interested in seeing you answer the questions so that we know what you like editing and what you are planning on using the extra tools for. Jtkiefer 23:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, not enough edits. Try again after about 1000 edits total and a couple hundred in the WP: namespace. --Idont Havaname 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose. I generally don't look at edit counts at all when deciding on an admin vote, so much as frequency and quality. The nom performs well in both senses, but there's simply not enough for me to judge what his general attitudes/philosophies are, and without the candidacy question answers, I really can't say I know enough about the nom to be able to support him in clear conscience. Will consider changing my vote if answers are provided for said questions (no promises, though). – Seancdaug 05:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)`

Neutral

1. Oppose. How is the community going to trust you with only four months of edits? You're not even halfway to my expected nine-month threshold. Denelson83 09:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Denelson83, while your personal standards are your own choice to make, the community has shown trust enough in plenty of people with "only" four months of edits to grant them adminship, even recently. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 10:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
     • Okay. I appreciate you letting me know that, so I shall change my vote to neutral. Denelson83 22:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• For the record I moved the canidate's administration request statement into the proper template layout and did the required template work to make this a proper vfd RFA. Jtkiefer 06:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vfd? Freudian slip I assume. Hmm, what could you have been thinking about :P gkhan 08:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • You'll have to ask Freud about that one but yeah, a slipup caused by haste. Jtkiefer 23:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• User has a total of 209 edits, full results via Kate's Tool can be found here

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A.

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.