Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skater

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

Skater

Final: (1/7/2) at 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC) closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW by \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk).

Nomination

Skater (talk · contribs) – Here goes....-clears throat- Hello, My name is Skater and this account has been around since early 07 but went vacant for 2 or so years. Since my return I've wanted to be an Admin, it's my ultimate goal in Wikipedia (besides building an awesome encyclopedia!.) I'm mainly a vandal fighter and a regular at WP:XFD. This is my first RFA, so I'm anxious to see how I measure up. Happy editing my brothers and sisters. SKATER ^Speak. 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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 to participate generally everywhere I can be of assistance, from WP:AIV to The Usernames for Admin attention. I will also close deletion discussions,look at the 3rr noticeboard and keep an eye out at CSD

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

A: My vandalism sprees and new page patrolling as they are the most abundant and what I've put most of my effort in.

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: While vandal hunting I ran into a flame war on an IP's talk page, I preceded to warm them both and Use the Trout of graet justice, my warnings were ignored so I went to wikiquette alerts. Soon me and the user were on the same terms and I assisted him

in dealing with his genre warring. He is now indef blocked for block evasion.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. The combination of your "happy vandal killing" phrase on your talkpage and the nomination statement with Q2 promising us "vandalism sprees" nearly put me in the oppose section (I'm assuming from your editing record you meant "vandalism cleanup sprees"). But you have a clean block log, I've gone through the last month of CSD tags and I think they were pretty good. I saw one where {{db-band}} would have been technically more correct than {{db-person}}, but to find fault I need to be as pedantic as that. Also I liked your responses to mistakes such as this. ϢereSpielChequers 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are supporting the king of typos...That is exactly what I meant, thanks for that find and thanks a bunch for your support!--SKATER ^Speak. 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

2. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.

   As an admin, you will inevitably have to...

   1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
   2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
   3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
   4. Negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew ^talk at 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Per relatively low edit count, particularly in project space/admin related experience, and the overall duration you have spent editing Wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
4. I strongly disagree that this is a WP:NOTNOW case as suggested above, but I'm still afraid I can't support. Personally, I felt no inclination to read on past "...I've wanted to be an Admin, it's my ultimate goal in Wikipedia...". Becoming an admin should never be one's "goal". This, combined with a relative lack of experience, leads me to oppose. Your anti-vandalism work is certainly appreciated, and I'd be happy to support in a few months once you reconsider your "goals" on Wikipedia and gain a bit more overall experience. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose (redacted by → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Obiviously, not yet. Still Zalgo is coming. --Mixwell!^Talk 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per Julian above. Keep at it though. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Sorry, no. Per Julian--seeing adminship as a goal is bad, not enough consistency in your contribution amounts, almost 50% of your contributions are to user talk pages, and you have almost no projectspace contributions. Please come back in six months after addressing those concerns. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
8. NOTNOW or otherwise I agree that the "ultimate goal" bit put me off straight away. Nothing concerning on talk or archives, clean block log etc. but general inexperience concerns and flacid answers to the questions lead me to oppose at this time (which is kind of what NOTNOW is about) Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. While not all editors (myself included) agree completely with the specific criteria laid out above by iMatthew, nearly all editors do desire to see a sufficient level of "knowledge and experience". Also, per Julian, your comment regarding adminship being your "ultimate goal" is (unintentially, I'm sure) offputting. In examining your work, I do believe that you are a very valuable asset to the Wikipedia community, and I am sure that you will continue to be a productive member. Thank you for your candidacy. —Matheuler 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral support if you really want to be an admin, I suggest making lots of good contributions in the coming months and then in late January/early February, come back and have another shot. You can do it. You'd probably want a bit more experience though.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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.