Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steveo2

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.

Steveo2[edit]

Final (9/33/9) ending 12:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Steveo2 (talk · contribs) – Steveo2 (that's me, I'm nominating myself) has been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 11 months. In that time, I have made over 900 edits, and have gained the trust of many members, some of which I introduced to the site. I have tried to stay on top of what is going on by reading the Signpost. I have also started the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee, and have started many articles. I have tried to remain involved on the site by doing such things as voting in the recent ArbCom elections. I will admit that I can not contribute during the summer. And, though I am aware that this will not affect my chances, I scored a 390.9 on the Wikipediholic Test. JaredW! 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. JaredW! 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I would trust him completly as an admin. Butterflys 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support An experienced user. Has been here for nearly a year although his edit counts are not impressive. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Steveo2 is an excellent user on wikipedia.org. He has contributed to the site in many ways and has helped many users find their way around. Turcottem 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support: This RfA seems a bit iffy, but I hope you'll stick around, learn a bit more about Wikipedia, and keep on making great contributions. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - adminship of birthday committee gave him enough experience to work as a good admin. Deryck C. 08:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral Support - spread your efforts out a bit, and you'll do fine in a future RfA. Come back here 1600 edits from now and let us peek at your contrib record again. --Go for it! 15:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great contributions to the site. good user. Navy Brat 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --User:Code Napoleon

Oppose

  1. Oppose Good start but still to green for my tastes.--Looper5920 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Steveo2 wants to delete "unnecessary articles" but has contributed to only one AfD vote which is concerning. Also there isn't a lot of editing taking place (only 4 edits a day for the month of February). I'd also like to see more article participation and a more diverse project space participation. User also messed up the nomination formatting. Edit summary usage is also low. Please don't take my criticisms too hard and try to learn from them. Good luck!--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry, but I do oppose when number of edits and use of summaries is this low. Please try again when both have increased significantly. Jonathunder 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Doesn't quite might my minimal candidate expectations. Also, per PS2pcGAMER, if you wish to assist in deleting inappropriate articles, participate at AfD and learn the ropes first. Xoloz 18:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Even I think this edit count is too low. For the amount of time that you have been with the project, this indicates extrememly low activity. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose You have a relatively low edit count for the amount of time you've been here, you need to use more edit summaries, your talk page shows little community interaction, and you rarely use talk pages. If you improve on these things then there should be no problem with you becoming an admin. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Doesn't present convincing reasons for why adminship is required. Process can be learned (goodness knows I'm still learning, and I hope we all are) but at least some involvement in process is needed before adminship can be considered. It's surprising to me that somebody active for nearly one year has only registered an opinion in one AFD debate, for example. --kingboyk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. A bit too new and edit summaries are low. Maybe next time. Gflores Talk 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. oppose spend more time in article space. ... aa:talk 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose for now due to relatively low project interaction. Hall Monitor 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Very new, and the deletion questions make me wonder what powers he should have just yet. Staxringold 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Originally, when it came down to it, I was wavering on neutral. The user presents the fact that he's a semi-active user, and makes good edits. However, the user fails to convince me of his reasons for adminship. But, what made me came to my conclusion are a few other things. This comment was a huge downer: "I plan to do such things as placing semi-protection on pages that are constantly being vandalized" - this would be horrible. Semi-protection is highly discouraged. Usually, it would simply be one or two users. The vandalizers should just be banned. Only if it's an ever growing problem should the semi-protection be used, and I'm afraid you didn't express that. Another note: "Most importantly, I plan to advise others that hope to become administrators, if I become one myself." - is this suggesting that it's more important to help other users become administrators than to perform the duties of administrators? The fact that he cannot commit over the summer is another down-side. Lack of experience is also a dissapointing side of it all, but definitly not as major as some of the other problems I've read from his answers. Work on articles more, (for awhile), and maybe with experience, you might have a chance. --NomaderTalk 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. 213 (or so) of the 900 edits are to his own user page, which also says, "Note that over half of my articles are about episodes of Drake and Josh." I'd prefer a little broader range of experience with Wikipedia before recommending for adminship. --Elkman - (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose as per above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Elkman and due to low edit count over a period of ten months. joturner 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Low use of edit summaries makes me wonder if this candidate will delete pages without reasons.--Jusjih 01:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry, no per above concerns. All are very valid, and I'd suggest you look into them. NSLE (T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-03-08)
  18. Oppose per Staxringold above. Don't be discouraged from editing if this doesn't pass, try joining a Wikiproject to get more experience. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose -- Unfamiliar with wikipedia's goals, policies and setting up the RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too little edits and all stated above. DaGizzaChat © 07:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Confusing use of two names on one account and "acceptance" of nomination makes this too much like a self-nomination presented as a third-party nomination. Would very likely oppose a valid nomination anyway per above. Deizio 14:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, we can't have it both ways. Some comment if a self-nomee doesn't accept. That part is a totally invalid reason. --Celestianpower háblame 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, inexperienced. Edit count is still too low, particularly when Elkman's concerns (above) are taken into account, and needs to use edit summaries significantly more than 13% of the time, too. More effort could have been taken to develop answers to the RfA questions, too. Although it's not why I'm opposing, I find signing with a totally different name from that of the login confusing and unhelpful. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose, I want to see more admin-oriented actions. Please use edit summaries. When almost 25% of all edits are to one's own user page, there's cause for concern. Sorry. Come back in a few months after getting more involved in the project-side of Wikipedia. --ZsinjTalk 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 'Oppose lack of edit summaries, low wikispace edits --Ugur Basak 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose not active enough. Prodego talk 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, lack of edits, edit summaries, Wikipedia: namespace edits, and multiple names. While it's fairly inconsequential for a regular user to sign with something completely different, an admin doing so could prove quite tiresome. Sorry. Stifle 09:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose too inexperienced, too low edit count and summary usage. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I believe this is only my second oppose (could be wrong though). Reasoning pretty much as per everyone else. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Per above Moe ε 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - candidate lacks edits and experience. Afonso Silva 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak oppose, needs a bit more experience. Interested question: Why do you not edit Wikipedia on weekends? JIP | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. It isn't anything personal, but your edit count is just a bit too low. Though I'd gladly support when you improved the count. --M o P 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose -- Sorry; get more experience and try again. Also, confusing sig. John Reid 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral - too new for my taste but I swear I've seen his name somewhere (bouquet of flowers to anyone who can tell me - I'm nonplussed) and that impresses me. --Celestianpower háblame 13:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe later. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, too new, try again later. --Terence Ong 09:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Needs more project space experience. pschemp | talk 19:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral you're doing well, keep on contributing -- Samir ∙ T C 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - Come back in a few months? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, leaning towards weak support - will support in a few months assuming higher edit summary usage. - Wezzo 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - has been here a while (longer than me actually) but the lack of contributions, especially in the Wikipedia namespace, makes me wonder about his experience in admin type activities. Raven4x4x 08:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 13% for major edits and 29% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 126 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Steveo2's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • If you will not be able to contribute this summer, then what is the urgency to get admin status? And how does voting in the Arbcom elections have to do with your pitch adminship? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steveo2 showed me many basic concepts of wikipedia (Userboxes, signing my name on comments, making new articles, etc.) He would make a great admin.Butterflys 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Userboxes are not a basic concept of Wikipedia. If you want pbasic concepts, please see WP:5P (sorry about the OMGTMDTLAARGH). --Celestianpower háblame 13:55, 7 March 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I plan to do such things as placing semi-protection on pages that are constantly being vandalized, and deleting unnessecary articles. Most importantly, I plan to advise others that hope to become administrators, if I become one myself.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think I am most proud of the fact that the Wikipedia Birthday Committee that I started actually has other members!
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. No, I haven't had any problems of that kind. If that should ever happen, I would try to be mature about it, and not let the other person bother me as I decide what to do about it.
The above 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/Steveo2&oldid=1089730469"