Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SupaStarGirl

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.

SupaStarGirl[edit]

Final (2/14/6) ended 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

SupaStarGirl (talk · contribs) – Hi! I'm just curious to see what it takes to be an admin. I have been on Wikipedia for 7 months as a logged-in user, and 1 month before that as an anon. I have made about seven or eight hundred edits. I probably won't become an admin, but hey, who doesn't want to be one! If I become one, I will probably spend most of the time blocking vandals and deleting articles. Oppose me all you want, but if you REALLY think so, I'll be glad to be an admin! SupaStarGirl 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Reading you guys' opinions, I'll wait 6 months to a year until I request again. Thank you. SupaStarGirl 19:14, 29 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Blocking users and deleting articles. SupaStarGirl 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I haven't done very many major contribs, but I did create articles on two roller coasters at Cedar Point. Those are probably my greatest accomplishments.
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: You evidently didn't see the vandal that vandalized my userpage FORTY times in a row! I reverted most of them; other users reverted the rest. I've just kept cool for most of the edit wars, even though MichaelIsGreat was pretty bad. In the future, I will just do what I do and keep cool.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A:


General comments

SupaStarGirl's editcount summary stats as of 20:00, October 29 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - well, it seems like the vandals hate you, and they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ST47Talk 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support - 7 months on Wikipedia is great, and one month extra as an anon is okay, but I have no way of proving of your one moth, and 2000 edits are better for an admin candidate. Laleena 21:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak Oppose - has the time, but your edits are low, and your RfA is on WP:RfA before the questions were answered. Give me a reason to support, and I will :) ST47Talk 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I like your enthusiasm, but I suggest you get an editor review instead. --Alex (Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - responses don't give me quite the message that you understand admins do quite yet... editor review might be a better option -- Tawker 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, Not satisfactory response to the standard questions. Shyam (T/C) 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Laughing Oppose - I LOVE the attitude. I really do. And deleting articles and blocking vandals sounds great. But - if you don't want to be an administrator, then you shouldn't be. Sorry. Moreschi 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify - you really don't appear that bothered. Adminship is a bigger deal than this, surely? And there about a million other reasons for opposing - way too low edit count being the obvious. Moreschi 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - If you want to see what it takes to be an admin, the better approach would be to read more about what admins do, and/or ask for an editor review as Alex suggests.--Caliga10 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose- Not enough edits and not enough experience (in my opinion).--SUIT42 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - you seem like a nice person and a good editor, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:21 29 10 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose. You seem proud to have had your page vandalized 40 times. You should have reported the user at WP:AIV and not let them continue vandalizing. T REXspeak 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You think it should be compulsory for an editor to report vandalism on his or her own userpage? Obviously others may spot such vandalism and revert/report it, but it seems to me that a user should be given some leeway in terms of how he or she may respond, given that it's in her userspace. Irongargoyle 22:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. No evidence of experience with deletion discussions, WP:CSD, etc. Also no idea how she handles conflict. In short, doesn't seem experienced enough. Also, comments like "who doesn't want to be one!" raise a red flag. Lots of people don't, and adminship is not a status symbol. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. You seem nice and enthusiastic, but 700 to 800 edits is really not enough. Also, an RFA is a serious thing, not fun and games like your tone suggests. bibliomaniac15 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, lack of edits and experience. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I can understand ur curiosity. Even I've felt like that some times. But really, being a sysop isn't much different from being an ordinary user. Except, you'll get more responsibilities. To me, responsibility that is felt within, is more important than assigned responsibility. Try working more time on various aspects of Wikipedia and then you'll know when to go for re-nom. Cheers.-- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Lack of experience. Weak, brief responses. Compulsory reporting regarding one's own page would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but how do you let someone vandalize your page so much? Lack of major contributions. Need not just more general experience but more experience in adminly activities. Too little to indicate the necessary breadth of Wikipedia policy/guideline knowledge. Recommend editor review after a full year at this edit rate. Wryspy 07:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for insufficient experience.--Jusjih 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Please answer the questions, and I may support. Obviously a well-intentioned user, but I think that she needs to learn a bit more about Wikipedia policy and although I'm not big on editcountitis, 499 edits is not enough experience for me. So I will not oppose this RfA, but I can't bring myself to support it either. I think, as most others here, that an editor review is a good idea. - Mike | Trick or Treat 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral If you want to know what it takes to be an admin, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators. If you chew through that lot and still decide that you want the additional responsibilities, you can then place yourself on editor review in order to find out which areas of editing and administration you need to sharpen up in order to put another RfA together. You can be a superb vandalfighter without having the admin tools using tools such as Vandalproof and CryptoDerek's vandalfigher, amongst others. Good things to do in order to become an admin are to participate in XfD discussions. Your participation should ideally take the form of contributions using policy and guidelines for their justification rather than pile-on keep or delete, etc. By this we will know that you are familiar with the policies and how they are applied in equivocal situations. We can face these situations several times a day, depending upon how active we are. You can also participate in new user/new page/recent change patrols, reverting vandalism and warning vandals in addition to flagging them up to WP:AIV or other appropriate noticeboard. Don't forget that you can also contribute to articles - after all, that's why we're all here, isn't it? Useful things to contribute are sourcing references, cleaning up NPOV statements, grammar, syntax and spelling if your English skills are up to it, categorising and expanding stubs. You can also participate in the Featured Articles and Good Articles programmes too - I don't mean writing one from scratch! Other things are joining Wikiprojects such as Esperanza and getting together with other editors who have similar interests in order to make effective contributions. In summary, you have potential, but you're not ready yet. (aeropagitica) 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning towards support. I have run accross this editor before while vandal fighting. She seems to be learning quickly, but I don't think is quite ready yet. More edits, particularly in the Wikipedia namespace (XfD discussions particularly). Needs to keep cool and avoid the antagonistic edit summaries while vandal fighting. So as long as she can stay clean in that respect I would be happy to support in a couple of months/1,500 edits. Irongargoyle 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very-nearly-support, because as other users have said, you're a good user. However, as low as my standards are, I'd prefer to see you request an editor review and edit consistently for another couple of months before I'm really confident enough to support. Good luck for the future. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral to avoid pile-on oppose - SupaStarGirl, you seem to have very little interest in becoming an admin. You have little experience in fighting vandals and dealing with policy (as someone else said, experience in AfDs, TfDs, MfDs and CfDs is absolutely necessary. As RfA !voters, we need to know more about your knowledge of policy - and not just from asking you questions that you can draft an answer to. We need to see your knowledge of policy in action, and the best way to show that would be participating in the aforementioned debates. Srose (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You have to learn Wikipedia and get many more edits.-- danntm T C 16:32, 30 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SupaStarGirl&oldid=1146587665"