Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbo 157

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

Tbo_157

Final: 1/4/1; Ended 21:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC); Nomination withdrawn by candidate.

Tbo_157 (talk · contribs) - Hi, I would like to volunteer to serve as an admin for the English Wikipedia. I have been here since April 2007 and have been editing with the aim to improve the quality of Wikipedia. I have over 1600 edits. I have taken part in WikiProject activities, vandal fighting and AFD's. I would now like to extend my contributions further by serving as an admin and helping out wherever necessary. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in any admin work which needs to be done to maintain Wikipedia. In particular I would use the tools wherever I can and, in particular, reviewing backlogs which need the attention of administrators. I believe that admins should help wherever they can, in order to keep Wikipedia running and not become limited to one task as this leads to backlogs in some essential administrative matters. I would use my admin tools in order to improve and maintain Wikipedia.

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

A: I don't really like to judge my own contributions as it is for other users to judge whether my contributions are satisfactory. However I do try to write articles in the best way I can, thinking about policies such as WP:NPOV, which is commonly disputed on articles on Wikipedia due to personal biases. However if I had to choose what my best contributions are, it would probably be my work in WikiProjects which I enjoy very much. WikiProjects are great for improving articles in Wikipedia but it is important that the WikiProject itself, including the portal if there is one, is maintained.

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: Not that I can think of. If I think anything is controversial, I would discuss the matter on the talk page first. I also believe it is important to keep WP:Civility in any discussion, regardless of the position you hold. Discussions should be used to gain a general consensus amongst the community, using policies and common sense as guidelines, and not as a battleground as WP:BATTLE states. I believe that good humour and a community spirit should always be kept on Wikipedia. If a conflict cannot be resolved through general discussion, I would make a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I would try to discuss the situation, with help if necessary from other users or the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, avoiding having to take it to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Optional question from Iridescent

4. In your time on Wikipedia, you've only participated in three XfD discussions[1] [2] [3] [4], on at least one of which you show a possible misunderstanding of Wikipedia consensus. Under what circumstances can you see yourself closing XfDs if this nom succeeds, particularly since you've specifically stated you want to get involved in WP:DRV?

A If you are referring to List of events at The O2, I didn't really misunderstand any policies. I was aware that list of events at The O2 are not noteable and I did state this but however I decided to stick with my opinion that events at the Millennium Dome were noteable in some cases but that these should be merged into the article. However I admit that I should have striked through my support vote and made this clearer. If I do close XFDs, I will carefully read all comments and see if there is a general consensus. I will judge from a Neutral point of view. Obviously there will be different opinions, biases and misunderstandings or different interpretations of policies but I will consider these carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbo 157 (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

General comments

See Tbo_157's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Tbo_157: Tbo_157 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tbo_157 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Ultra weak support - I cross over with you a lot at WP:LT and WP:Lon (and much of what I do at WP:UKT overlaps with you even though you're not a member) and your mainspace edits are always sound (although you should seriously think about ticking the "prompt for edit summary" box). However, I'm not convinced you really know why you want admin status, and possibly just want it for the sake of it, and your number of talk & wikipedia talk/WPtalk posts is woefully low for an admin, so I've while I've no reason to think you don't understand policy, there's nothing to demonstrate that you do. In honesty it won't take much to push me either way on this one — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I dont think I really made clear what I want admin tools for. I didn't really want to be specific because as I said, I believe admin tools are something that should be used wherever it is needed. The reason why I wanted admin tools is because it would be useful for my work in vandal fighting and also for reviewing deletions. I also often see backlogs where administrative attention is required and I would like to help out in such areas. But of course admin tools are not simply for these purposes.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Another RfA quite typical of the ones we've had this week - very unremarkable. In a very big way. There's under 2,000 overall edits, and under 300 to the Wikipedia project space. This, coupled with the fact you've only been editing since April paints a picture of inexperience. The answers to the questions are very vague. However, you do seem to be heading along the correct track. In time, you should be a worthy admin, but that will take months of improvement. Not this time sorry. Lra drama 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough experience, plus the answers are... vague, I believe it is said. Please continue your participation, especially in admin-related areas, and try again in the future. Yours, Boricuaeddie 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a bit too new for my tastes, and you don't seem to have a very clear idea of why you should have a mop. A few months from now, assuming you stay on this track, and you should be good. You seem to have a very loose grasp on policy, I suggest reading through things like WP:CSD and helping out with some things like AIV, UAA, RFC/N, AN/I, HD, etc. Participate more in admin-related things like that and you should be golden. --lucid 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be a fairly new user (like me), and lacks overall experience. A little admin coaching might help you get through your next Rfa in a few months. Good luck next time! --Hirohisat (Apple) 20:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I withdraw my nomination. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I don't suffer from editcountitis, but personally, 1600 is too low a number for me. Altough possibly an unfair reson, when I vote, I prefer to recognize the name I know for, and I've never crossed your path in my involvement. Still 1600 isn't a bad number. Take some admin coaching, and you'll have my vote.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 20:55, 25 August 2007 (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.