Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyw7 5

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.

Tyw7[edit]

Final: (0/9/0) - withdrawn by candidate, closed at 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

Nomination[edit]

Tyw7 (talk · contribs) – Self-proclaimed WikiProject Software and WikiProject Trains WikiDragons working on various Wikipedia articles.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia in any way I can. In addition, I can respond to the requests and complaints from users needing administrative intervention. I might also care to work in Image maintenance/speedy deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From a standpoint of extra-Wikipedia (that's the outside world, and it really does exist), I promote Wikipedia regularly. My best contributions to Wikipedia I have to say are the Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. I also worked on the articles Norton 360 and Norton Internet Security. This is because I've collobrated with TechOutsider (talk · contribs) on both of these articles and are now listed as Good Articles. In addition, I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia.
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: I've not encounter any edit conflict on articles I've worked on. However, I've tried to quell the disagreement between Mr Unsigned Anon (talk · contribs) and Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs). With third party help, I was able to quell the conflict successfully.
Additional optional questions from Amorymeltzer
4. What has changed for you, in terms of editing character and understanding of Wikipedia policy since your last four RfA attempts?
A:I've become more "experienced" with Wikipedia (especially on the IRC channel) and how it "works". I have also tried to moderate the conflict between two users. (Unfortunately, the situation ended with a stalemate).
Additional optional questions from Saalstin
5. I'm slightly confused about your user page. It bears the service badges of Yeoman editor (req:4,000 edits), and Experienced & Established Editor (requiring 6,000). According to Soxred93's tool, you have a total of 3498 edits (including deleted edits). How do you address this disparity, and as an administrator, would your communication with users also require further explanations in addition to what you say to them?
A:If you added the contributions of my previous account, I believe there is about 5,000 edits (or maybe more). I might be wrong. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I've added the contributions of the anon ip addresses. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tyw7 before commenting.

Withdrawing from RFA, but requesting admin coach. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per poor edit summary usage, and only 17% of edits with current account are to article and talk space. Also, signature links to a custom contributions page instead of Special:Contributions, and it's not correctly formatted under FF3. I'll keep my eyes open and see if people make a convincing case for changing my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean my signature is not correctly formated under FF3? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole userpage is designed with Internet Explorer in mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I've only tested it under IE8. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is FF3? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mozilla Firefox version 3. Equazcion (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The formatting problem isn't with the signature, just the custom contributions page. The only problem with the sig is that it points to that custom page instead of Special:Contributions/Tyw7, which is what most people would expect to see.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how to show that I've had a different user name prior to this? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Signature change. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I think this is any major point but I'm using FF3 and the page shows up fine for me. I agree though that the contribs link shouldn't point there (and glad you changed it). Equazcion (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for changing that. To show your previous usernames and their contributions, you could put them at the top of your User page (if they aren't already there, haven't checked lately).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2009
    The IE8 optimazation bar is suppose to be taken as a humor. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict)You generally appear to be a good user, but my initial reaction is that you seek adminship too much, especiallly with this being your fifth RfA in 16 and a half months (and in 3,373 edits). That averages out to one RfA every 3.3 months and 674 edits, which is a bit much. You seem to have improved a little bit since your last RfA, however, so I am open to persuasion at any time. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 18:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the edit count and edit summary usage issues brought up by SarekOfVulcan, and I'm afraid that I am no longer open to persuasion. Only 13.64% article edits, while your user and user talk edits combine to amount to 53.87% of your edits? In addition, <60% edit summary usage for major edits in the mainspace is highly unconvincing. Sorry. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I tend to edit from my mobile phone (a K800). Hence, the lack of edit summary --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that affect your ability to insert edit summaries? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict) Oppose. Only 435 article space edits. I don't think you have enough experience yet. Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict)Oppose User has clearly made lots of progress since his previous RfA, and the work with the Software WikiProject is commendable, but there is definitely not enough strong mainspace contributions to show he has the understanding of how to interact with editors over contentious issues. One attempt at resolution and a reliance on IRC does not fill me with confidence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with using the IRC for quick helps? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (edit conflict)Oppose. I really want to support, but you have zero XfD contributions. I'm not particularly bothered by the number of edits overall or the repeated requests, but no XfD participation is a deal-breaker. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I DO have XfD contributions (the LiveUpdate article and various Norton article). You really have to dig deep into my contributions. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Not enough content contributions, not enough XfD work.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Not enough experience yet, sorry, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry but your just dont seem ready and dont you think that you should drop out now per WP:SNOW?--Coldplay Expert 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Sorry, maybe next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I was ready. By the way, can any of you be my admin coach? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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/Tyw7_5&oldid=1142506629"