Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willdude123

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.

Willdude123[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (4/19/0); ended 00:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC) - Per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW Jac16888 Talk 00:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination[edit]

Willdude123 (talk · contribs) – Devoted and loyal user withmainy edits and novandalisuns (other than when account was compromised) Calu Thanks 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:I plan to participate in AIV mainly with a little bit of sockpuppetry cases. I would do some CSD but yeah, mainly AIV
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:My best contributions are mostly on Bishop Challoner Catholic Secondary School although I do revert vandalism a lot.
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 have had a few disagreements with compromised accounts and sockpuppetry although they were resolved calmly.In future I will deal with conflicts by trying to reach consensus

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. I'll give moral support, for having the guts to start up this RFA. While I disagree with the oppose comments below to a degree (just because he used auto edits doesn't mean he's inexperianced per se). But the edit count and timing indicates this editor needs more experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support - You are on the right track, but its too early. Its just like starting off for a race on 2nd count instead of 3rd. Keep the spirit up and dont let this failour make you down. So, moral support as I learned to give from a very experinced editor, is to tell you that your intentions are correct, but it is too much too soon. Yasht101 :) 16:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support Many of the opposers are being unfairly harsh. Every one of those opinions could've been given in a much nicer way. Willdude123, it is true that your edit count, despite the automated edits, is well below average for an admin candidate. Perhaps you might withdraw and consider coming back in a year when you have several thousand more edits.--v/r - TP 17:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with TParis, the opposes are unacceptably harsh in tone and could be interpreted in a much more kind and helpful way. Willdude123 is an excellent user with good intentions and is on the right track. After making several thousands of non-automated edits, Willdude would have a successful RfA - no question about that. Keep up the great work! Bmusician 00:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Snow. Wifione Message 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, ~1200 edits and over 80% automatic? That rate is simply too big (for such few edits). mabdul 16:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More like WP:NOTNOW. This user is really relatively new with a whopping 1000 edits. Major spelling issues here as well as incorrectly transcluding the RfA and what I believe is not taking this seriously.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was nominated by someone who could not spell, I can however.User Talk:Willdude123 16:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You just wrecked my signature and incorrectly indented. Not that it will affect you but, any user should know how to do this right in the first place if they want to be an admin. Besides your nominator is an inexperienced user that joined February 2012. You failed to remove the red tag on this page or fixate the ending date of this RfA. I'm sorry. You need to know how an RfA works.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually owe you an apology, CBP. As I was trying to fix the numbering I overlooked "More like WP:NOTNOW" and put the pound sign before the next sentence[1]. I know you corrected it, but if that's what caused the signature to appear poorly, I am sorry. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Unfit --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not enough experience at this time. Sorry. --Michig (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Lacks adequate experience. Candidate states best article contribution is this (the diff showing the point from just before their first edit to their last). Indeed this diff also includes other editors contributions so is over generous to the candidate. While not someone who insists on FAs and GAs this is simply not enough. Their largest edit to the same article shows poor grammar and structure. QU TalkQu 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WP:NOTNOW. User has a good attitude and is on the right track, but needs more experience with Wikipedia to learn how things work around here. Come back in 6-8 months with more experience. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per above Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kind and gentle oppose per TP's support. Try again in a year or two, but focus on school.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose for now. Too soon. Far too soon. Get a lot more edits on your list. Be seen in the admin areas - CSD, XfD (especially AfD), RfA, ANI, AIV, SPI - and not only be seen, do things (carefully and after lurking a while). I don't worry about article creation too much (although others do), but at least get in more copyed, referencing and contact with content other than reversion. At the moment, you're lifting 40 lb, but wanting to do the Olympics in weights and pentathlon. A lot of admins specialise, but we all have to cope with a bit in other areas at times. Ask any of us after a year to look at your contribs then. In the meantime, do what I've suggested, look and learn. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per QuiteUnusual and Wifione. Mato (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I see exemplary contributions from this user, but I think that more experience is required for administratorship. There is a lot to learn on Wikipedia, and much of it requires time to master. For example, I would recommend more participation in Wikipedia deletion processes, and more content contributions. But don't let this put you off! In six months or so, you will likely stand a very good chance. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - lacks experience. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, but with Moral support. You're doing well, but you don't have enough experience yet - you are apparently still seeking adoption, for example. But keep up what you're doing, follow the good advice given above, and adminship could well be in your future - just not for a little while yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, Not now! —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose, WP:NOTNOW - You don't need it currently. You have around 1200 edits, most automated (STiki) and not much experience. Weak because of user being bold and starting a RfA. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 20:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Gentle Oppose Not enough experience to be given the tools, does not meet my criteria. Pol430 talk to me 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the the odds of this making it are pretty low. I commend those that oppose with advice. I think Willdude123 has a bright future. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose thanks for volunteering, but I'm not convinced that you are ready yet. You've been here a couple of months and done 1,200 mostly automated edits, I'd suggest coming back to RFA when you've been here 12 months and have at least 4,000 edits of which at least 3,000 are manual. Also you need to be more cautious with Stiki as to what you treat as vandalism if someone is trying to edit in goodfaith then they sometimes need help not rejection. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, WP:NOTNOW. I'm unconcerned by the large number of automated edits; they are, however, not coupled with a large number of non-automated edits. There's no article/page creation, one month's experience. Edit summary usage (on non-automated edits) is not particularlly high. The temporal proximity to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekidnextdoor/Archive is unwelcome, and ought to have been disclosed at nomination time. No indication of practicing to be an admin. Fails User:Josh Parris/RfA critera. Josh Parris 22:43, 31 March 2012 (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/Willdude123&oldid=1140259069"