Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TEK

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.


TEK[edit]

Final (0/15/0); ended 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW. Mkativerata (talk)

Nomination[edit]

TEK (talk · contribs) – Hello, Wikipedia. This is my first RfA (or second, if you count my abandoned account (User:Volvo B9TL). Using my old account, I have made about 1,000 edits, and about 800 with this, totalling over 1,800 edits. My experience spans for over a year and a half. I have worked hard in reverting vandalism and warning vandals. I also write articles, though they haven't gotten to the point of featured status yet. But I'm working on it. :) Please take your time to consider my RfA. I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship. Thanks, TEK (talk • e-mail) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: Vandalism control, maintenence, etc.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hmm... I would say reverting vandalism. Vandalism disrupts the accuracy of Wikipedia and I am proud to say that I have taken part in stopping it.
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 as of now, on my current account. On my old (abandoned) account, I have gotten caught up in a few edit conflicts, and I feel ashamed to say that in some cases, I have not reacted in the most civil way possible. However, in the future, I will resort to civil, diplomatic discussion.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Your nomination ends with the statement " I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship." It's not an award or an honor that is simply handed out to those that "deserve it.". Your answers to the standard questions are severely lacking as well. WP:NOTNOW. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too little experience, even taking the former account into account. WFC (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Q1 asks about "administrative work" and neither of the tasks in the answer are primarily/solely administrative. Taking into account all answers and low edit count, I'd recommend quick close per NOTNOW or to avoid WP:SNOW. Şłџğģő 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict × 2) Oppose - Your answers to questions aren't spectacular and your edit count and experience is a bit lacking. You're welcome to try again in six months when you have gained more experience. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Sorry, but a total of 1,800 edits is nowhere near enough to have gained the necessary experience, and the answers to the questions are seriously lacking in depth. Spend some more time here, rack up a good few thousand edits covering a variety of admin-related areas, and be able to explain what you wish to do a bit better - and I'll look forward to supporting you in a future nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above. Diego Grez what's up? 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose – Unfortunately, as having only 1,800 edits is not enough to have enough experience here. (I'm not trying to be use edit count alone, but most people at RFAs that pass have at the minimum around 5,000 edits.) The answers to the questions are lacking in depth. I'd recommend closing this per WP:NOTNOW. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Sorry - I cannot support - lack of admin related experience and experience in general, along with superficial answers to the basic questions force me to suggest that you should withdraw this, and try again later, after addressing these issues.  Begoontalk 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose With relatively few edits, only about 230 on actual articles, I do not feel that this user is ready to be a sysop. Agree with above; user doesn't have the experience, recommend close per NOTNOW. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose per the last statement in the nom. You obviously don't know what adminship is. —fetch·comms 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship.. Nakon 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, i'm not a big fan of I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship. Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per all of the above. 95j (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose (sorry for the pile-on). 1800 edits is a bit on the low side and your answers are definitely not remarkable; in particular, #3 sounds like a canned answer and doesn't really mean much. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not enough experience. Answers to questions are very short. "I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship" didn't make me want to support. Should be closed per WP:NOTNOW. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 19:25, 16 July 2010 (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/TEK&oldid=1089812098"