Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Katieh5584

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

katieh5584

Final (1/15/5) Ended 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

--Katieh5584 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) This is a self nomination, I have been registered since Novermber 2005 and have made about 2000 edits, most of which have been tackling vandalism. I would like to be able to help figt the vandals even more, with the extra powers that adminship brings.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I Withdraw the nomination.Katieh5584 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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: I intend to help with deletion and protection of pages, blocking users and any other admin chores.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I couldn't really pick any article, as I have been busy dealing with vandalism.

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: I have had a little bit of conflict, but I generally apologise to the other user. In the future I will deal with each case appropriately, I will be fair, calm and approachable.

Question 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:

General comments

• See katieh5584's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

katieh5584's editcount summary stats as of 22:23, October 12 2006 using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• I know this isn't editor review, but I'd suggest that you take a bit of time to do some article writing, and participate more on process. AFAIK tools on anti-vandalism are avaliable as substitute to admin functions, if you require that solely for the purpose. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, sounds ok.--Andeh 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose malformed this RfA several times, has never taken part in an AfD. Answers are just too vague. --Alex (Talk) 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Malformed nomination, poor answers to questions and lack of experience. The user also twice removed a question I asked her about an edit of mine she reverted as vandalism. -- Steel 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Sorry, but you really need to put more effort into answering the questions which come with an RfA submission. --StuffOfInterest 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
4. (edit conflict) Your intentions are certainly good, but I'm going to have to oppose. You want to delete articles, but you have no edits to xfd discussions; I think at least a dozen of these are necessary if you intend to engage in deletion related tasks, which you said you will do in q1. Also, your first attempt to list your rfa was malformed; I don't think you read the guidelines very carefully, if at all. Picaroon9288 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

   Also, edit summary usage is far too low. I recommend withdrawal, an editor review, and reapplication between 3-6 months from now, where, if you've improved on all the things that have been listed by the opposers, you'll have better luck. Picaroon9288 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose at least five attempts to follow the instructions for listing your RfA before (almost) getting it right do not inspire confidence. Removing valid questions from an established user without answering them, per Steel above, is the wrong attitude for a vandal fighter let alone an admin. Answers are too vague and don't demonstrate an understanding of the role of an admin or of Wikipedia policy. Sorry, Gwernol 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Gwernol. Please withdraw this RFA, try editor review, spend some time at WP:AFD - and, most importantly, edit some articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The aim of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is of secondary importance. Moreschi 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose I agree-Too little work in the encyclopediac content proper, and your answers are too vague to the RfA questions. Try actually editing as well as answering the questions fully-voters want to know what you are about here on Wikipedia. Teh tennisman 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Withdraw this RfA. Admins do more than fight vandalism, they have to be good editors too. Get an editor review to see where you need to improve on contributions and think about joining Wikiprojects in order to improve articles and to talk to other editors. Admins have to be able to communicate effectively with editors of all levels of education and with English as a second-or-other language. You also have to demonstrate a working knowledge of policies and guidelines, so participating in XfD discussions and using these to back up your arguments would be a good idea. Try again in ~3000 edits' time, as these tasks should take 3-4 months to achieve with consistent effort. (aeropagitica) 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. No article building, malformed RFA, and autocratic behaviour exhibited by deleting valid questions. Nom is advised to review WP:RFA/ST. Themindset 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. You're making a good start so far, but I don't believe you have enough Wikipedia experience to know the exact duties of an administrator. And like everyone else said, vandal fighting is not the only thing on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Recommend withdrawal. Michael 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose User doesn't even know how and when to use warning templates correctly. exolon 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Fails my criteria †he Bread 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too little experience. I really am Sorry. Charlie MacKenzie 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose quite clear, suggest withdrawal of RFA. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral To avoid pile on. Consider withdrawal or closure per WP:SNOW. Hello32020 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral to avoid pile on. Please withdraw this AfD and spend a few moths in writing articles and particpating in xfDs before considering reapplying.-- danntm ^T _C 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

   You do mean RFA, yes? :P – Chacor 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral, to avoid pile on. Do withdraw and do some article writing and maintenance work. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, not to avoid pile on (RfA not a vote?) Please edit more substantially in the mainspace and take part in the behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia (AfDs, PR, FAC, etc, etc). Join a WikiProject about a subject that interests you, and help improve articles. Vandalism fighting shouldn't be all you do, you'll burn yourself out. I recommend you withdraw this RfA as it's unlikely to pass, set up over at editor review, and wait some time before applying again. All the best, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral to avoid the pile on. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and work on the quality of your edits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)