Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andreasegde

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

[edit] Andreasegde

Ended 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde (talk • contribs) – I believe Andreasegde possesses the desire and work ethic to be a great admin here. Said editor is always open to new ideas and how to improve Wiki articles. Even when he feels he is being attacked unfairly, he manages to keep his cool and not engage in un-civil behavior. I've had my ups and downs with this user but the downs are usually short-lived because I always feel he is being honest, whether right or wrong. I think he deserves the title of admin. Ramsquire 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw :) andreasegde 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also thought I wasn´t ready, but I was very pleased to be nominated. Not signing my own acceptance must rank as one of the biggest blunders of all time...) Have fun. andreasegde 10:14, 2 September 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

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

A:

3.

A:

Comments

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

Final tally: (0/13/5)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Most often, candidates will have very detailed answers to the questions above. They have a nice edit count in almost all the needed fields of Wiki editing, etc. You have quite a bit to go. Admin tools are dangerous in the wrong hands. Plus, admins are held under a microscope if you know what I mean. You really want to stay out of trouble. I have been here a while, and it will be a while before I can even consider such a responsibility. Keep working hard. Also watch other’s WP:RfA’s to learn what to expect. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, didn't even sign their acceptance. --Rory096 00:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm sorry, Andreasegde, but you've shown no need for administrative (administratorial?) tools. You have a small amount of wp space edits, and no wp talk edits, which suggests you have little knowledge of policy. From my review of your contributions, you seem primarily an article writer and contributor, not an admin candidate; one is not necessarily the other. I'd recommend withdrawing, spending some time becoming more familiar with Wikipedia policy, crafting some more specific, detailed answers to the questions above, and returning after a while. Picaroon9288•talk 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose didn't even sign acceptance and no specifics gives. Michael 02:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, didn't sign acceptance, lack of edits. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   I assume you mean lack of project space edits; he does, after all, have substantial amount in total. Picaroon9288•talk 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose, didn't sign acceptance. Majority of edits are to talk page for Talk:Kennedy assassination theories, or other pages regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Need to contribute more. Stubbleboy 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per all above. Please try again after you have been familiar with policies. In the meantime do not be discouraged by this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per all of the above. I see way too many similar article names in your contribs, and you've only been around for four months. Try again in half a year, maybe three months in the least, and try to edit more than seven articles. Ryūlóng 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - sorry, not yet. Great contributor, but not admin material. I would suggest withdrawing before an admin WP:SNOWBALL's it. -Zapptastic (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, didn't sign acceptance, not specific answers. Needs for time and edyts -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 06:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
11. – Chacor 08:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. A good editor who needs some more experience (in terms of time, editing a wider range of articles, and editing in the Wikipedia space) before adminship can be seriously considered. Zaxem 09:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Your answers aren't the most compelling and you didn't sign your own nomination. Dinosaur puppy 09:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Suggest withdrawal -- Samir धर्म 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Suggest withdrawal per Samir - editor needs much more time learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, working more with other editors, and taking on greater roles - answers to questions are too short, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kungming2 (talk • contribs).
3. Neutral Answers to questions don't reveal any need for admin tools. 4177 edits is a good number, but an average of 19.890 edits-per-page reveals a very narrow range of interests. Only 392 user Talk edits, too. An admin really has to talk to other editors as a major part of their job. As part of fixing/reverting vandalism, edits to article pages should show a good spread of interests and contributions. I suggest an editor review to allow you to understand the areas in which you can improve in order to stand a better chance of becoming an admin at your next RfA. Until then, I suggest that either yourself or a bureaucrat withdraws this nomination. (aeropagitica) 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral I like Andreasegde, he's a good and well-meaning editor and a popular member of WP:BEATLES. However, he's not ready for adminship and doesn't need the tools at the moment. If he really wants to be an admin he needs to get much more involved in project space (and reduce his narrow editing focus) and come back in a few months. --kingboyk 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral suggesting withdrawal. Hello32020 13:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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.