Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extranet

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

[edit] Extranet

Final (0/8/4); Ended 2 February 2007 08:02 (UTC)

Extranet (talk • contribs) - I, Extranet, am nominating myself for Wikipedia adminship. I have been registered on WP since October 2006, but before that, I have previously edited a few articles without a account. I am especially proud of my work with the Birthday Committee, Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane and of course Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. I am also a recent changes patroller and watch for any sudden vandalism that may occur and be reverted. Every time I make a new article or edit on WP, I do strongly believe adminship will help me more throughout my time at WP. Thank you. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I strongly accept. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawling my RfA for a few simple reasons. I will continue to thrive with Wikipedia and use everyones advice. Thank you for your help! (Admins, please withdrawl, Thank you!) --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:19, 2 February 2007 (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 participants:

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 would kindly appreciate helping with WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, because as you can probably see by my contributions that most of my edits are vandalism reverts. I am strongly against vandalism on Wikipedia - that is also a point of my RfA.

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

A: I am pleased with some of my 300+ edits, but I have kept a record of a few that stood out from the rest:

• Wet'n'Wild Water World - Full rewriting of article, using updated and released information and pictures, plus a reformatted new 'Theme Park' infobox.
• Greenslopes Private Hospital - A local hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Full new article with 'Hospital' infobox and new information regarding new hospital wing and features.

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: At this point of writing, no I have not had any editing conflicts with other Wikipedians. I am a friendly person and would always deal with conflicts in a explanative and non-violent way.

General comments

• See Extranet's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• Clearly you need a great deal more experience to be considered for an adminstrator role, as per the oppose comments below. But you are off to an excellent start as a Wikipedian and, with more time on the project and experience in our different processes, you have every hope for success in the future. Please stay with us; we appreciate your contributions. (I'll also add that I like the username and am surprised no one else thought of it first.) Newyorkbrad 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take your advice and withdrawl my RfA until another time. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. You have a grand total of 0 edits to any sort of deletion discussion. Thus, I have no reason whatsoever to trust your judgement in CAT:CSD (which is not just super-de-duper vandal fighting). The only admin-related task you've ever done is vandal fighting, which is simply not enough. Did some page tell you that vandal fighting was enough for adminship? Because if so, I want to fix it. -Amark moo! 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

   This came off more attacky than I intended it to be, sorry. My frustration is not at you, it's at the fact that somehow we don't communicate this well enough to new editors, which leads to RfAs like this. Don't take this as a rejection; as many have said, you're just not ready yet. -Amark moo! 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Sorry, but with only 300 odd edits you are nowhere near experienced enough. Carry on editing, and get experience in a wide range of areas, then try reapplying in a few months. Trebor 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per answers and above. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Sorry, but keep working. bibliomaniac15 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose You are off to a good start but you do not have enough experience for the community to put their trust in. Please keep on editing to gain more experience and here is a guide to what RFA contributors look for in a candiate [1] .--Dakota 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now. You are off to a really good start, but we all need to know you have the experience to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You might wish to have a look at my RfA to get a good idea of what the standards are. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
7. No need for tools. – Chacor 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above.--Wizardman 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Newyorkbrad's advice is good. I strongly suggest you take it. WJBscribe 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral If you haven't been in a conflict, you're not ready to stand for sysop. Not matter how calm you are, someone will get mad at you, or you at them. When it happens, don't take it personally, and don't get personal. And don't be discouraged by the result of this RFA. Oh, and participate in XFD's. It will help you understand policy. Xiner (talk, email) 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral While your contributions are much appreciated, an ability to handle conflict is extremly important as an admin. I find that it takes a little time to develop the skill. In the future you may make an excellent candidate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral to avoid pile-on. Withdraw this RfA and work on admin-related tasks such as tagging inappropriate articles when you are on new page patrol; reverting vandalism and warning the vandals when you patrol the recent changes to Wikipedia or demonstrate you knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you contribute to XfD discussions for starters. (aeropagitica) 05:40, 2 February 2007 (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.