Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gndawydiak

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

[edit] Gndawydiak

Final (1/11/4); ended 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn this RfA as the overwhelming percentage of opinions cast suggests, together with the low editcount, that this editor requires more experience in admin-related tasks and policy areas before considering another RfA. (aeropagitica) 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gndawydiak (talk • contribs) – I have been a user since the beginning of August 2006. I have expanded many articles over time and created new ones. I have an English account only but I soon plan to open a Spanish one pretty soon. I am in the beginning stages of a WikiProject called WikiProject San Francisco and I hope to get more people to help on this project I have been working on making a more exclusive San Francisco Politics portal and if I become an administrator, I plan to create a WikiProject for that subject. I have worked hard on created and expanding a lot of the articles I've done. I plan to keep on expanding articles and helping bring more quality to Wikipedia Gndawydiak 04:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self-nomination for an administrator --Gndawydiak 05:16, 17 January 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 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 plan to help out on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP mostly because I believe that we shouldn't have articles that are repeatedly vandalized by users that just want to fo this and bring them to justice and prevent them from vadalizing the same article or other articles. I would also help with protection by making sure that these articles aren't being protected for one's benifit but for the sake of people wanting to learn things off of Wikipedia. I would also get involved with WP:AFD and see if articles are nessesary for deletion or if just being deleted for one's benifit. I would delete articles that are nessesary to delete but I will not delete an article so one can benifit because of an editing dispute. I plan to bring quality to Wikipedia and help user's that might need the help.

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

A: I am very pleased with two articles I've worked on. Mayor of San Francisco, Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Newark, New Jersey. I have been working on Mayor of San Francisco since I have been a user and I have added lots of information to it that could very much help someone and I had to been working on it for days. I would work for days at a time just to get one thing right on the article and I would revert every vandalism and make the article just right. Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory I have also been working on since I've been a user. When I first saw this aricle, it was very small. After at least two weeks, I had a full article talking about everything and gave very much information. I had to work on vandalism a lot with this article. Since it's a high school Wikipedia page, I had to keep on reverting the vandalism to the point where I asked for protection but was denied for but I was finally able to tell the users to stop. Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Newark, New Jersey I worked on for three days and I was the most proud of. I don't come from Newark but I was able to round up a bunch of information and put it together into a full article after I saw this was a stub. It changed dramaticly after I finished. I also asked for pictures of the church and a user was able to respond to my request and take picture of the church themselves and put them on the page for me. These articles I am very proud of and I am very glad it was able to become good sucess.

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 am in an editing conflict right now with an article called San Francisco Mayoral Election, 2007. I have been trying to keep my title the same but it has been getting changed because of one's belief in how it should be capitalized. The user locked the page and I am trying to get it unprotected now but it's causing a lot of stress to me how I can't edit my own article that I created to what I think is right. Right now I am learning from this but if this happens again in the future, I will try to talk to the user and tell them that this is wrong and you shouldn't be doing that. If the user takes it into a bigger conflict, I would probably have to report the user if it's an extreme case and protect the article. Even thought my idea might be a little hard, I go pretty easy on people if they don't try to escalate the problem more.

General comments

• See Gndawydiak's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I am a strong canidate for this postition and will do what I think is right for the users and I am good choice for all users on Wikipedia.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support - You should consider self-withdrawing and coming back in 6 to 12 monthes if at that time you feel you need admin tools. --Matthew 08:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Six to twelve months? No need to exaggerate, give it two to three months and you'd be fine. Candidates regularly pass with that amount of activity. >Radiant< 13:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
     • Given only 304 total edits in 5 months here, I'd say six months is a reasonable minimum, assuming at least a couple hundred edits a month. And at least a year is the minimum if the average number of edits stays under 100 per month. (Which isn't to say that any particular edit count is sufficient for a successful candidacy, but an edit count is a good first approximation of experience, which is necessary.) John Broughton | ♫♫ 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - Um, I knew something was wrong with this one. Good intention, but 304 edit count with 11% edit summary usage for major edits and lack of minor edits will not work. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak "moral support in denial" oppose and suggest withdrawal. You mean well, but you onyl have 300 edits and no AfD or XfD experience. I like that you're doing RPP already though, but just keep working on what you're dog and try again down the road when more experienced. You do have very good answers though and you genuinely seem to want to be an admin.--Wizardman 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per [1], [2]. Anyone is free to edit any article in good faith, regardless of whether they hail from the country/region/city that the article is about. --BigDT 06:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Automatic Oppose per lack of edits. Please withdraw. Insanephantom(my Editor Review) 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose per the difs supplied by BigDT. This editor's purpose in seeking the tools is clearly to edit an article validly blocked by a present sysop. The violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN speak for themselves. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 08:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose again per [3], [4]. Severe problems with WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN and too little experience otherwise. Suggest withdrawal. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Due to general lack of experience. And due to the comments noted by BigDT, which demonstrate an unacceptable lack of civility towards other editors, and an attempt to claim personal ownership over certain articles which goes strongly against the spirit and community guidelines of Wikipedia. Zaxem 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose No comment. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per the diffs provided by BigDT. Also, this candidate lacks of experience, civility problems, trying to claim ownership of articles and not time yet. This is not following the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia, suggest withdrawal. Terence Ong 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per the above, especially for violations of WP:OWN. You need to hang out some more and better understand the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia. After that, there's no reason not to re-apply. Coemgenus 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose for Now You're off to a great start and already seem to have a firm grip on editing. As far as I'm concerned you're destined for adminship...just not yet. Rack up some more experience and come back in a few months. Ganfon 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Too Early - Per this edit summary, please learn our policies, such as WP:OWN and naming conventions. NoSeptember 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Please withdraw. Neutral to avoid pileon. – Chacor 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral - in an effort to encourage you to read my comments on your talk page and take friendly advice. --Dweller 09:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I suggest withdrawal. Good intentions, but come back after you have more experience and edits. S.D. ¿п? § 12:36, 17 January 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.