Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lcarsdata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Lcarsdata

Final: (5/16/4) ended 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lcarsdata (talk • contribs) – I have contributed for several months now with nearly 1000 edits. Although the articles I have created are only at an average standard I prefer to do the cleanup tasks which I belive are just as important as the articles themselves. If I am given admin status it will mainly make other admins duties easier as they will not need to delete the article every time I do an interwiki move. As well I would also like to help do some of the suties which are necessary to the functioning of Wikipedia - One of the other things I would like to participate in futher is RC patrol which I have refrained from in the past as it takes a while to revert vandalism and by the time I have done that someone else has! Admin status will give me the rollback button meaning I can do this in a flash. Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I withdraw my request for adminship on the basis that me and several other feel I do not have enough edits. Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs | My RfA 15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral Support Very cute, somewhat obscure Star Trek username. That's always a plus! ;) Please consider withdrawing for now though, as this request is premature -- 3000 edits/5 months is a median if one wants an RfA to succeed. Xoloz 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Irrelevant support - Mate, pull this request out before you get a disheartening pile-on. Edit count minimums have gone way up - it's somewhere over 3000 edits now. - Richardcavell 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral support - come back in 3 months and 3000 edits. :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sympathy Support Although you have been here for about 7 months, your number of edits are relatively low. But you get my benefit of the doubt as I personally rarely oppose anyone in RfA. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Real support, not moral. Shame about the editcountitis, though. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose <1000 edits is way too little. Not enough experience. Sorry. Computerjoe's talk 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I hope you will accept this message as that of encouragement despite my vote: you are a positive-minded, helpful editor. But it is critical that you gain more experience on Wikipedia on a variety of things, including writing articles. I can guarantee that you will become an administrator, but be patient and give it, say, 3 months more. Exceed 5,000 edits and come back. I hope you will preserve your passion while learning more about the community, policy and workings, and be as helpful as possible till then. With best regards, Rama's Arrow 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    5000?! Why on earth is the bar so high? I don't even have 5000 edits! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Most participants in RfA would not meet current edit count standards, including some admins - Richardcavell 07:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose Way too few edits, too little interaction (5 talk space edits), not great grammar. Also, only used edit summaries 27% of the time for major edits. Sorry. Mets501talk 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Not great spelling there, Mets501. - Richardcavell 22:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Whoops, typo. I corrected it. --Mets501talk 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not enough contributions, below my standards. — xaosflux Talk 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose, waaay below most standards. Not enough experience, let alone in the projectspace, and mediocre edit summary usage (27% for major edits) in addition to other reasons already mentioned. Royboycrashfan 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Object: 670 edits (as it now stands on the editcount) and half a year is not enough. Try again next year, with more contributions, I suppose? --Slgrandson 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Too little edits, sorry :( _-M o P-_ 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Very helpful editor. May I suggest joining the Star Trek wikiproject? It's a great way to gain more experience with editing, and I'm sure they can use your help. (^'-')^ Covington 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Needs more experience. You might want to look over some of the guidelines for how much experience is enough. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Sorry, but I think that you should have at least 1000 edits and at least 100 wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Too few edits. Do some more and come back later. Profundity06 01:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, come back in three to four months time. I'm sure you will make a great user in this period of time. Also, too few edits. --Terence Ong 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose, too few edits in Talk pages. An administrator needs to be more in contact with other users. -- ReyBrujo 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak Oppose- I don't have any real reson do doubt your intelligence, honesty and reponsibility. In fact, what I've seen of your edit history is quite good. Unfortunately you just haven't got enough experience. Try again in six months or so. Reyk YO! 10:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Too few edits. Needs much more experience.--Jusjih 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - per all of the above--Looper5920 13:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. No reason to doubt this user's competence or good faith. Rob Church (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep it up! An upgrade to rollback, etc. will come soon enough. --Jay(Reply) 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral because I, too, don't want to join the Oppose dogpile, even if it's the right thing to do. My first "failed", too; my second is going well, I believe, because I understood that it was not a failure, but a validation that I was moving in the right direction. A quick perusal of this user's contribs shows someone who wants to grow with Wikipedia and, if that growth continues as it exists now, Lcarsdata (nice Trek reference, BTW) will make for an excellent admin—someday. RadioKirk talk to me 02:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I believe this user is competent and acts on good faith, however, I prefer to remain neutral and wait for more good contributions from him! Afonso Silva 14:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

- Total: 766 -
Main: 414
Talk: 5
User: 130
User talk: 39
Wikipedia: 44
Wikipedia talk: 8
Image: 7
Template: 41
Template talk: 1
Category: 9
Portal: 64
Portal talk: 4

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: The main tasks I would anticipate helping with are reverting (see my opening statement), protecting pages and blocking users.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article I am most pleased with is Barton-le-Clay as I have put loads of information in it and spent ages formatting it. However most of the time I am doing the general chores such as stub sorting and interwiki moves.
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 not been in any edit conflicts as I try not to get involved in them because the help no one. If I ever got into one I would just keep calm and make sure it does not get into a war.
4 What would you do if this was withdrawn per WP:SNOWBALL? Computerjoe's talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
AI would wait a few more months and get a couple of thousand more edits before trying again. I would also take some of the advice that has been given to me above.
The above 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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Lcarsdata_ba9e.html"