Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liyster

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

[edit] Liyster

Final (1/12/0) Ended 02:24 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Liyster (talk • contribs) – I'm applying to become an administrator so that I can help Wikipedia by reverting any vandalism that I see and possibly taking action against users who consistently vandalise pages. I have contributed to WikiProject Doctor Who; contributing to the emerging WikiProject Spooks, and actively contributing to (and wikifying the citations) on David Tench Tonight; lastly I have just recently helped with the Disambiguation pages with links backlog with the disambiguation page pants. Liyster 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I confirm my self-nomination by accepting it. Liyster 07:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As per (aeropagitica), Husond and other's useful comments, I have decided to withdraw my nomination. Thanks for all your helpful comments, and I shall take them on board wholeheartedly. Liyster 02:24, 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 have, and will continue to help with Disambiguation pages with links which I have found very useful; I enjoy helping with this project as when an internal link refers me to a disambiguation page I go back and edit the link that referred me to the correct link.

I would also like to help out with All images with no fair use rationale.

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

A: I am particularly pleased with David Tench Tonight, in particular the list of citations in the article of which I put a lot of effort into wikifying.

I am also pleased at how WikiProject Spooks is progressing, albeit slowly, and I am actively contributing to this project when I have time.

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 haven't been in any conflicts per se, however in the initial stages of David Tench Tonight when the actor behind David Tench was unknown, the wording of how the Spoiler of the actor's reveal I was actively involved in, commenting on both the Discussion page and explaining my edits in the edit summary,

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 Liyster's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Moral Support Please don't be discouraged by this RfA. Ensure a steady flux of contributions and try again in a few months. You will also have to prove why you need the admin tools. I suggest that you start participating in XfD. And you may also try to explore the wonders of countervandalism. :-) --Húsönd 19:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - [1] [2] -- [3] [4]. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

   Could you give a proper reason for opposing, please? A few unexplained links just leave people guessing at what you might be complaining about. --Tango 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

   If I may take a stab in the dark here, [3] is to show that Liyster has had very little interaction within the community. [4] is to show that Liyster has not really taken much part in WP process-related matters. [1] and [2] are a mystery. I would also prefer that Matthew would explain his diffs and not assume we'll understand it implicitly... we're not all as smart as you, mate :) — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose with regret, but all of 13 edits in Wikipedia namespace and a habit of marking all edits as minor does not give me confidence that you have the necessary experience for an admin. ~ trialsanderrors 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Just by scratching the surface, less than two months of editing and less than 300 edits is simply not enough experience for adminship. Please wait a few more months, adapt to the multiple facets of Wikipedia, accumulate 2000 more edits (at the very least, others have much higher benchmarks), diversify your editing, and try again then. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose candidate lacks experience required. Pete.Hurd 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have made less than 300 edits - most successful admin candidates have at least 2,000. You've been around since August 2005, but your contributions have been sporadic and a large percentage of them have been made within the last couple of days. Admins are expected to check-in almost daily and contribute much more regularly than you have so far. More edits and a good-length period as a very consistent contributor are needed before you can be considered a serious admin candidate. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future. Zaxem 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Please don't take this personally. You're a great user but you just haven't contributed enough to really appreciate the ins and outs of the project. Try editing outside your circle and getting involved in the behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia. With more consistency of editing and a greater involvement with the project, you might show better potential as a good future admin.

   If you are looking for feedback about your work, might I suggest editor review? — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per above - we've got no way of assessing how you will use the tools until we see some participation in situations where you will use them. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, sorry, you are a good editor, take part in more Wikipedia activities and try again for adminship when you acheived these goals. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Answer to question 1 reveals no requirement for admin tools. I recommend that the candidate withdraws the nomination, seeks an editor review and carries on contributing to the project in the following ways: 1) editing articles for sources, references, factual verification and conforming to the Manual of Style; 2) participating in Wikiprojects such as Featured Articles and Good Articles; 3) fights vandals with appropriate tags and reporting to WP:AIV; 5) participation in XfD discussions, citing policies and guidelines as reasons for voting - that way we can all see their knowledge of the touchstones of Wikipedia; 6) assists at the Reference Desk or Requests for Help pages where appropriate; 7) joins a Wikiproject such as Esperanza with a view to active involvement. All of these activities will assist Wikipedia and raise your profile immesurably, making a future RfA application much more likely to succeed. (aeropagitica) 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Fewer than 500 edits in over a year. Michael
11. Oppose - A good editor, but limited experience, and the limited experience is my only reason for opposing. Doing one or more of the things (aeropagitica) outlined above for a fair amount of time could easily change my mind, though. Badbilltucker 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. You're off to a good start. Please don't let this vote get you down. Urge you to withdrawal and come back in a few months. Jcam 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.