Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy

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

[edit] Patricknoddy

Final: (1/13/0); Ended 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this early, it does not appear to have any chance of passing, details will be left on the candidate's talk page. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy (talk • contribs) - I have over 2,000 edits on Wikipedia, I think I would make a great admin. Patricknoddy 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Patricknoddy 15:06, 16 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 will catch vandals and block them, I will also keep an eye out for articles for deletion.

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

A: I'm pretty much OK with all of my edits, because I have hope in them.

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: Well I've had some edit problems, but I resolved them and learned a lesson about Wikipedia.

General comments

• See Patricknoddy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Patrick, the consensus below seems to be that you're doing well, but that you need to expand the self-nom and responses to question and gain more experience. I'd add that it's helpful to participate a bit in RFA (look at the nominations that are running well on Wikipedia:RFA summary for a few weeks, for example, and comment or !vote in some) to get a feel for what the expectations are and how much time and effort many people put into the responses to questions and the nomination statement. It saves the reviewers some time spent trawling your contribs to find out whether you have good sense, but it also gives us important information about specifically what you want to do as an admin (Q1). Best of luck.--Kchase T 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support By all accounts, you appear to be a very talented editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. This is precisely why I hope you don't become jaded by the results of your RfA and stop editing. Spending your valuable time making Wikipedia a better place is commendable and much appreciated. If you do still wish to become an administrator at a later date, I humbly suggest signing up for admin coaching, which is a program that will pair you up with an administrator who will act as a mentor of sorts to you and will help you become a bit more experienced in the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Constructive Oppose I think this is a very well-intentioned editor with the best aims for the project but I do not think the candidate is ready at this time. In learning about the wikipedia process, the candidate has been able to gain exposure to the different areas but actions such as setting up the Afghan wikiproject were not within process. A number of speedy tags have been applied incorrectly, and articles the candidate has created have been deleted. The candidate seems to be developing the technical skills necessary and will probably be a great editor and admin some day but community interaction and talking to people is an area for development. I fear for this request's prospects but I hope that the candidate learns from it and continues to be an enthusiastic contributor. MLA 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Until he demonstrates a more consistent editing pattern. Edits a few hundred times for two or three months, then drops to near zero. Can't support if he may drop out of sight after RfA. Maybe later. -- Dan D. Ric 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Your self-nomination statement does not give us much on which to base our decision. alphachimp 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose, not much in your self-nomination statement, and answers to questions are lackluster. Record shows a great degree of inexperience that needs to be worked on first. Get more experience and try again later, and you should have better luck. --Coredesat 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I do believe you are heading in the right direction and have the right spirit, but you may need to get up to speed with processes and such before applying for such a responsible position. You seemed to have a problem with the JS here and the reasoning was incorrect - although I might add, the decision to speedy was justified. So, keep on the right side of the non-admin tools and maybe try again in 3-4 months. Bubba hotep 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

   Oops, since I corrected the speedy tag, the article has been deleted and the diff obviously isn't there anymore. However, you added three speedy tags in a row to the same article, citing A1 as the reason when it should have been db-band or db-a7. Bubba hotep 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Bubba, don't lose hope though. The Rambling Man 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose You have in fact nearly 3,000 edits, and they are reasoably well distributed over the project. But I am afraid that your answers to the standard questions do not inspire me with the feeling that you fully appreciate the role of an admin. Sorry. Do try again in 2-3 months.--Anthony.bradbury 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose You're a great user, but I'm a bit concerned about your inconsistent editing patterns, vague answers to RfA questions, as well as other incidents mentioned by MLA and Bubba.--TBCΦtalk? 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose and suggest Withdrawal Your a good editor to wikipedia but you have very weak answers to the questions and the summary about why you think you should become an admin is short and uninformative. As well as this it seems your are only interested in vandal fighting and AFD's which is good but the tasks of an admin should be a little more varied in my opinion. I suggest withdrawal and make your edits on wikipedia a little more varied.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Your self-nomination is not backed up with diffs to provide evidence of your editing and admin-related skills and the answers are very weak. The following examples make me suspect that you would do more harm than good with the admin tools at the moment - incorrect use of speedy template, failing to deal with vandalism, quick-draw speedy tagging, another speedy tag of a notable biography - here too and again here; the creation of this non-notable article on the Brothers Villagepedia Wiki; not responding to a legitimate editor's comment on your Talk page about another speedy tag; finally, a lack of familiarity with the project space. The commentators above have provided ample enough evidence about other areas that require work before you reapply. I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and concentrate on improving your editing skills for six months before reapplying or being nominated by another editor. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose -- per (aeropagitica), especially the ignoring of valid questions to their talk page, the recent creation of speedy deleted articles, and their late behaviour of joining every WikiProject under the sun simply to tag article talk pages concerns me. Needs more community experience and interaction. -- Longhair\^talk 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose at this time. It is a good point to remember that people generally have higher standards for self-noms. However, you seem to be a good editor, and were your statements stronger, I would likely support. Keep up the good work and come back in a few months! Yuser31415 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Pile on! Few edits, little or no experience in policy, lots of speedy tagging resulting in pages not being speedied, no fair use rationales, some questionable page moves, few edit summaries... --- RockMFR 21:18, 16 February 2007 (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.