Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SaxTeacher

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

[edit] SaxTeacher

Final (8/23/12) ended 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SaxTeacher (talk • contribs)

I have been editing Wikipedia for about a year and during that time have started a number of articles, and added to / improved several others. For a list, please see my user page. I would appreciate being considered for adminship.

I should mention that when I first began to contribute to Wikipedia, I created my username as Mdickinson. After a few weeks of exploring Wikipedia and making an increasing number of edits, I realized that I would probably be a lifelong user, and decided it would be prudent to change to a username that did not include my last name. At that point I created the user name SaxTeacher and have done all my editing since that time as SaxTeacher. (I am aware it's possible to have one's username changed by a Bureaucrat, but at the time, the advice given on the Changing username page was to simply create a new name, so I followed that advice.) I mention my previous user name only because someone who wants to see my very earliest efforts, or to come up with a valid edit count, would need to look under Mdickinson. Thank you, SaxTeacher (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nominated 16:27, 31 August 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, 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: I have done a bit of vandalism reversion and would like to do more of this. I have also done some disambiguation page link repair (You can help!), and have created several disambig pages when they were clearly needed (for instance, Paul Cohen and Lee Patrick). I look forward to doing more of this type of work.

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

A: I would have to point to Sigurd Raschèr and Fenno Heath as two good examples of my work. In one case I found no article on an accomplished musician, and in another I found a stub. I created/expanded each article myself based on my own research. In the case of the Raschèr article, I realized the need for a separate entry for Raschèr Saxophone Quartet. I have done a lot of editing of Saxophone and Carillon as well. For some musicians, e.g. Larry Combs, Walter Hartley, and James Di Pasquale, I have contacted the subject of the article directly, to ask for biographical information and to obtain their permission to reprint copyrighted information.

As a professional proofreader and editor of business presentations, I find that just about any time I am reading a Wikipedia article, regardless of topic, I am able to find and correct several grammatical and punctuation errors.

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 addressed other editors once or twice when I felt their contributions were hasty or were not in the best interest of the article. The articles I have created/edited have not been particularly controversial topics, so this has not been much of an issue so far. But I think the nature of my contributions thus far and my age and experience would give me the background and maturity necessary to deal firmly/fairly with conflicts that may come up.

Comments

• See SaxTeacher's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit counts are on the talk page. --ais523 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Final: (8/23/11)

Support

1. In my observation, in saxophone-related articles SaxTeacher has always edited with great care and seriousness. Badagnani 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Moral support based on candidate's good work so far as an editor. However, I urge withdrawal for now and reapplication later after the candidate has greater experience in other areas per the oppose and neutral suggestions below. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Newyorkbrad. It might not be successful now, but try again a few months later and do some more editing, and your nomination will get better results. Mostly Rainy 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, a great user.--Andeh 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Moral Support, don't let this RfA discourage you. You're a good user, but people are generally opposing based on a lack of experience - which is the easiest thing in the world to fix, if you persevere. Keep with it, making at least a few edits every day if you have the time, and you'll be in a strong position to start a new request in 3-4 months' time. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great wikipedian A++++++++++++++. Arce 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support per the edits situation. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Moral Support Good on you for seeing the RfA through! You seem to be quite a good Wikipedian to have contributing to the project and I suspect that with a bit more experience, you'll sail through your next request for adminship. On a related note, you might want to sign up for admin coaching, which is a program run by Esperanza that pairs experienced administrators with users who plan on becoming administrators in the future. This will allow you to become experienced in some of the administrative areas (closing *fD's, for example) with some help from your coaches. Good luck! (You should also feel free to contact me with any questions and I'll be sure to answer them or point you in the right direction in a timely manner) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Fewer than 1000 edits and large gaps between edit dates. Michael 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose sorry, you're a very good editor and have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. But you've got fewer than 700 edits across both usernames which is just isn't enough for me to form an accurate picture of you. You're edits are very sparse as well: you've only edited on 30 days this year, some of which have only one edit. Your answers to the standard questions aren't compelling either: your answer to Q1 doesn't mention any tasks that require the admin tools, for example. You've had very few interactions with other editors, which is a vital part of being an admin, so its hard to judge how you'd handle the tough situations admins sometimes face. I applaud your contributions, but don't think you're ready for the admin bit quite yet. Good luck, Gwernol 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Far too few edits:

   less than 50 Wikipedia space edits

   less than 50 User Talk edits

   less than 500 Article space edits

   Aside from being able to edit and improve articles, admins and prospective admins should also be contributing to the Wiki space and talking to users, whether it be giving advice about editing or researching or warning vandals. I suggest an editor review in order to see in which areas the community thinks that you need to improve then work in these for three or four months before reapplying. Talking to people is key to being an admin!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Lack of edits is a major concern here. However, your stay of about one year here is noted. Try again after three months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Less than 1000 edits, not enough talk edits. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have less than 800 edits - successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits, with a least a couple of hundred in the Wikipedia space demonstrating policy knowledge, and at least a few hundred talk edits showing community interaction. Also, although you've been here almost a year (which is longer than many admin candidates), there have been some large gaps of time in which you didn't edit. Admins are exepcted to check in pretty much daily with only occassional wikibreaks, so you're unlikely to succeed as an admin candidate until your record shows a long period of consisent editing. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future. Zaxem 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, not enough edits, come back with a higher edit count, then I'll vote for you. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lacks edits and experience. Come back in three months. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Discounting edits related to filing this RfA, Wikipedia:Changing username-related edits, and Wikipedia:Help desk questions, this user's only WP:space edits are to WP:RFI (and then, only one situation was reported; I've checked the contribs of both the old and the new usernames). The candidate is unfortunately relatively inexperienced and thus would be too likely to inadvertently make errors in using the admin tools. Try withdrawing and getting a better idea of what project-space is like over the next few months. --ais523 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am sorry; this user has not had enough experience or enough favourable edits to become an administrator quite yet. -- Casmith 789 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too few edits : try again in a few months after racking up a few more edits and you've got my vote Anthony 16:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Talk to Me)
12. Oppose Too few edits, I'm afraid. read up on policy, get some more edits under your belt, and come back in six months or so - I'll be all for it then. HawkerTyphoon 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose very low edit count. The year experience is good, but need more edits. Sorry --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose extremely low edit count; many self userspace edits; less than 500 edits in the article space. Ryūlóng 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose, only 618 edits at nomination? Doesn't make me think you have the necessary experience to deal with adminship.. Perhaps in a few months eh? :) --Deon555^talk_Review 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose per above... Few edits.. Seems to not be participating in discussions a lot... Sorry :( --Deenoe 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Very few edits, and the chores you have expressed interest to do once promoted, do not require sysOp privillages.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose due to apparant inexperience in policy. Give it some time and keep contributing! ST47 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Lack of experience Orange Kangaroo 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User's third edit. Naconkantari 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose, inexperience. Come back six months later and I'll support. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose User has done many great things to help Wikipedia ,but I don't think he's had enough experience at the moment.Once he get's to 2,000 he should be ready.SOADLuver 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Great user, but should read through WP:RFA/ST to get an idea of the number of edits most users regard as basic to becoming an admin. Themindset 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose MORE EDITS! Wikipediarul|es2221^Holla 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, less than 10 Wikipedia-space edits before this RfA which means that it's very unlikely that you are sufficiently versed in the policies and other workings that are often needed from an admin. I won't oppose since this will most likely end up as a pile-on for a good editor, but I'd suggest you withdraw and get yourself better acquainted with the wikipedia namespace if you're still interested in adminship in the future. - Bobet 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Bobet and wishing to avoid a snowball effect. You are a good editor, though; keep up the good contributions. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Firsfron, you are a good editor and should keep up the good work. However, at this time, you should probably withdraw this your nomination and focus instead on getting to know Wikipedia and the people on Wikipedia. Best of Luck. -- danntm ^T _C 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Keep working hard, participate in WP:CfD's, etc. Also, watch other's RfA's for points to focus on to get the "mop" one of these days. Thanks for all your hard work. Hang in there - JungleCat talk/contrib 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Bobet _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I became an admin because I wanted the ability to more effectively fight vandalism, so I appreciate the desire here. Being able to speedy-delete appropriate articles and images is helpful without the need to tag those which can be deleted immediately. It saves other admins work, and you can *never* have too many admins doing vandalism patrol. Still, I agree with the consensus that a little more time is needed, and at this point neither a support or oppose vote would change the result anyway. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Merovingian - Talk 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral – few more months and I'll be happy to support. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per Bobet Hello32020 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral— Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. Saw nothing wrong with your edits or comments; but would like more data to work with. More mileage on the tires will make me a supporter. Williamborg (Bill) 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Additional comment - Your “edit summary” usage is 42% for major edits and 18% for minor edits. This doesn't disqualify you, but it is generally an indicator of inexperience. You’ll find that the edit summaries are useful when you’re reviewing an RfA candidate, so it is in the applicant's best interest to provide them. Come back as soon as you’ve got some more experience. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that you can go to Preferences and click the box for the setting that will automatically prompt for a summary whenever you are about to post an edit without a summary. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral - Per slightly low number of edits. Iolakana•T 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral - I don't want to oppose someone who is evidently a good editor. Please get some experience in areas away from the main space such as AfDs, so we can get a better sense of you and you can get a better sense of the kinds of debates an admin has to get involved in. Also, do some more intense editing from day to day so, again, we all have a better sense of your approach. If you do that and come back around the end of the year, you're likely to succeed in a second RfA. Metamagician3000 08:54, 7 September 2006 (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.