Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SkerHawx

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

[edit] SkerHawx

FINAL (1/14/1) Ended 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SkerHawx (talk • contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I'm primarily interested in helping keep vandalism under control. I've written a few articles from the ground up and edited some, but I'm particularly interested in keeping this social/academic experiment alive and well.SkerHawx 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I withdraw my nomination.

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'm primarily interested in helping monitor vandalism and block users and/or IP addresses as needed.

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

A: I'm pleased with my creation of Norfolk Catholic High School, since I built that from the ground up, and with my revisions to Norfolk, Nebraska and Kennesaw State University.

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: Not really. A few vandals have blanked my User Page, but that's expected. I've managed people for over 15 years, and those kinds of things just don't get under my skin. Sometimes they just amuse me.

General comments

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

SkerHawx's editcount stats as of 14.39, October 6 2006, using Interiot's PHP tool. (aeropagitica) 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• A few of you have indicated "policy issues" with no details. If I'm not going to move along, I'd at least like some feedback. Please leave this on my talk page if so inclined. SkerHawx 17:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support. Has been around more or less steadily since January, has done some good vandal fighting work, and I see no reason to think he'd abuse admin tools. --Rory096 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hmm...but so did I, and that doesn't guarantee me adminship. ~ Flameviper 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too few edits and weakish answers. --Alex (Talk) 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Obvious reasons. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose due to lack of edits and weak answers to questions. If you're able to get more experience in the various processes (XfD, for instance), though, feel free to try again in a few months. --Coredesat (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose with only about 400 edits, the majority of which are disambiguation of czech, you have little demonstrated experience with the sort of tasks that an admin will undertake. There simply isn't enough evidence yet in your edit history for me to be comfortable supporting you. Continue to work on Wikipedia, perhaps get involved with recent changes patrolling and AfD discussions and re-apply in a few months. Good luck, Gwernol 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per everyone else. Moreschi 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have made just over 500 edits - most successful admin candidates have at least 2,000. You made a large number of contributions in January, February and the first few days of October, but only a few in March-September. More edits and a notably longer period as a 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 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Too few edits, too large gaps between them. Definitely has potential, but not enough of a track record yet. --Mnemeson 14:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I appreciate your enthusiasm in fighting vandalism, but you need (much) more experience before I can support you. Also, weak answers.--Húsönd 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, you need more experience. I'm sorry, and your enthusiasm is great, but more experience is necessary to assess you properly. Please read the suggestions cited by oppose !voters and (aeropagitica), work on your editing, and reapply in a few months. Best wishes, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Just because somebody wouldn't abuse admin tools doesn't mean that they'd be put to good use. And also, adminship is something you earn, and finally, he only has 400-ish edits and as per almost everyone, he has weakish answers. ~ Flameviper 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose - policy concerns and the answers provided above lead me to believe you don't quite understand what a Administrator is -- Tawker 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose The low number of edits is a major concern for me. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I advise the nom to read through WP:RFA/ST. WP:SNOW please. Themindset 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I had already withdrawn my nomination well before your well-intentioned (?) opposition. Might I suggest you re-read the many suggestions regarding pile-ons during the process? They're as official as the essays you cited.

Neutral

1. Neutral Your edits and answers to questions don't demonstrate a knowledge of policy, which is essential for admins. Pointers for improvement; participation in XfA is a good thing, particularly when you can cite policy when you give your opinion; interaction with users in WikiTalk, articleTalk and userTalk spaces is essential; vandal-fighting is essential to the smooth running of WP too; participation in one or more Wikiprojects is a good thing; lastly, the primary reason for us all being here is editing articles - join the featured article debates and use your editing/research skills to work articles up to Good/Featured status. You can also get an editor review to help you strengthen your current weaknesses. All of this should take 3-4 months and ~2000 edits. (aeropagitica) 14:44, 6 October 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.