Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spottedowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spottedowl

removed 04:30 13 May 2005 (UTC) with (1/10/4) ending 16:43 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This user is a good friend of mine. Never got into an edit war, has done a lot of work on articles relating to computer games, and is generally a good contributor. With 642 contributions at time of writing, and a "Wikipedia age" of pretty much exactly 1 year, I think it is time to elevate him to the prestigious position of sysop! — Timwi 16:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Four days into this nomination it has not been accepted though the nominator says that the candidate is aware of it. Unless someone objects, I intend to take this nomination down in ~12 hours and list it as Not Accepted by Candidate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Sure. – ugen64 02:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#Support. RicK K 17:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Imposter. RickK 17:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I must oppose on the grounds that this user's activity on Wikipedia is far too sparse and I personally feel that administrators (at the very least new ones) should be very active (20+ edits a day, 5+ days a week). — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 18:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. IMHO, this user does not yet have enough experience in the community. Kingturtle 18:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Only 642 contributions in 1 year is a very, very low commitment here. Come back when you are more active. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Will support at 1K edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 22:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Must oppose at this time. I'm not sure how many edits is enough, or even if there can be a hard and fast number, but 642 contributions is not enough, in my view. Keep working though; may support in future. Jonathunder 03:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  6. 642 edits in a year works out to less than two a day. A reasonable enough count for an editor, sure, but this doesn't seem to be an editor in desperate need of the admin tools at the moment. Give it more time, though, and I'll support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:30, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. 1.7589041095890410958904109589041 edits a day? No. Neutralitytalk 03:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Good editor, but does not have the commitment to either this project or to adminship that I expect from a proposed admin. Rje 14:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  9. No problems with editorial behaviour but with such a low level of activity and no sign of any interest in the extra tools this nomination seems premature. --Theo (Talk) 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. With close to 900 edits under my belt, I still feel like a newbie and wouldn't even consider going for admin at this stage. I also amassed those edits in about a month, so I don't think Spottedowl has put much effort in.--Silversmith 22:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'm not a strict "must have x amount of edits" guy, but the 642 edits within a single year isn't exactly "active", either. My suggestion would be to join the Cleanup Taskforce or do stub sorting; that will bump up your edit count dramatically. If you can prove you're committed, I will change my vote to support. Linuxbeak 03:30, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Linuxbeak; Getting involved with fixing up articles on VfD is also a good way to boost edits and helps you develop a more nuanced approach to VfD. Klonimus 10:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral because of the lack of acceptance and the questions remain unanswered. See comments. Bratschetalk random 03:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Per Linuxbeak and Bratsche. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think edit counting in general is dumb. If all of the 642 edits happened over a period of a month fighting vandalism, I would vote support. However, the length of time between edits and a lack of community involvement counts against this adminship proposal. Will support at a time when community involvement and dedication is shown. Bratschetalk random 03:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Spottedowl_3769.html"