Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Axiomm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Axiomm

Final (3/22/3) ended 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Axiomm (talk · contribs) -- I've been using wikipedia for a few months and I am nominating myself. I enjoy voting on these RFA polls and I would like to see how I would do with my own request. I see that this nomination already has two negative votes. If you indeed choose to oppose, at least give me advice on how I can win your support in the future. Axiomm 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self nom. Axiomm 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please remove and reformat. The questions asked of all candidates are missing. RadioKirk talk to me 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The questions and answers have been posted. Axiomm 13:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Froggy 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I support you. GruntiIda 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Note: user's 4th edit, first since early March. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Siva1979Talk to me 16:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, you have good intentions and look like a good user, but you need a lot more experience. I doubt this RfA will pass, as most users here look for at least 2000-3000 edits. Sorry! Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, it seems it have enough time, but too few edits. Let me wait a day and if this poll gets too many negative votes, I will withdraw. Axiomm 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - you don't have enough experience here yet. Sorry. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not nearly enough edits. The reason this is important is not that there is a specific "magic number" of edits, but that with only a handful its very difficult for those of us who don't know you to judge how you react to the wide range of situations an admin has to deal with. So don't take this as a personal judgement - we just don't have enough info yet. Good luck, Gwernol 13:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Its worth noting that Axiomm has been blocked once for improper recreation of an article that had been deleted. He has also been warned for improperly closing an AfD that he disagreed with. He also blanked his talk page including these warning and block notices before starting this RfA [1]. These actions would all be serious impediments to a future RfA, especially given his answer to Question #3 below. Gwernol 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Sorry, but just not enough experience as of yet. -- Deville (Talk) 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I suggest you withdraw. But you will be more than welcome to candidate again, with more experiences. --Tone 14:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose There is not enough information to make a good decision. When I look at admin candidates, I first look through namespace talks. I look to see how they react to other editors. Do they have grace under fire? Do they seem like they could make hard decisions in a neutral manner, then stand by them? I also prefer to have editors who have made substantial edits in the namespace. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and many of the administrator jobs are related to content. Do it look like the admin candidate knows exactly what tools they will get and why they need them? Continue to contribute and come back after there is a record where we can evaluate you. Good luck. Ted 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. OPPOSE per all above. Please see my Guidelines for supporting an RFA. You are doing a lot of the right things.--reverting vandals and XfD. However, I see no reports to AIV. You need much more experience , and I would like to see more substantial contributions in general. Suggest withdrawal. :) Dlohcierekim
    switch to strong oppose after reading comments fromSchzmo and Gwernol. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Revised comment now that I’m home and well rested. Per Gwernol’s comments, you are sometimes doing the right things the wrong way. Please completely review all of the policies and guidelines available from your talk page. . Please review all information pertaining to articles for deletion and CSD. Particularly, read WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. I would also suggest that you seek a mentor to help you develop a better understanding of how to do things and why. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 11:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. Also, next time around, try to take more time to write your nomination if it will be a self-nom. Also, put some more time into answering the rfa questions. Those are key.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Needs more experience. ForestH2
  10. Oppose I don't suffer from editcountitis but you need more edits. ShortJason 15:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Naconkantari 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Your self-nomination appears to be your vehicle for getting advice from other editors on your performance more than a genuine desire to become an admin. While seeking advice is good, I don't think using the RfA process for that purpose is appropriate. Your answers to the questions below are too short, you have too few edits, and your apparent misuse (not necessarily bad-faith, though) of the RfA process calls your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines into question. Work on become an active editor first. -- backburner001 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Speedy Oppose. You only have 69 edits in 3 months, which is well below most standards. Aside from that, your answers are not all that good. You name tasks you would like to help out with, but you don't explain how you would help. The one article you cited as a major contribution was already explained elsewhere and redirected. For the third question, even if you've never been in any conflicts, you should be able to think of a constructive and elaborate response. It's obvious you're not ready for admin responsibilities. Royboycrashfan 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Not nearly enough contributions to the project. Does not meet my standards either. — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per ShortJason, and lack of editing conflicts suggests not enough experience. Keep at it though, you have potential. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I'm concerned about your relationship with the deceptively-named user I like to watch BasebaIl, who has only 19 edits, consisting of vandalism and repeated attempts to post info about a non-notable, not-yet-published book. Somehow in this very short time span, this new user found your RfA and voted support, and afterward, you supported him in an AfD process. lowercase 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose a typo in the answers sum it up. More experience needed. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per User:Gwernol above. Blanking a user talk page with warnings is A Bad Thing. Also, you're about 2431 edits (including at least four portal talk edits) short of my usual edit count standards. --Elkman 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Sorry, but I suggest you try again once you've got a bit more experience. --Scott 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Oppose per all above. Sorry. G.He 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Oppose per all above. Also, you have vandalized three times. Once you deleted someone's oppose vote and put in your support vote [2] and twice you tried to close an AFD debate [3] [4]. SCHZMO ✍ 22:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, and user:backburner001 nailed it: this seems more a validation of you as an editor than a legitimate reason to ask for adminship or a need to become an admin ("need" as in Wikipedia's). So, I'll validate your efforts and say, yes, you are on track, even as I oppose your desire to help the project further despite lacking the range of experience you'll need to actually do so. Six months on this path, give or take, and I'll be happy to support you. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Oppose per all above, lacks of experience. --Terence Ong 03:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on. You seem a civil user, which is very good. Civility is a very important quality for n admin so you seem to have a headstart there. First & foremost you should make solid contributions to mainspace articles. After all we are here to build an encyclopedia. You can also try your hand at RC patrolling, which is an important admin task. Also try & participate in WP:AFD's etc & gain experience in the workings of Wikipedia. Follow these guidelines & soon you can be considered to be admin material. I really feel that you should withdraw now before the harsher oppose votes come along. If you want advice or opinions of other users about your performance I suggest you go to WP:ER. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral – again, there are enough oppose votes as it is, and I don't doubt for a moment that this was a good faith (self)nomination. Perhaps the notion that administrators require much more experience than this user has should be made more prominent, on this page or elsewhere? This sort of situation has happened before, we have Wikipedia:Editor review (OK, it's still a "proposal", but it's in use) if editors want their good and bad qualities pointed out; there's no need for them to construct an RfA, and suffer the force of consensus against them as a result – Gurch 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral to avoid pile-on. RfA is not really used for this purpose. We have Wikipedia:Editor review, which is what you were looking for, I think. Besides the reasons noted above, I wanted to address your talk page. You blanked most of it back in March, so I don't believe you meant to hide it in preparation for your RfA. However, if you were trying to archive it (as the edit summary says) then you need to follow this: Talk_page#Etiquette. Ask someone if you need help with that. Thankfully, we can still salvage yours w/o too much trouble.--Chaser (T) 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Actually, per this dif, I think it was in May. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, you are correct. Thanks.--Chaser (T) 10:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Comment. I have no doubt that you mean well, and I know that edit counts are meaningless, but 70 is a bit absurd.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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.Q: 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 would help close AFD pages, welcome new users, block vandals, and cleam up any vandalism bad users try to dish out.

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

A: Castling out of check, is an article I created about a chess move

3.Q: 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 that I know of.
Total edits        69
Distinct pages edited   37
Average edits/page      1.865
First edit      18:27, 24 February 2006
        
(main)  23
Talk    1
User    11
User talk       10
Wikipedia       24
The above 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.