Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth (2)

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] AzaToth

Final (0/8/2) ended 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AzaToth (talk · contribs) – Some time have gone since my last nomination, and I feel that my work here would be so much easier if I had administrator abilities. The main reason I want these abilities, is that most of my work here is behind the scenes, cleaning up and streamline ideas (templates for example). I can't see any reason why I would not be fit for such duty, off course I'm not the most holy person here, I do misstakes, but I try as hard as I can to not be a dick. The main reason I request administrator status, is the abillity to edit protected pages, and in particular templates, because that what I mostly do here at wikipedia, and having to go via another administrator might take their time from more important tasks.→AzaToth 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: →AzaToth 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I withdrawn this nom, as I see now that I have been too bold imposing changes in the process. →AzaToth 16:47, 29 September 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 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: It's a tricky question. It's difficult to exactly say what you will do with your administrative powers, but if there is an administrative backlog that needs to be checked, I'll try what I can. But as I have stated before that most of my work here has been behind the scenes, I could benefit from the abillity to edit and protect/unprotect protected pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I belive that and editor and and administrator do not have to have the same agenda. I havn't created and big featured articles, I have mostly cleaned up and done minor edits. I would say that I'm pleased if I have been able to help others writing good articles, as it's not my expertise to write articles from scratch.
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 must confess that I was a bit too fast on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums by implementing the color change in {{Infobox Album}}, perhaps I should have waited until the straw poll was done, but that's the problem when trying to decide when consensus was reached (I felt that there was a consensus as the end, and that an implementation could be done). There is always a problem trying to reach out to people, asking them for their opinion, often their opinion only arrives after the implementation has been made (when the change is visible to the casual viewer), but we can't either wait until the end of the days to get something done, so we need to try to make it as good as possible, and in this particular example, I was a bit to hasty.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Should have happened last time. Xoloz 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose (switched from Support), because this new format for RfA's is terrible, and somebody refactored my comment substantially, to which I mightily object! Xoloz 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose - Malformed RfA, Insufficent mainspace experience (615 mainspace edits) and unconvincing answers. --WinHunter (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose - Malformed RfA, lack fo MS edits, generall suckyness of this RfA tbh. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Good on you for being bold, but not ready for tools just yet. – Chacor 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you explain for me what you think I'm lacking? →AzaToth 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as I can see, you don't have any real need for the tools. While I applaud your bold move with this RFA formatting, I'm not sure that translates well - will you be overly bold with admin tools? I'd also echo the bit about mainspace edits. – Chacor 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose lack of mainspace edits. Doesn't seem to really need the tools. --Alex (Talk) 16:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I checked some random AfDs, and many of the reasons given did not show much thought; 'non-notable' as the entire AfD nom (twice in the ten random AfD diffs I checked) is not really very helpful, especially as WP:N is an essay. It's also unclear what the tools would be used for (although I don't hold mainspace edit count against RfA candidates). --ais523 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose the clear consensus of those expressing an opinion on recent RfAs has been to use the support/oppose/neutral sections even when the proposed discussion section was available. The attempt to impose the discussion format without an accompanying process or consensus was, even if well intentioned, disruptive. Gwernol 16:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Searing Oppose. Initially malformed RFA; seemingly the user mistook this page as a place to try out a proposed policy in its infancy. If that's not reason enough to oppose, the user has no GAs or FAs and the number of edits to the article mainspace are lower than those for user talk. Wikipedia is not here for social networking: we're here to construct an encyclopedia. The answers are weak and some of the spelling and grammar is all over the shop. No. Moreschi 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (However, I can't work out this refactoring comments business - could somebody provide a diff? Moreschi 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Neutral

  1. I would prefer to see more activity in Wikipedia namespace to obtain familiarity with our processes. >Radiant< 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. What exactly does cleaning up and streamline ideas mean, and why would you need admin abilities to do that? --Kbdank71 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What I ment ws that by cleaning up is that I have tried to help clearing backlogs of articles that are in need of cleanup, streamlining ideas is perhaps a badly choosed word, as I ment helping people reaching consensus, trying not to interfere with my own subjective ideas. As you are right, that's not something in need of administrative abillities, but that was what I wrote I have been doing, not was I was planning to do only if I become admin. →AzaToth 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, you did: The main reason I want these abilities, is that most of my work here is behind the scenes, cleaning up and streamline ideas. So far, I don't see a need for them. Oppose for now. --Kbdank71 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, my bad. I ment that that I would like the abillities because I work mostly behind the scenes, not doing a lot of main space edits, the cleaning up part was more of an example what I have done. →AzaToth 16:34, 29 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.