Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueking12

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.

Contents

[edit] Blueking

(0/6/0); Scheduled to end 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW Enigma message 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blueking12 (talk · contribs) - Fair and just Blueking12 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A:Blocking,unblocking,speedy deletion,limited patroling.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:Yes i have done some articles ie norton antibot,FBI BotRost,NFSPS Edit. 61 edits to date.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:yes i have been in 1 small conflict about a year ago with a fellow editer it was just our difference in wikipedia policy i saw his point of view and situation was resolved.

And now i follow and understand the policies more and don't have any conflicts to date and intend to keep that way.

Optional question from Zginder

4. What do you consider the most important English Wikipedia Policy and why?

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

[edit] Discussion

  • Anyone else notice this was created a year ago and was just now transcluded? Tiptoety talk 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No...hadn't noticed. He also created a second one, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blueking12 2‎ which may have been what he intended to include, though they are basically the same anyway and he did first edit this one some before including [1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the second one as G6/housekeeping, thanks --Stephen 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm closing this. 4 60 edits and then an RfA? Account isn't new, but editor is. Enigma message 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose with only 60 edits there is not enough evidence for us to judge how well you know Wikipedia's policies and whether you have the right temperament to fairly apply them. I suggest you get at least 2500 edits over several months before trying an editor review. Best luck, Gwernol 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Can't judge. lack of experience. Sorry. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. OpposeFar too inexperienced.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose and recommend snow close. Only 60 edits, most to own user space. Badly malformed nomination followed by immediate creation of a second nom page. Needs WAY more experience and to learn basic Wikipedia editing and spelling (and their own username)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Thanks for your interest, but I must oppose due to lack of experience. Pleaes also consider using capitalized letters where appropriate. Majoreditor (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with less than/about 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with less than/about 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
    • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
    • My suggestion to any nominees with less than/about 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.