Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Businessman332211 3

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] Businessman332211

(0/4/0); Ended 18:18, 01 December 2007 (UTC). Closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Qst 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Businessman332211 (talk · contribs) - I tried over a month ago. I have gotten a lot more experience and was trying again. businessman332211 17:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement- Ia tried this 2 times before. The first 2 were close together because I wasn't that good with requests for adminship. Since then I have come a long way. It was over a month ago since I last tried. Since that time I have expanded in many areas

  • I have learnt a lot more policies than I did before.
  • There was only 2 policies I didn't fully understand as of one week ago and I have dug into them enough to get a good understanding of them (with help from a couple of wikipedians and there detailed explanations of them). I also asked a lot of questions to a few knowledgeable wikipedians.
  • I had 2 of them I was working on recently and the last 2 policies I just came to terms with were wp: fiction, and wp:not. I learnt those 2 pretty thouroughly (the rest I had already known and/or learnt but those 2).
  • I have learnt a lot about how backlog works and how to deal with it.
  • I have learnt how to get involed in afd's, and rfa's. I have learnt how an admin is also suppose to get involved in other forms of wikipedia use.

I was asked my thoughts on the following policies WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V I have left my thoughts for each one below.

  • WP:RS - I feel reliable sources are a very important part of wikipedia and it's what makes wikipedia, wikipedia. I feel that it's very important towards the main goals of wikipedia because we are here to make an encyclopedia, never has an encyclopedia withtained original research. Reliable sources are a way to verify that what is being said in an article is indeed truth.
  • WP:N - I believe that what wikipedia is not is very valuable. We are a wikipedia, we are a free source of information but everything has it's limited. The not policy is there to help editors keep into perspective what we are trying to accomplish at wikipedia and what we are not trying to accomplish. Without it wikipedia would have a lot of things that would be deviating from our original goal.
  • WP:V - I believe verifiability goes hand in hand with sources. With proper sources, you have verifiability, without them you don't.


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am a completionist. I intend to get involed in everything wikipedia has to offer at one time or another. I definitely plan to focus a lot of attention on various types of backlog. Currently I have been spending a lot of time in backlogs like cleanup, expand, and wikify. As an admin I intend to do the things i have already done. I intend to make random edits and randomly fix articles, as well as work on backlog as before. but as an admin there are new tasks I want to get involved in. I want to start getting involved in vandals more. I want to help new wikipedian's with requests for admin intervention. I intend to also participate in backlogs that only admins can deal in (moves, speedy deletions, afd's, and others.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best contributions are spread throughout wikipedia overall. My biggest the one I think I am most proud of I think would be the extra work I have put into the "need's cleaned" backlog. I have had times when I have been able to (in one day) make great progress towards catching up the backlog.
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: I have made it a point to try and refrain from it. I have gotten upset multiple times but I try to remain civil throughout all ordeals. If I can't handle something I will definitely call for support and let someone else deal as a intermediary. However generally if the other person is somewhat reasonable then I am able to work things out to the end without much of a problem. I have had 2 problems with various editors. One I had mistaken someone putting an article for afd, and I had said something about it, because I thought it was suppose to be there but I was mistaken and had looked at the wrong article. I apologized after that, but never heard a response back. There was another few occassions where i had a problem with specific things adn got into major discussions with other editor's. It ended in the end generally with me understanding I was partially/fully in the wrong and after reflecting made every effort to apologize after I had time to think about it. However I feel I remained civil so far through everything that has occured.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Businessman332211 Requests for adminship/Businessman332211 2 Requests for adminship/Businessman332211 3

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/businessman332211 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose for the moment unless you greatly clarify your answers to the questions. I respect the fact that they're optional, but you've not answered a single one of them to indicate what you've done in the past, what you intend to do, why you want to be an admin. And I strongly doubt that there are really "only two policies you didn't understand a week ago, and you now understand them". For example, in light of Urban-Rivals (created by yourself, and last edited by yourself three days ago), do you feel you understand WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V, which are two of Wikipedia's most widely accepted guidelines and one non-negotiable official policy, respectively? And would you care to explain how Stephen Hagan (created by yourself a month ago, total content "Steven Hagan is an Australian activist") is acceptable? — iridescent 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Of course I will explain, and I apologize about vague answers, I will go back and re-write the answers in more detail. Ok, let me get started with explaining. Ok the guidelines, I will explain in the above answers when I rewrite. as for the urban rival's, that was the last article I created. That was before I understood the wp: fiction. after sitting down in the afd and really thinking over it, plus my discussions with emporer, I have come to terms with understanding that policy in detail. After learning that, I decided to create articles more carefully, and pour more time into there initial creation. As for steven Hagan that was a little while back and I have an explanation. That was a dumb article for me to create. At that time I had this strange assumption that red links needed pages. I saw the red link on an article, and I created it porting some of the data for the other article to get it started. The "right" thing to do (which I understand now) would have been to look throughout google and other sources to see if it was notable enough for it's own article. Then to compile the data into a substantial article, instead of just creating one to fill that red link. This is knowledge I intend to carry with me throughout the future, and have tried not to make that same mistake. I am re-answering my questions above as we speak. --businessman332211 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Three RfAs in two months suggests an overeagerness for the tools. You've only been active here for just over two months, and have 1100 edits. I would suggest you withdraw this RfA, spend a few months getting more acquainted with our policies and practices, making good edits and writing articles, and then come back. GlassCobra 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Poor grammar, spelling errors, etc. --DlaeThe Freudian Slip 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Please withdraw. Apparently, you don't know how to nominate yourself for adminship, and you appear not to be very serious. In fact, I see an administrator abusing his privileges, so please. -Goodshoped 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    And I've been here for four months, and have 3838 edits, and still I can't get adminship. -Goodshoped 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    I do not mind being criticized. That is fine. I do not mind listening to advice, I do not even mind losing this as it'll be a learning experience and tell me where I need to build off of. But do not insult me. The fact that you claim I am not being serious is completely disrespectful. I am very angry because of that, but I will remain civil. Whatever you would like to say in criticism that is fine, but do not be disrespectful. wikipedia is VERY important to me, or I wouldn't spend hours upon hours here trying to contribute. I don't take anything on or about wikipedia as a joke. I could easily do something else with my time. But I stay here because I don't think it's a joke. I wouldn't get on here, and spend hours trying to clean backlog, and spend hours making contributions, and spend hours helping out with rfa's, and other categories. The last thing I do is take this or anything related to wikipedia as a joke. --businessman332211 18:17, 1 December 2007 (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.