Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123

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] Danielrocks123

Final (1/10/0) ended 03:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Danielrocks123 (talk · contribs) – I feel that I can be an excelent sysop although I haven't been around wikipedia for long because I am dedicated to creating a useful online encyclopedia. So far, I have spent most of my Wikipedia time on new page patrol requesting speedy deletes, adding to some stubs, and just making sure everything was going well. I feel that as a sysop, I will be able to help in any situation where an admin is needed. Danielrocks123 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. --Danielrocks123 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Moral Support You seem like a nice guy and a great addition to the project (as displayed by your eagerness to take on a bigger role). However, you might want to withdraw this RFA from consideration, as you might become discouraged by the large number of oppose votes that could come. I suggest checking out some of the recent successful RFA's to see what the community is looking for in an administrator. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Mid-wikibreak oppose, too new, malformed RFA. NSLE 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Way too soon.Voice-of-All 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose you have only been editing since June 4, and have fewer than 200 edits with very little user of edit summaries. Your RfA was also malformed (placed at the end of the RfA list). I'm sorry but you need a lot more experience both in time spent and the number of edits you have before anyone can fairly judge your suitability to be an admin here. Good luck next time, Gwernol 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - has been a member for too little time. I hope to be able to vote "Support" next time =) Kalani [talk] 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose you've only been editing for 8 days mate, I suggest you read up about being admin and look at successful RFAs.--Andeh 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per my different standards on different days. Most notably: (f) < 1000 edits (and eight days of editing) and (o) malformed RfA. joturner 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per comments above.--SomeStranger(t|c) 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Daniel, the standards now are pretty high. I agree that you probably would make a good administrator, but this RfA simply can't succeed. - Richardcavell 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sad Oppose. Just not enough experience yet. Keep it up, and you'll make a great admin someday! G.He 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Username        Danielrocks123
Total edits     156
Distinct pages edited   81
Average edits/page      1.926
First edit      22:01, June 4, 2006
        
(main)  71
User    9
User talk       5
Wikipedia       71
 G.He 03:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User contributions.Voice-of-All 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Danielrocks123 (over the 155 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 8 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 13, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 5, June, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 155 edits): Major edits: 5.92% Minor edits: 0%
Average edits per day: 19.38 (for last 155 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 71 edits) : Major article edits: 8.7% Minor article edits: 0%
Analysis of edits (out of all 155 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0% (0)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 5.16% (8)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 25%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 66 | Average edits per page: 2.35 | Edits on top: 14.84%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 98.06% (152 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 1.94% (3 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0% (0 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 92.26% (143 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 45.81% (71) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 5.81% (9) | User talk: 3.23% (5)
Wikipedia: 45.16% (70) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)
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, 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 try to work with important chores such as NP patrol, reverting vandalism, AFDs, page moves, etc. while getting started and learning about the responsibilities of a sysop. After I am used to the job, I'll start undertaking more ellaborate duties.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As I've only been a member of the Wikipedia community for a short while, there is no specific article with which I am particularly pleased; however, I feel that all of the contributions that I make are legitimate and helpful for the community.
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: There was one instance where an editor continued to repost a nonsense page even after I put the {{db-repost}} template on the page repeatedly. Eventually he left a disparaging remark on my talk page. Overall, though, most of my encounters with Wikipedia editors have been pleasant.
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.