Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fifaworld07

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] Fifaworld07

Final (0/9/1); Ended 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (closed by ~ Riana ⁂ per WP:SNOW)

Fifaworld07 (talk · contribs) - Fairly good at wikipediaFW07 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

i would like to be an admin becase it will mean i could concentrate on wikipedia more

[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:

Eiditing pages and creating new ones based on infomation on the internet

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:

List of longest running U.K. television series‎ because there was a similar page for Australia and Usa so i thought that it was worth creating a similar page for UK

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:

trying to create a citisms of simpsons page resulted in a edit war but after some consideration i decided it was not worth creating . in the future i will take more consideration in the pages i create

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/fifaworld07 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I would like to be an admin because i have made a contribution to wikipedia. i am not shure what my edit count is but it must be 250+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifaworld07 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 March 2008
  • Your edit count is 298 as of now, with your earliest edit on 5 January 2008. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Lack of experience. Rudget. 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I concur with Rudget; the candidate looks like a good contributor, but I would like to see several more months of quality participation before an RfA. I also suggest that the candidate change their preferences to force the use of an edit summary, as that (edit summary usage) is a critical factor for a successful admin. There are additional resources that may be of benefit, including coaching, but the first step is simply more experience. Best to you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. It is good to see that you're keen, but I also would like to see several months of participation. 298 edits is not only underexperience, but please consider responses to your RFA will use the figure as a basis for your dedication to the project (not necessarily the quality of your contributions). I'd also like to point out to you that if you seek to be an admin here just for the sake of it, commentators on your RFA will not find it very endearing. But I shall assume good faith here and assume your intented undertakings as an administrator would be advantageous to the project, so please consider this RFA constructive criticism, and I hope I can support a future RFA at a later date. If you are truly intrested in contributing to Wikipedia then remember there are still reams of things you can do without being an administrator. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The candidate needs more experience. Majoreditor (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 'I would like to be an admin because i have made a contribution to wikipedia' that really does not seem like a good reason why you should become an admin. Come back in a few months and learn about wikipedia policies and read some admin material and I will consider supporting you. Around 300 edits is now way enough experience, and there are no answers to the questions. Harland1 (t/c) 13:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, heart is really in the right place, but a bit more experience and familiarity with admin-related tasks is required. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
  7. Strong Oppose The candidate is nowhere near ready. ALmost half of his edits are to his user page. I first encountered this user when he copied a section of the main The Simpsons article and moved it to its own article without changing a thing and resisted attempts to merge it with messages such as "stop deleting this page it is useful" and at one point had created two pages with the exact same thing (the other has since been deleted). This was less than two months ago, and I haven't seen any growth or improvement since. As well, not long after he started this RFA, he uploaded an image of various Simpsons characters that is clearly from a poster or some kind of official work, but he claims it is his and used a PD tag. This shows he has no knowledge of image policy. -- Scorpion0422 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose As per the above, candidate needs a lot more experience before he can handle the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Lacks sufficient experience. Suggest close per WP:SNOW. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Per above. For an idea of what is expected of a candidate before they submit an RfA please read User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA . I hope to see you back here with more experience in a few months time. Regards, EJF (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (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.