Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flarn2005

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] Flarn2005

Voice your opinion (3/8/6) Ended 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Flarn2005 (talk · contribs) – I once nominated myself for adminship, but later withdrew myself. I have decided to try again. I have many more edits now, and although I have done plenty of vandalism earlier, I have not done any more for a while, and I don't plan to ever again. I have created three portals: Software, Geometry, and Electronics. I have made many useful contributions and hope I can become an administrator. If I become one, I believe I will do an excellent job. FLaRN(talk) 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. FLaRN(talk) 04:20, 26 November 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: Getting requested tasks done quicker, such as speedy deletions, edits to protected pages, and if a bot gets out of hand, blocking it to prevent further damage. FLaRN(talk) 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have made many useful contributions, but if I had to pick some of my favorites, I would need to pick the three portals I created. I find it pretty hard to believe that they hadn't already been created! FLaRN(talk) 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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 haven't been in any conflicts that I can remember (I have been on Wikipedia for a long time) but if I ever do get into one, first of all if the three-revert rule is broken, I would take the appropriate action, otherwise I would try and talk it out on the other person's talk page. FLaRN(talk) 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
4. If you were in a content dispute with a user, and the user resorted to violating 3RR, or civility, which specific actions would you take? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A:
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. --Dario vet 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support and suggested Withdraw, I understand you have good intentions but the edit count is very low too low for most less than 300 mainspace is not what RFAers like to see. I will not oppose you for vandalism since everyone makes mistakes and you have moved on past your mistakes. But the answer to Q1 is all that every one needs to see.___Seadog ♪ 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Edit conflicted moral support but urge withdrawal per Seadog. The candidate's recent edits are definitely on the right track, and I certainly don't want him to become discouraged, but there is a need for more experience and more distancing from prior issues before an RfA can succeed. Withdrawal now in deference to consensus would improve your chances for next time when you really are ready. Not to revive an age-old debate, but I will disagree with the opposer who mentioned age as a negative (though I know it was only one factor on a long list), but in this case there are enough other difficulties that not even the cute puppy on the userpage can push this over the top just yet. Newyorkbrad 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry but 256 mainspace edits (out of a total edit count of 1232) [1] isn't enough editing experience at the best of times, but particularly not for someone who has "done plenty of vandalism." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Sarah. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above, and I find the answer to Q1 especially weak. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose A history of vandalism, not nearly enough article work-only a couple hundred mainspace edits, very spotty participation, no claim to enforcement or respect of policy, no history of POV or vandalism combating, no real claimed understanding of sysop (agree that #1 was weak), no history of mediation, is only 13 years old, self proclaimed "computer genius", pride in causing conflict [2],etc ,etc. WP:SNOWBALL. NeoFreak 07:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per those above. Not enough experience (in absolute or mainspace terms) to warrant it. Also the answers to the questions don't exactly fill me with confidence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I'm sorry, but an intermittent 1200 edits is not enough for me, and I think that you have not got a good enough sense for the responsibility of adminship due to the answers to your questions. However, try again in about 3-4 months and I may support you then. -- Casmith 789 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose like the person said above, didn't answer the questions in a manner that was good enough for me. also the vandalism is worrying to me, really wasn't that long enough ago. if you are serious about becoming an admin and taking on what that requires my i suggest creating a new account and starting from scratch? would remove the bad memories people could have of your previous edits. and would show only the good side of yourself, or at least i'd hope so. Mathmo 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Almost all of your edits are on templates, Wikipedia pages, categories, userpages, and talk pages. Where are the mainspace edits? SupaStarGirl 16:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The lack of mainspace edits is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, lack of mainspace edits. It's more important to have a sufficient amount of mainspace edits since this is an encyclopedia, and we are working towards that goal to be a better encyclopedia. Lacks of experience overall, go and create some articles and we shall see in future. --Terence Ong (C | R) 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. History of vandalism is bad, but workable, moving both Brainfuck to Brainf*ck and Toilet humour to Toilet humor (the latter because "the correct spelling has no u") is worse, but again, workable. But your contribution history seems to show you came back to actively contributing again for a month and a half, and then promptly renominated yourself for adminship. After three or four months of active contribution, try again. However, I'd like to register that I don't care about your low mainspace edits. Encyclopedias need behind the scenes people, too. -Amarkov blahedits 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I cannot see this having any hope of passing for all the reasons given above so I have gone neutral to prevent a pile on. ViridaeTalk 09:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral The candidate's statement and answers are rather weak and the spread of edits is rather low, especially as more than a few are self-confessed vandalism. Not knowing the difference in usage between American and British English on Wikipedia is also cause for concern. This nomination is best withdrawn at the earliest opportunity. You could try admin coaching to prepare you for another attempt in a few months' time, along with an editor review to highlight areas of your Wiki-work that require improvement. (aeropagitica) 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. No hope of passing anytime soon. Please take all the comments given here into mind and work hard at building the wiki. The issues regarding AmE and BrE are concerning. – Chacor 10:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I admire the enthusiasm you display, but you need way more experience my friend. ← ANAS Talk 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Sorry, but your lack of edits and some history of vandalism makes me stay neutral. Hello32020 15:36, 26 November 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.