Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Highfields

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] Highfields

Final (0/10/1); Ended per WP:SNOW 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Highfields (talk · contribs) - A responsible user with a high edit count. Been an admin before on another wiki so I know the responsibilities and how to use them responsibly. I have participated in many community discussions about deletions and have adopted a user and so know about helping the community. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[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: Articles for deletion mainly
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created many good articles such as Highfields School and Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/World Flags and made serious contributions to Matlock, Derbyshire
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 was once involved in an argument with User:Arothi about an adoption issue, I dealt with it calmly and compromised and I would like to think I would use this approach in the future

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose – Sorry to say, at this time. In reviewing your talk page, I noticed that there are more than a few comments concerning policy as recently as last month. In that you will have the tools to enforce policy, I believe you should also know policy. Come back with some more experience. Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  11:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Reluctant oppose, I don't feel you have the experience required to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose apx. 25% of your edits are to your user page or sub page. I appreciate you may be an admin on bondpedia but we need evidence on en.wikipedia I'm afraid. In addition your Q1 was very dispointing. Also, perhaps you might like to consider forcing an edit suammry via your preferences. Pedro :  Chat  11:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, lack of edit summary usage, patchy knowledge of policy as per user's talk page. I can see your heart is in the right place, but I don't think you have the necessary experience yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
  5. Strong Oppose less than 1000 total edits, and spotty edit summary usage. Recommend closure per WP:SNOW. ArcAngel (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
    • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
    • WP:Admin
    • the admin reading list.
    • 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 viewed by many as essential to adminship. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to fulfill this. 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 acceptable.
    • My suggestion to any nominees with < 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 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Needs experience. Please pay attention to the suggestions above and try again down the road. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Looking at your contribution history, I believe that you have not spent enough "in-wiki" time to understand our policies and guidelines, let alone how to enforce them. Further, edits such as "self proclaimed 'Head of Bondpedia Advertising on Wikipedia'" demonstrate a lack of understanding of wiki policies, in my opinion (see WP:NOT. I counsel a self-withdrawal at this point until such time as you better understand, and take part in, the project. -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Lack of experience is the issue here. I recommend WP:ADMINCOACH and editor review as time progresses for constructive criticism/analysis and didactic experience. Good luck mate! Also, this should be closed per WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Just not enough experience yet. Doesn't use edit summaries. For an example of what many editors require in an RFA candidate, please see my standards. If you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Regrettably. I would advise you to carefully learn Wikipedia's policies and to gain more experience at WP:XfD and WP:CSD. Some more experience reverting vandalism and becoming more familiar of WP:AIV would also be pleasing. The answers to your questions are also a bit short, and it is preferred that nominees give more detailed answers as to why they need the tools and how they would be used. Turning on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" (found in My preferences → Editing) would be helpful as it is considered necessary to always use edit summaries as they provide useful information to fellow editors. Also, keep up the article writing and I would suggest to come back in 3-6 months with more editing experience, preferably at least 3000 more edits. Regards, EJF (talk) 14:39, 17 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.