Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hiphopchamp

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] Hiphopchamp

Final (1/11/1); Closed per WP:SNOW 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiphopchamp (talk · contribs) - Hiphopchamp (Justin) has been a great contributor to many Wikipedia articles over the past two years. He revises articles critically and corrects any spelling or grammar that needs to be fixed. He makes sure that all information is cited by a reliable resource properly, and erase unverified sources that are left there simply because a user thinks that something is a certain way. Unless it has a source, it is speculation. He also deletes any personal opinions left on an article by a user, and he also deletes vandalism, of course. Justin promises that if granted adminship, he will work to make Wikipedia a better and more accurate source of information for any and all visitors to the site. Hiphopchamp 17:49, 1 October 2007 (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: I intend to take part in any and all work that comes with the title of Wikipedia Administrator. I would take my administrative responsibilities very seriously.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are all of the edits I make, whether I add information that is properly cited, or delete other users uncited information or vandalism. All of the information that I add is worth noting in the article and is ALWAYS properly cited. When I read an article, I am always on the lookout for speculation, uncited information, or vandalism, which I immediately erase from the article.
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: Yes, I have had my fair share of editing conflicts, which usually consist of one user repeatedly adding unverified information to an article simply because the users in question are "pretty sure they heard it somewhere." I have dealt with this by looking for somewhere the information may be confirmed. If there was no such source, I delete it. In the future, I would continue to do the same, and if i notice a certain user repeatedly vandalising or adding unconfirmed information to an article, I would suspend the users account.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hiphopchamp before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Weak Support. Experienced editor with regards to time, but doesn't show knowledge of adminship (please read WP:ADMIN). Answer to Q3 shows understanding of policy (namely WP:OR). I suggest sticking around for a few months and then trying again. In the mean time, I'd be happy to adopt you to help you out. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. 74 total edits (if am I reading the counts correctly)? Far too few to be considered for adminship at this time. Also, edit summaries seem more like the exception rather than the rule. Try again after a few more months and a lot more experience. Also, please turn on forced edit summary option on your preferences, will enforce good editing habits. Ronnotel 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience to be considered for adminship. No edits in Wikipedia namespace except in WP:RFA. Doesn't use edit summaries. Answers to questions show that more experience is necessary to understand what administrators do. I recommend waiting a few more months, a couple thousand edits, editing in WP:XFD (my favorite of which is WP:AFD), reading over policies, and always using edit summaries. I also recommend withrawing this RFA. If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on my talk page. Useight 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Sorry, but far, far too little activity to be ready for adminship. --StuffOfInterest 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for now based on activity. If this RfA doesn't pass, I hope you'll consider reapplying in some time. Best, — xDanielx T/C 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. If you want to be an admin, you need to be willing to explain your actions, better so in advance. Consider using edit summaries. Milto LOL pia 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose with the possibility of support in a future RfA. Sorry, but I cannot support a candidate that has a total of 74 edits and an edit summary usage of 6% for major edits and 0% for minor edits (Based on the last 63 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace.) I recommend that you withdraw this RfA and become more active in the Wikipedia community. Regards, nattang 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per all the above. Phgao 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not enough edits or experience yet. Please come back when you are ready. Also you should try to use edit summaries more. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose With only 74 edits this request has absolutely no chance of succeeding. I earnestly suggest that you withdraw it now, before some other adm,in closes it per [[WP:SNOW]. Over the last year no-one has been made admin with less than 1000 edits, and nearly all have had more than 2000. A high percentage had 3000+. And you must leave edit summaries, which you seem to not often be doing. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Sorry, not nearly enough edits, and according to your contributions, you haven't even been editing for a year. With a few more months of experience and some more editing (and edit summaries), I think you could possibly become an admin. -jj137 T/C 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose You have only 32 in yours last months, you need to be more active and participate more on Wikipedia space such as WP:XFD. Thus you have not the experience to be a admin, but keep with your job, perhaps in next 4 or 5 months you may request a RfA again. Good luck. Carlosguitar 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Please WP:SNOWBALL this.SYSS Mouse 21:16, 1 October 2007 (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.