Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ispy1981

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] Ispy1981

Final (2/3/2); Ended 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ispy1981 (talk · contribs) - Been here for seven months, adding articles, adding information to articles, vandal fighting. I see this as the next logical step Ispy1981 08:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I respectfully withdraw my request...for now. Ispy1981 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm mostly interested in vandal fighting.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions, outside of my vandal reversions, would have to be the articles I've created, mostly in the horror vein, such as The Sealed Room and the recent The Boogeyman (1980 film). I also created an article for The Animals' US album.
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: Regrettably, yes. I was involved in an edit war over a disputed credit on the Shelby Young article. In my defense, I originally disputed the credit myself, but talked with other editors on this matter and was satisfied with what I heard. However, another editor was not so pleased and continually removed the credit without discussion. He'd previously left me an abusive comment on my talkpage, before the edit war, so I had a hunch reasoning with him wasn't going to make much difference. Instead, I worked with other editors to come up with an agreeable solution, which still exists today. I usually don't let common everyday vandals get the better of me, and if I find myself stressed, I take a breather before I return. I try and be as polite as I can when responding to challenges over my vandalism warnings.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ispy1981 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Moral Support - clearly a good editor, but q1 doesn't demonstrate an understanding of adminship. I would advise withdrawing this RfA and coming back in a couple of months after gaining more experience, particularly in projectspace. WaltonAssistance! 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, echoing Walton here; you're certainly on the right track, and once you've been here for some time and gained the respect of more editors this RFA will likely succeed. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Started being a noticalbe editor end Feb. this year - I think he needs more time and edits to become an admin. Od Mishehu 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - It is the next step, but you are not ready for it yet. I don't see enough experience with mainspace article editing and your Wikipedia: namespace count shows that you are not involved enough with the community at a level that is expected of an administrator. I too, recommending withdrawal. Plus, there are already alot of vandal-fighters out there, I'd be prepared to support those interested in clearing backlogs, etc. –Sebi ~ 08:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, you say you have been here for 7 months, yet your user log shows that you registered on the 1st April, 2007 (whether you have been on a different account, you need to clarify this). I don't believe you could have thoroughly read all policies and understood the way Wikipedia works in 3 months. –Sebi ~ 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Read that again, it's April 1, 2006. —dgiestc 09:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies, Ispy. –Sebi ~ 09:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose with Moral Support. Get the edit summries up, read the policies and keep on enjoying your valued editing. Your time will come, when you find that you need the tools to progress, but at the moment I can't see you do. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Recommending withdraw. Question 1 does not show the need of tools and that candidate seems lacking sufficient experience with article editing. --WinHunter (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Suggest withdrawal This is unlikely to get any serious support. Its too soon, the user failed to use an edit summary when adding the RFC, edit count is pretty low with 10% of overall edits being in user space and the answers to the questions really suck. Most of these don't both me - except the sucky answers - but its pretty clear that this fails to tick enough boxes to be taken seriously. Spartaz Humbug! 09:17, 3 June 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.