Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leotolstoy

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] Leotolstoy

Final (2/10/6) Ended 23:37, 07 November 2006 (UTC)

Leotolstoy (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have been using wikipedia for more than a year. I used to edit anonymously for a very long time before creating this account. I am not good at writing new material, but good at fact verification and adding additional info. From my previous posts you can see that I am a good consensus builder. Leotolstoy 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:self nomination Leotolstoy 17:40, 6 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: NPOV disputes, Articles to be split and Articles with unsourced statements.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of my contributions to University of Massachusetts Amherst article. I am still working on it and making it suitable for FA candidate. I have been also contributing to Karnataka article. I am trying to make it a compact encyclopedia quality article. I have tried to restructure Belgaum article.
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: Belgaum article had lot of POV issues. I tried to divert from overtly attention given to the dispute by creating new sections and adding more information. Still this page has lot of POV issues. If I am made an administrator, I will try to restructure this article into a better shape.
General comments

Leotolstoy's editcount summary stats as of 17:57, November 6th 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Leotolstoy's response I thank you all for the comments. I would like to wait for some more time before withdrawing.Leotolstoy 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • My ip address is 128.119.242.10
  • I really have no interest in writing new material. I am really interested in cleaning up and clearing disputes and I think having administrative tools would help me in that direction.
  • Thanks for the Moral Support. I still want to wait for some more time before withdrawing.


Discussion


Support

  1. Moral Support I fully concur in Jcam's comment below, and urgue to withdraw before this gets any worse. I also hope y take this advice well, and become a better Wikipedian for this.-- danntm T C 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral support, because you're a good user and I'm glad to see your enthusiasm. Fortunately, even though you probably won't succeed in this RfA, you can help with the tasks you nominated above without having to become an administrator - they're still accessible to you as a normal user. Please stick around for a few months more and try to make at least a couple of edits each day in that time, and ask for a editor review every now and again to see how you're going. Good luck in the future! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Fewer than 500 edits suggests inexperience. Try again in a couple of months. Also, from your answer to #1, I see no need for you to have administrative tools. --Wafulz 18:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. As Walfuz said, I don't believe you have enough experience yet; though you may have edited from an IP account I think you ought to provide details on that account (i.e. IP number) or I don't see how we can judge you based on what you did before you created this username. Also, regarding your answer to question #3, you certainly don't need to be a sysop to improve an article.--Caliga10 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Your enthusiasm is welcome but you require a lot more experience and involvement with administrative-oriented tasks. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. I suggest self-withdrawal.--Húsönd 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The only admin tool use for unsourced articles is deletion. The only use for admin tools in an edit dispute or POV problem would be blocking other users or protecting the page. Would like to see you exercise your article and consensus buiding skills a bit more before handing you last resort powers. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per lack of experience. Michael 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Try again after you get 2,000+ edits and have maintained a good reputation on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose - under 500 edits, little experience shown, answers are short. ST47Talk 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please try to avoid biting. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose due to lack of experience and the stated objectives don't need the admin tools --Steve 01:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made less than 350 edits. Most succesful admin candidates have at least 2000. You only became a registered user in mid-July, and your contribution history indicates that you've only been contributing very consistently since mid-August. (And the IP address you claim to have edited from anonymously before has made less than 20 edits, most of them in July 2006.[1]) Successful admin candidates usually have a notably longer track record of consistent contributions than you have. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future. Zaxem 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I wasn't going to pile on here, but the answer to #3 is concerning. Administative privledges should not enter into the equation of editing a contentious article. Just the opposite is true—administrators should avoid exercising their admin privledges in content disputes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I would say that 325 edits doesn't give anyone enough experience to be an admin here. Try contributing to XfD discussions, fighting vandalism on the New Pages/ Recent Changes pages, talking to editors through vandal warnings, editing pages and being part of projects such as Esperanza. Also try contribtuing to the Good and Featured Articles discussions and also assisting other editors at the Help and Reference Desks. These are only some of the possible places to gain admin-task experience. You can try again in three/four months or 2-3000 edits' time. As a follow-up, withdraw this RfA and go and open an editor review. This will give you a guide to contributing effectively, perhaps with an eye on adminship in the future. You can also go to admin coaching at Esperanza for more in-depth assistance. (aeropagitica) 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I am sorry, but none of the work the candidate promises (NPOV disputes, Articles to be split and Articles with unsourced statements, restructure this article into a better shape)needs admin tools  Doctor Bruno  18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. You can do everything you described in question #1 right now. No admin tools necessary. Grandmasterka 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Please consider what I and the other users above are saying in that we recommend that you withdrawal. As I write this, your nomination stands at 0 Supports, 4 Opposes, and 4 Neutrals(including my own). It will likely get much worse. You may get a few morale supports- but those will be token gestures meant to not make you feel the community is against you, not genuine support. A request for administration is something which many(perhaps even most) of us take very seriously. It's not a trophy given to great editors. It's more like a mop and bucket. I'm not sure if I would ever nominate myself. Edit a little bit longer and should you feel you want this responsbility, there are ways to improve your chances. There is an editor review page so you can get feedback on your contributions. There is admin coaching on esperanze where you can get help on becoming the candidate people will vote for on this page. There is now even a proposal for admin school where you can ask questions about the process. But please understand that as of this moment, most of the people here will not support this nomination. btw. I think you might be underestimating your writing ability. You got into U Mass, you can't be that bad of a writer. Should you need help in becoming a better candidate, feel free to ask me here or ask any of the users above. I know many of them and they would be glad to help in any way possible. Jcam 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. There have been lots of helpful comments made in each section. Please consider withdrawing before this becomes too hurtful (it happens), and take on board the useful advice given above. All the best. riana_dzasta 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. As per many above, i can't support due to lack of proven experience, but would not like to oppose to discourage, as i think you have shown no evidence that you would be a poor administrator either. Please just carry on as you have and, in a few months, try again. I'm sure you will have a much more positive experience at RfA. Good luck! Rockpocket 06:15, 7 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.