Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattl2001

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] Mattl2001

FINAL (2/9/1); ENDED 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mattl2001 (talk · contribs) - I have edited Wikipedia consistently from May until now. During the month, I have reverted vandalism on many pages and I have looked for pages to put under criteria for speedy deletion. I have not been in involved in any major disputes or edit wars. I have always responded to users in a positive and polite manner. I probably won't get your support because I have only been on wikipedia for a month but I thought I would try anyways.

I think I would make a good administrator because I spend a lot of time on wikipedia cleaning up vandalism and correcting info on articles. I have not been involved in any disputes and I have been a positive contributor to wikipedia.

[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 consistently look through the recent changes to correct vandalism and other nonsense. I also send messages to users who do vandalize pages. I also contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner and I go through the new pages and post citeria for speeddy deletion on malformed articles. I often spend hours on wikipedai at a time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are my consistent correction for vandalism on wikipedia and my consistent searches for articles that meet the criteria for deletion. I have also shown kindness towards other users including those who had vandalized pages which I feel helps to maintain a positive environment.
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 have only been involved in one conflict that I could remember. Although I guess it wasn't really a conflict but a small misunderstanding which I quickly resolved. This one user reverted my edit because I corrected his previous edit which I thought was wrong info but turned out to be right. I sent him a message apologizing to him and suggested that he cite his sources in the future to avoid disputes. In my defense the info he entered did sound like incorrect info and many other users mistook it for incorrect info. I have never been in any serious edit wars, accused of vandalism, or conflicts with other users.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mattl2001 before commenting.

I just want to thank everyone for their feedback. You have all been very helpful. Thanks. Mattl2001 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: These Rfas should be easier to set up. Mattl2001 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They really aren't difficult :) Majorly (talk | meet) 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here are some of examples of my removal of vandalism

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support You seem to have done many reverts of vandalism. I believe you need more experience though but i'll support you for trying. Blueman102 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, looks like you have a strong start here; several more months amd consistent, helpful editing will surely propel a future RFA to success. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I am afraid I have to oppose - you have only been active for one month, most of your edits are reverts of vandalism (which is a good thing), but it is too early to say if you understand Wikipedia well enough to be entrusted with adminship, after just one month and less than five hundred edits. Give yourself enough three or four months to better acclimate yourself to Wikipedia. Join one of the projects and expose yourself to a broader range of Wikipedia that way. --Ozgod 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Far too inexperienced. You have only recently joined the project, and have yet to truly find what you like and would want to contribute to around here. Plus, no offense, you seem to even have a difficult time setting up your Rfa. Please expand your horizons around here, join some projects, and then try again after you have built up a bit. Jmlk17 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As much as I like to support almost everyone per WP:ADMIN#No_Big_Deal, I think that you haven't fully grasped policies. I would probably support you in a few months however when your edit count is above 700 and you've gained everyone's trust. Moral support, but still opposing. --IdeologyTalk to me £ 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per answers to the questions. I believe with more experience to the project, this candidate will be suitable to run for adminship again. Miranda 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Your attitude towards database hygiene is good but one month is far too short a period of time in order to gain proficiency at this and to get a grounding in the policies and guidelines that govern the actions of admins here. Your answers to the standard questions aren't explicit enough and don't provide evidence in the form of diffs, which is the ideal way of highlighting good and bad edits. Try again in four or five months when you have built up a solid evidence base from which to draw examples of your aptitude with admin-related tasks. (aeropagitica) 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose you've only been active one month. And you nominated yourself, which technically is allowed however I feel that it shouldn't be, especially for someone who's been active for less time than me Black Harry 04:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. You've done good work so far, but none of us are to know for how long that will continue. Come back when you have a bit more experience (more edits, particularly in the project namespace) and a bit more confidence that you'll pass, and I'm sure you will. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    "PS: These Rfas should be easier to set up" - no, they shouldn't; administrator candidates should be better qualified and more experienced, because anyone who is will find filing an RfA easy. Daniel 10:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I agree with Daniel, RfA's are easy to set up. I do think you're on the right track but I think you should:
    • Get 5-6 months of experience before re-applying
    • Get involved in other areas of Wikipedia and not just vandal fighting, (.e.g #Maintenance)
    You have a userbox on your userpage saying you are seeking adoption from an experienced editor, admins are expected to have at least 5 months experience and certainly not be being adopted (although they can be adopters). Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Per below two thousand edits, and lack of experience. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Excellent work so far, but you really do need some more time here. In addition try and get around the 'pedia a bit more to see what admin tasks there are other than vandalism fighting. I won't oppose as I think this is a WP:SNOW RfA I'm afraid, and I want to lend some moral support. Please don't feel discouraged, and keep up you excellent attitudfe. Pedro |  Chat  08:02, 1 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.