Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Minesweeper.007

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] Minesweeper.007

(1/10/1); Withdrawn by candidate at 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) - I've been an active editor since Nov 2006. I've been participating in Wikiproject Cats and Wikiproject Warriors, Templates for Deletion, spelling and grammar fixes and most importantly keeping vandals at bay. I am patient, kind and helpful to anyone who asks and to anyone who I notice needs help. I have gone by the names of Darkest Hour, Razorclaw and now Minesweeper.007. Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I withdraw per WP:SNOW & also because I need to get more involved. Thank you all for your advice. Regards, Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 13 September 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 as much as possible.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say my best contributions to Wikipedia have been those to Wikiproject Warriors.

A short list of what I did to Warriors (novel series):

  • I got it organized,
  • I uploaded pictures,
  • I fixed spelling,
  • I fixed grammar,
  • I fixed formatting,
  • etc.

I think these edits have helped move the article from a jumbled mess to a halfway decent 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: I've had one or two arguments but none serious. The was one user who caused me a lot of stress. I dealt with it mainly by being kind. After a while he left me alone and my life was back to normal. I have taken wikibreaks whenever stress has gotten to me. I plan to continue being kind and caring to all, because when I'm rude it causes everyone unneeded stress. Being kind and caring, it keeps stress to a minimal level.

[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/Minesweeper.007 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support Pleasure to see Darkest Hour Back at RfA. I recalled(back when I was User:Wikipedier) that he was going to help fight vandals. Good luck!--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose. Sorry. You look like a good editor, but I am concerned that you may have a bit of a lack of experience (zero edits to AFD), and your answers to the questions (especially #1) don't really show an understanding of what adminship is. I suggest that you continue contributing, and reapply in a few months' time. Melsaran (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    Q #1 I've fixed. I have also edited AFD. Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. You appear a fine and civil editor but I think your familiarity with the administrative side is weak. I note that here [1] you say you are thinking of retiring. Something change? Perhaps a couple of months of reporting and such would make all the difference. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    I did consider retirement but I realized that the Wikipedia needed my efforts. Also I considered retirement because my real life was in need of repair. Now that my real life is mostly on track, I came back. You are right in saying that my "familiarity with the administrative side is weak". That is because I have no administrative experience at all. Thank you for your opinion, Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per answers to questions, as well as lack of admin-related edits. Jmlk17 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I find answers a little weak, and a lot of your edits are to your own userpages. I also don't think you have much experience in the Wikipedia space, compared to your other edits. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose an obvious lack of experience, both with RFA and admin-related tasks. VanTucky Talk 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Get more experience. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose sorry Minesweeper. I know you won't abuse the tools, I was your adopter after all, but you just don't have the experience necessary to be trusted with the tools. I recommend withdrawal. The Hybrid 03:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - You really don't have a suitable amount of Wikipedia namespace edits (Under 1,000, which is in my books, the bare minimum...). Also, you have a very high level of User namespace edits, which is in fact your second highest namespace edit group - This really should be lower and be ranked about 4th or lower in regard to ranking etc. I think you're a nice editor and you won't abuse the tools, but I don't feel you have the knowledge to become an admin just yet. I'd withdraw your nom before you think everyone hates you (We don't) and begin working on those aspects which the people above and I have commented on. Have a great week and keep at it. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 06:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    A bare minimum of 1000 wikipedia space edits?! I have a strong urge to burn those books of yours. And great job coming up with a new metric to assess suitability or adminship: The Namespace Ranking System- TwoOars (Rev) 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yep, a bare minimum. I'm not prepared to let someone who's been here three months, has 250 edit to Wikipedia and says they want to "fight vandals" be an admin, which so many are prepared to do nowadays. See my RfA standards page and I'll assure you you'll see they're reasonable requirements for something which should be reserved for the best on Wikipedia. Spawn Man 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - very erratic edit counts, a huge amount one month followed by just 13 another, although we all must understand that in real-life situations, this is often inevitable. But the answers to the questions seem rushed and display minimal understanding. However, you are heading along the right track. Please take on board the issues raised here, work on them, and re-apply in a few months. You should be ready then. Lradrama 08:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose and Suggest Withdrawl Please do not be discouraged. You have done some great and helpful work here, my problem was finding it in you contribution history amongst the relentless edits to your user page, your user boxes and your monobook.js file. I'm sorry, but I have nothing to judge your temprament on at this time. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  10:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I can't decide. I feel as if there is some ground to not support this user, but I do not see anything so major that I should oppose her. Sorry:(--SJP 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    Why do you say "her"? This seems to suggest the user is a male. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    Lol - The "I'm male" factoid is a giveaway... ;) Spawn Man 06:22, 13 September 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.