Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Movementarian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Movementarian

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final tally (0/4/6) Ended 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Movementarian (talk · contribs) – I realise that it is frowned upon, but I would like to take this opportunity to nominate myself for Adminship. I have been a registered user for over a year, but I was inactive for six or seven months due to receiving a promotion at work. I have a little over 1,200 edits for those using that as a criterion. Prior to my absence I was involved in the Articles for Deletion process and I performed a few maintenance tasks such as helping with the Transwiki backlog and removing links to disambiguation pages. I will be returning to those activities as I ease back into the community.

I am an excellent candiaite for adminship despite my obvious flaws (my absence and edit count) and I am sure that by reviewing my edit history, many will reach the same conclusion. I am calm, polite, and I do not get so entrenched in one position that I refuse to consider opposing views. My ultimate goal in Wikipedia is to become a mediator and I would like to start performing admin tasks to make myself a better candidate for that position. Although it is not required, I think that attaining adminship helps polish the skills that are required of a mediator.

I look forward to your comments and await your decision. Movementarian (Talk) 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I, of course, accept my own nomination and hope that it will be viewed as a bold move, rather than a vain one.

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: I am, or was, fairly active in Articles for Deletion and would like to help close those out once they have run their course. I would also like to get involved with the Speedy Deletion process. I don’t think that I will be focusing on any one chore, but perhaps changing every few days.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article that I am most proud of is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football article. I did a lot of the initial work on the article that led to the current state. When I stumbled upon the article it was in a sad state for such a storied programme, so I basically blanked it and started over. I am pleased that it has been improved during my absence, but I am equally happy that I can recognise a lot of my work.
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: The article that caused me the most stress should have been a rather boring. Between 7 December 2005 and 23 January 2006, I and a few other Wikipedians, had back and forth banter with a user that insisted on turning the article on USAA into an attack page and his own personal blog detailing his mistreatment by the company. I was always respectful in my posts on the article’s talk page, the talk pages of his account and associated sockpuppets, and encouraged the other parties involved to do the same. I made a Request for Comment on the issue, but there was not much participation. The issue is still not resolved.
General comments

Thank you for all who participated in this RfA, I greatly appreciate your input. I am withdrawing my self-nomination and wish no further participation in this event. I am unsure as to the correct process for withdrawing and request no further votes be cast while I find out. Again, thank you for all that participated, your guidance is greatly appreciated. Movementarian (Talk) 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Nana nana nananana leader! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) .

Support

Oppose

  1. This user appears to have just returned from a ten-month wikibreak (as he has nearly no edits whatsoever between the end of January and yesterday). I recommend that he gives himself some time to reacquaint himself. (Radiant) 14:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose tasks of Wikipedia are different from real life responsibilities. You need time to get acquainted with the former. Try again in 5-6 months. Kimchi.sg 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If the candidate were to become more active again and remain so for a healthy period of time, I'd be more willing to consider the RFA. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Thanks for putting yourself forward and please don't take this oppose as a reflection on your abilities, simply on the amount of experience. Come back in 3 months with 3000+ edits. Tyrenius 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Amongst those 1200 edits I see a lot of disambiguation link repair and Afd votes. What I see all seems to be good, but those are high volume edits, and I would expect a much larger contribution from someone whose edits are largely made up of them. I would also like to see more user interataction - your talk page is very sparse, indicating you havent had a huge amount of interaction with the community outside AfDs. I am giving a neutral, because I feel that you may well make a good admin one day if you work on these areas. ViridaeTalk 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Asking for more edits would not be proper. As you can see in his contributions, he has lot of disambiguation link repair and Afd votes; building up edits will not be indicative of the user's experience. The reason I am not supporting this user here is that his edits have been rather sporadic and as Radiant has stated, he has returned from a ten-month wikibreak – this probably was not a proper time to go for an RfA. Please make all-round contributions to Wikipedia, which preferably involve more article-writing and vandal-fighting. We would have more reasons to support you. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - While a focus on AfD and Disag is good, I'd need to see more compelling reasons for need of tools before I could vote for support. There is also insufficient focus on other areas of Wikipedia. Try again in a few months. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - Don't want to start a pile on and I think most of what needs to be said has been said. I agree with User:Radiant! that it seems more like a 10-month absence instead of 6-7 months. Returning to any significant amount of contributions for only 2 days after being gone since the beginning of this year is way too little for me to support a nom for adminship, but from what I see you'd be an excellent candidate after a few months of steady contributions. -- Renesis (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Withdraw This RfA and go for an editor review instead. There's nothing wrong with your participation when you were last active; just carry on being as active in the main, project and user spaces with encyclopedic contributions, sources, references, new page and vandal patrols and warnings and XfD participation. Try again in three or four months' time with consistent edits in the interim. (aeropagitica) 17:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral A very bold move indeed, but please withdraw and return when you have gathered some experience. Good luck. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:38, 21 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.