Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plainnym

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] Plainnym

Final (1/17/0); Ended 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--Plainnym (talk contribs) - Hi, I'm Plainnym. I have been a Wikipedian for almost a year and I'm requesting for adminship. All I'd really like to do is fight vandals, like the ones that vandalized this article (see the history page for it). It's okay if don't get to be an administator, but I want your opinion.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination.
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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Vandal fighting for sure. I also would like to try to delete articles that aren't very informative or just copied in a vandalized form.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I was the original creator of the Super Mario cartoon episodes, but not all of them (credit goes to Nintendo Maximus, and to Yawachary for creating the list). I sort of started a trend with them, but I haven't been adding others lately for some reason (although I did update the Trivia/Goofs sections occasionally).
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. Oh yes. Back in '06, me and Nintendo Maximus had a big argument over the aforementioned Super Mario cartoon episodes. He said that they did not belong and said that they belonged elsewere on another wiki. I said that he didn't have a right to destroy my work. Sooner or later, he surrendered and made his own. Sometime later, me, Nintendo Maximus, and some other users got extremely mad at the people who were vandalizing this article and were cussing us out on its history page. I kept begging and begging for someone to block them, and that's the reason why I want to be an administrator (it's not limited to just that article) Also, the reason why I said to delete articles "in a vandalized form" in question 1 is because someone redirected the article to a page called, "Super Mario Adventures ON WHEELS!", and had a picture of Strong Bad replacing the cover.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Support

  1. Moral support. I'd suggest you follow the Rambling Man's good advice and withdraw the request, as it is unlikely to succeed. Most people at RFA will be looking for a solid knowledge of policy, probably demonstrated by edits to the Wikipedia name space. In any case, being an administrator is not very glamorous. Active administrators generally spend their time on very boring tasks. As for dealing with vandalism, you can revert most vandals yourself. It is made easier with WP:POPUPS or WP:TWINKLE, which anyone can use. For page move vandalism, you can use the {{db-move}} speedy deletion tag. If you do want to be an administrator, have a look at Wikipedia:What administrators do as it explains the grisly details. Experience at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is generally considered useful. On the whole, adminship is no big deal, just a few more buttons. It also means that it isn't a big deal not to be an administrator. Thanks for volunteering and better luck next time, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose as you didnt give us any diffs for the vandalized articles indicating not sufficient dominance of the wikipedia tools at your disposal, SqueakBox 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Diffs? Do you have to show diffs to prove that you are a vandal fighter now? PTO 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    In an Rfa absolutely, SqueakBox 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    By no means is the user obligated to provide diffs to verify that claim. If need be, you should check the user's contributions to find if this is true. Nishkid64 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    You are misunderstanding me. I trust that the article in question is subject to vandalism and I did look at his contribs. This made me think he may not understand how diffs work and one cannot, IMO, be an admin without understanding how diffs work. That is why he needed to provide the diffs. His failure to do so made me think he doesnt understand how diffs work, hence my opposition to him being an admin. All the below comments just confirm that. He doesnt need to prove he can identify vandalsim but he does need to demonstrate competence in diff technology in an Rfa if he wants my vote, SqueakBox 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm...okay, I guess it was a misunderstanding. But also, not everyone is familiar with the demands of certain people in RfAs, so instead of opposing, it is best to ask the user to provide diffs first, and then oppose, if you feel the user is not qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. But after looking at his contribs I was going to oppose anyway as he doesnt have the experience, 69 edits in 6 months doesnt make for a good admin. The contribs indicated a general lack of dominance of the basic wikipedia tools, which I stated, and the diffs issue was a symptom of this, SqueakBox 23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Your talk page shows little understanding of what makes Wikipedia work. PTO 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose and suggest withdraw. With 69 edits since last September (15 of which have been in your self-nom RFA), and a malformed RFA I would suggest this RFA goes not much further. The Rambling Man 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Most editors like to see around 3,000 or more edits, including a good contribution in WP:NAMESPACE, which you have yet to demonstrate. This is the only way by which we can judge your familiarity with wiki policy.--Anthony.bradbury 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Severe lack of activity, as Rambling Man stated, and a general misunderstanding/inexperience of Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Your contributions log shows that you need to become regularly active in nearly every aspect of the project in order to serve it well as an administrator. The majority of your policy space edits are to this RfA - no XfD discussions or opining on other RfAs, debating Good and Featured Article prospects, etc; your vandal warnings in the user Talk space are sporadic and sparse, as are your article edits too. Start to contribute reguarly and effectively to articles and to participate in admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols and you may qualify for the tools in another year or so. A one-year anniversary of having an account on Wikipedia is not sufficient reason to request additional responsibilities. You have to demonstrate your capability to carry out admin tasks efficiently and effectively too. Evidence in the form of diffs is also an excellent idea in your answers too, as it saves having to hunt around for the evidence in your contributions logs. Withdraw this RfA now and start to work in the policy and user Talk spaces as well as building the articles with facts, references and citations. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The answer to Q1 of wishing to delete articles that "aren't very informative" is troubling. You should read about Wikipedia's deletion processes. Leebo T/C 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, recommend withdrawal or early closure. Not enough experience or activity in the last several months. --Coredesat 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose lack of activity and experience. Suggest withdrawal or WP:SNOW is what's going to happen here. - Anas Talk? 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Lack of experience. You don't have to be a sysop to fight vandalism. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose -Lack of Experience for sure and very low "Wikipedia" contributions(for AngusMclellan), actually more then half your Wikipedia contribution is applying for Adminship but I believe if you apply in another 4 or 5 months, I will Definetly support you..--Cometstyles 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose- Q1 says that that you want to rv vandalism. You can do that as a regular editor so you do not need the mop.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per everyone else.--Wizardman 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Suggest withdrawl You seem to have good intentions, but I do not believe you will pass the nomination at this time. :( Cbrown1023 talk 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose. zero » 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Reasons are all above. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Nothing more to say.Shindo9Hikaru 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.