Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Platypus222

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] Platypus222

Final (3/13/4); Ended 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Platypus222 (talk · contribs) � I am Platypus222, or, as I prefer to call myself, the Platypus Man. I have been here since March 2005 and made my 1000th edit a few months ago. I would consider myself a WikiGnome, mostly making small edits, but important ones nonetheless. I have also found myself performing the occasional reversions, of course. I also like to upload new images, but most of those were actually to correct small errors or the like. Honestly, I'm not seriously expecting to win this nomination, I just felt like giving it a shot and seeing what other people thought. -Platypus Man | Talk 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Of course. -Platypus Man | Talk 03:07, 19 December 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: I'm really not sure. I'll basically do what needs to be done, be it reversions, arbitration, blocking, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with most of my edits; they are small, so you can't really see the individual ones, but they make up a small part of the larger whole.
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: I haven't really had problems with anybody, or at least not recently.
General comments


Discussion

  • Candidate, you say, "Honestly, I'm not seriously expecting to win this nomination, I just felt like giving it a shot and seeing what other people thought". Have you considered an editor review yet? Cheers! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral Support Your heart is in the right place. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral support - see my comment in the Discussion section above. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral support - this won't pass, but I'd like to commend your enthusiasm.--R613vlu 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not only are your answers a bit too laconic, but you don't seem to have a need for admin tools. And with less than 2000 edits, I am not inclined to support at this time. I suggest withdrawal and continuing with your present pace. I appreciate your realistic outlook, though. --210physicq (c) 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Defeatist attitude and vague answers to the standard questions. Sorry, Platypus Man. A Train take the 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, but you haven't demonstrated an actual need for it. You also don't seem to be particularly involved, either; you have just a thousand edits in a year and a half, with a paltry 24 in the Wikipedia namespace. Of everything that you've edited, its been your own userpage that you've spent the most on (62 edits, versus your second most edited article, Richard J. Reynolds High School, with 15 edits). Administrators need to be a lot more active than you are currently; if you're truly interested in becoming an administrator, I'd recommend stepping up your contributions in pretty much all areas of Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose You seem to be going in the right direction and I am not going to judge on edit count but the answers and particularly Q.1 is my reasons. — SeadogTalk 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Withdraw this RfA quickly. Any application for any position that includes "I'm not sure..." should have the applicant seriously considering why they are making the effort to apply. If you "...weren't seriously considering winning...", i.e. gaining the support of the community for the granting of admin tools, then why not talk it through with an admin beforehand? An editor review is the more appropriate place for this analysis. I suggest that you contribute more to the main spaces of Wikipedia for the next six months and triple your editcount in so doing before reapplying. Just over a thousand edits is quite low for an RfA application. Get involved with new page/recent change patrolling; vandal fighting and warning; XfD discussions with opinions backed up with policies and guidelines; supplying references and citations for articles from reliable sources and assisting editors at the Help and Reference Desks. Doing some, all and more than this will assist in a successful RfA in the New Year. Also, please provide examples and diffs when you answer the questions above. This makes it easier to review the evidence of a good editor. (aeropagitica) 05:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, withdraw, decide whether it's something you really want and, if yes, take (aeropagitica)'s advice above --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Edit count is low, and answers to questions, especially Q1, suggest that you are really not certain at this time what you actually want.--Anthony.bradbury 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. OpposeEcho Anthony Bradbury's reasons above •CHILLDOUBT• 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: suggest withdrawing this and trying again with fair bit more experience. Jonathunder 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose get more experience and try an editor review in the meantime. --teh tennisman 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose need to be more serious about actions. Applying for RFA isn't something to do on a whim and ignorance of the editor review as a more appropriate avenue for this shows user is not ready for admin. --MECU≈talk 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. If you're not seriously expecting to win, why bother? Coemgenus 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose. You lack edits in non-mainspace areas, and it doesn't even look like you want adminship based on your answers. Your edits don't look bad themselves, but you don't have enough for my liking. --Wizardman 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral -- would give Moral support for your honesty and long record of good contributions, but at the same time it's disappointing that you didn't put much effort into answering the questions. -- Renesis (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I would also usually give Moral Support, but I need to see something a bit stronger after a year. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per (aeropagitica) (who is opposing). Like others above, I suggest you wait until you know where you would use blocking, page protection, editing protected pages, article deletion, or rollback before asking for community approval to use them--Kchase T 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Come back after you can accumulate some more experience, and consider going through an editor review.-- danntm T C 19:00, 19 December 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.