Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pursey 2

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] Pursey

(1/10/2) - Snow closed Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pursey (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Pursey, and I'm nominating for Adminship. The bulk of my activity on Wikipedia is Counter-Vandalism and participation in GA Reviews, and XFD Processes. I believe I have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines, I'd use the admin tools to assist on AIV, and XFD Processes. I am aware some users may have concerns about my level of mainspace edits, and while this is understandable, and I understand we're "here to build an encyclopedia", I find I have more drive and time to participate in the back-end work, which is also required to keep the place running smoothly. Feel free to ask me questions, I'll answer them all. Pursey Talk | Contribs 11:20, 17 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'd assist on AIV and in XFD Processes, and anywhere else I can be of assistance.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud of my GA Review work. I think it's an important step on the trail to Featured Article status and provides a good stepping stone and feedback to the editors to assist in building an excellent resource.
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: Of course! Haven't we all. I came across a bit of a stress-hump recently with regards to some comments that were made in regards to my GA Review work. The comments caused me to re-assess my activities on Wikipedia, and I decided I'd keep plugging along doing what I was going. I haven't really had any editing conflicts, and more often than not am the third party providing in opinion in such disputes.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Pursey Requests for adminship/Pursey 2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pursey before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - Super editor who works well with other editors, and will use the admin tools in an fair and impartial manner. Experience is relative. Civility is more important, and he's civil. GreenJoe 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I don't think that Pursey has enough experience at this stage: most of the edits seem to have been in the last month and a long absence before that. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Just for my own reference, what is it you feel I don't have enough experience in? What do you suggest I work on? Pursey Talk | Contribs 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. While this editor has done excellent work so far, only two months with 100+ edits doesn't show a high enough level of activity for my taste. Lots of edits to AIV and the Wikipedia namespace, both good, but I'd like to see a longer active time. Useight 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comments, though I think you're possibly confused about my edit count... I have far more than 100ish edits. :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think he means that the number of months where you made more than 100 edits is 2 and that he thinks that's low. Leebo T/C 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I was referring to. Of the months you've edited (4, if we don't count the ones with 3 or fewer edits), only 2 have 100 or more edits. And roughly half of your edits were in the last three weeks. I would prefer to see a longer editing history. Useight 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Brookie. Overall, I see about 1000 edits over more than a year. I would recommend more frequent editing in general. I would also recommend more participation in WP:AFD as you are doing. You cite vandalism as a need for the tools, but I do not see a lot of vandalism reversion or warning, so more of that too. I see a 5 month gap to the day in your contribs. Do you also edit under a different name? You were active, went inactive and then became very active. If you can continue at this pace for three months, I will probably support. Historically, editors with less than < 1500 edits do not fair well at RfA, so you might want to consider withdrawal. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Dlohcierekim and the others. You only have two months where you've made more than fifty edits and those two months are separated by nearly a year with most months making zero edits. Recommend withdrawal and trying again when you've been contributing consistently for at least a few months. Also, 256 total mainspace edits simply isn't enough for adminship. Sarah 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose For now. You may be a good editor and contributor, but one must be a sustained contributor or at least one who has a broader understanding of Wikipedia and what it entails to be an admin. Please try again in the future! Then I will of course support you. Phgao 16:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Admins are expected to make tough decisions and assume responsibility for them. Pursey seems inclined to go down the apth of least resistance. Not good admin material. Beit Or 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Insufficient # of edits, not enough work in mainspace, and no evidence of dealing well with conflict. Took too long of a wikibreak. Has too made too many edits wihout edit summaries. Please apply again in two months. Bearian 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose A few more months of active editing should do it. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - It is true you have had 37 edits to AIV, but that is about all when it comes to project pages where you will need to use your technical tools. Get active WP:UAA, WP:AFD, and other like locations. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Not to pile on the opposes. I honestly do not think that you've got a sufficient idea of the infrastructure of Wikipedia to realize what administrators do, nor do I think your edit count is high enough to reflect a sufficient participation in the variety of areas needed for familiarity. I am by no means saying I have edit-count-itis, as I do not, but I do think that simply in the course of learning and experiencing, one gains edits, by participation. It is something that I just do not see with your edits. For instance, only 529 unique pages, basically no Wikipedia talk participation, and less than 300 mainspace edits. This does not really give a very good view of your editing or communication ability, and while I see you've done a little bit of vandalism work and have some WP:AIV reports, I don't see any for WP:UAA and very little participation in RfCs or other areas that administrators would be involved in. Additionally, your short answers to the questions are not indicative of someone who has an idea of the overall scope of this project, nor do they assist those commenting in evaluating how you respond to certain situations. Being able to give specific examples of any conflict, and how you responded would be helpful for your next RfA (should you decide to try again, I hope you do!) and providing specific items to illustrate your abilities are also helpful. Good luck and I hope you can learn from this experience! Ariel♥Gold 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per ArielGold. -WarthogDemon 21:11, 17 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.