Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RC-0722 3

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

[edit] RC-0722

Final (0/4/1); Ended 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - closed by non-bureaucrat -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk at 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) per WP:SNOW.

RC-0722 (talk · contribs) - In my last RfA I was relatively new and inexperienced. However, I have matured since then, and I feel that I am ready for admin tools. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:13, 8 March 2008 (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 plan on taking place in AFD, RPP, AIV and Admin coaching. I find that the backlog on most of these pages can be annoying, and as an admin, I would do my best to help with that backlog.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In my opinion, my best contributions to Wikipedia are at the Brodie Croyle article; where I helped the article to rech GA status.

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: Conflicts? Yes. Stress? No. I have tried to deal with the conflict in a civilized manor; although that does not always work. In the future, I will try to remain calm and try to find a consensus among my fellow editors.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Malinaccier, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

4. Can "cool down" blocks be appropriate? Can blocks ever be used in a content dispute?

A:Yes they can be used, but not really in a content dispute

5. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A:Of course

6 A user creates an article consisting only of a link to his MySpace page. Can this article be speedily deleted, and if so, under what criteria?

A:Yes it can be speedily deleted; using criteria Blatant advertising.

7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?

A:Well, yes. I handle stress well and I try to keep a cool head.

[edit] General comments

• See RC-0722's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for RC-0722: RC-0722 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RC-0722 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose - Lack of experience in Wiki-space - mostly editorial projects and some AfDs. The latter is good, but there isn't much in the way of diversity. You seem to be a competent editor, but I feel that this self-nom is still premature. Also, the answers to the questions are a little generic and taciturn. Same goes for the nom. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose A bit too close to RfA 1 given the level of input since, (I note RfA 2 was aborted and nothing to do with you) but mostly linking the word Kills to your contribution history link in your signature. Exceptionally bad idea on a whole number of levels, and until you understand why that is I'm afraid I'd rather you didn't have the delete button. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat 

   Um, I did that so it would follow my sig "theme" I went with a militaristic type name, so I went with a militaristic type sig. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm guessing that's kind of the point, whether or not RfA 2 had to do with that or not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Um, I did not know of RfA 2 until today. Also, my sig does not reflect my personality; my username does. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   My oppose is largely based on the fact that you judge kills to be an acceptable description of your contribution. Admins require good judgement. This is, IMHO, not good judgement at all. Sorry, and as ever my best wishes. I would suggest that, per your Q1, you undertake admin coaching at this time rather than offering to extend it to others. Your contributions are not unvalued, and please do not feel put off the project by opposition to your RfA. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   And if your handle reflects your personality, than the only Droid allowed with the bit is User:RedirectCleanupBot. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   (reply to pedro) My sig has nothing to do with this RfA. If you look at User talk:Enigmaman, you will find out that I changed my sig but people thought my other one looked better. The only reason I use signatures is for cosmetic purposes and that poeple won't mistake me for a n00b. Also, I have removed that portion of my signature. RC-0722 ^communicator 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid it has everything to do with your RfA as indeed do all your contributions. However thanks for changing it (although just putting "contibs" and a link would do rather than deleting it). You n00b comment re-affirms my oppose. I'd like to try and help you further with your contributions here. Can I offer to provide admin coaching to you, and also recommend a withdrawal of this RfA pending some work between us? Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose Perfunctory answers to the standard questions. Also the Previous RfA was withdrawn before it went WP:SNOW on opposes only 7 weeks ago. Seven weeks is not sufficient time to fix the issues identified back then, and demonstrate that they are fixed. Give it at least 3 months from the close of this RfA before applying again IMHO Mayalld (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, that really kind of depends on your personality type and how much time you spend on WP. I felt that I had more than enough time for those changes based on my personality and activity. Also, I tried admin coaching but there appears to be a backlog at that page. And that, my friend, is one of the reasons I want to become an admin. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   That is as may be. However, the point of RfA is to test whether other people are satisfied. You may be convinced that you are an exceptional person, and capable of acquiring the requisite level of maturity far more rapidly than others are, but there is absolutely nothing, other than your claims, that other people can judge this upon. Your response to the suggestion that your sig is problematic do NOT suggest maturity to me. Mayalld (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, people can jude my maturity by my actions. Let me get this straight, you are calling me immature, is that correct? RC-0722 ^communicator 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I'm sorry, but 5 months of service on the 'Pedia is just not enough time put in to even be considered for the mop. Come back in about 7 months time when you have more experience (and a few thousand more mainspace edits, concentrating on the requisite admin areas) under your belt. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Not piling on OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:25, 8 March 2008 (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.