Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SVera1NY (second nomination)

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] SVera1NY

Final (2/9/0); WP:SNOW closed by Húsönd at 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SVera1NY (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination. I believe that I will make a good admin and would appreciate any and all support for the English Wikipedia community. SVera1NY 08:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on doing most work in vandalism, blocking users who are disruptive and making sure any errant changes are quickly reverted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution to Wikipedia has been the La Salle Academy article. Even though it is still considered a stub I feel proud of my contributions to the article. As for graphics, I am also pleased with several of the maps that I have contributed, including for the Equal Rights Amendment and a map comparing SAT and ACT test takers nationwide.
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: I have not been in any conflicts over editing, but I expect the issue to arise in the future if I become an admin. Other users that vandalize cause me stress and I deal with it by making sure they have little time to have their nonsense available for viewing.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/SVera1NY Requests for adminship/SVera1NY (second nomination)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SVera1NY before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Moral Support Your contributions look fine (although I did note a lot of copyrighted image uploads under fair use) - the problem is that there are just not enough of them to get any idea about how you would act as an admin. I strongly admire the length of time you've been here (wow!) but a few edits a month really just isn't active enough to prove that you would use the tools wisely. The fact that you malformed this RFA also doesn't bode to well. Please however don't give up or feel downcast should / when this RFA does not pass. Get editing more regularly and I look forward to an unqualified support in the future. Oh - I forgot to mention - think about turning on the prompt for an edit summary in your preferences. Pedro |  Chat  08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support You have been here a long time, and I very much admire that, but you haven't been involved enough to get the tools. I will echo what Pedro said: Please don't get too discouraged if/when this RfA fails. As for some suggestions, edit more often. If you are good at or enjoy fighting vandalism, consider putting some of the tools to use. Participate in a WikiProject or two, get involved in discussions, comment on AfDs and RfAs. It will help you learn policy, and if you still feel a need for the admin tools, doing such things will prove to the community that you are a trustworthy editor who will not misuse the tools. Please contact me if you would like advice or what have you. Good luck! Edit: One more thing. I would suggest going to your preferences, and checking the little box that says "Prompt when leaving a blank summary". Neranei (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - No one in 2006 passed a Rfa with edit count below 1000. Please reconsider this. Even if you have done some vandal fighting, you don't seem to have any experience in other projectspace areas. There seemed to have a problem with orphaned non-free image too. --Hirohisat Talk 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest you get involved in Afds, as well as other discussions as well. That will most likely help your next rfa in the future. Thanks for trying to help the community though! --Hirohisat Talk 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. No not at the moment, sorry. Please continue what you are doing, and gain more experience. I don't mean to edit count, but roughly 400 edits doesn't cut it in my book. Sorry. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Not at the moment. Whereas you are on the right track, you'll need some more time and experience. CattleGirl talk 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per lack of experience. Jmlk17 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. – Chacor 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose More involvement is necessary. Recurring dreams 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Your on the right track, but you lack experience, I suggest you take Admin coaching and come back when your ready and you should pass. Best wishes --Chris  G  11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I'm opposing based on lack of overall experience. I think you should be more involved in administrator processes including AIAV, Deletion discussions, UFAA, etc. I also worry about your previous lack of using edit summaries as well as your very low amount of edits. Only 311 edits, most of which occurred several months ago and with less than half of them have edit summaries. You've only made 26 edits in the last month, I fail to see how anyone could support you. I would suggest you withdrawal the RFA and get used to administrator work including fighting vandalism, which you seem to have done little of despite your assertion that it is what you will be doing with the administrator capabilities. I didn't even see any reports to AIAV, which would be high if your main goal was to fight vandalism. I would suggest that you involve yourself in these things for a few months prior to going for another RFA, at least 4-5 months to gain enough experience with a wide variety of articles and procedures. I would also suggest you accustom yourself with the reading list of administrators which can be found on the main RFA page. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose A agree with the above. Also, your answers to the questions do not give me confidence that you can deal with others as an admin through language. In Q1, you post "blocking users who are disruptive." Not all disruptive users need to be blocked. In Q3, you indicate that you expect to be in conflicts over editing as an admin. That is what we don't want to happen. Part of this screening process is to not give the tools to people who are prone to get into conflicts with others. Admins should have a temperment that keeps them from being drawn into a conflict and the skills to know how to move interactions away from conflict and towards resolution. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:03, 24 August 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.