Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux

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] scetoaux

Final (0/4/0); 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

scetoaux (talk · contribs) - This is an initial self-RfA to test the waters here. I understand that my edit count is rather low, but it consists of nothing that has ever been considered vandalism. There are a variety of edits in a variety of topics, including reverts of vandalism, sourcing of articles, other important edits, and recent participation in AfD discussions. I don't expect this RfA to pass, but rather I want to test the waters and see how other editors feel I may be able to improve and make myself a good candidate for adminship. Please submit your comments accordingly. scetoaux (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn from this RfA. scetoaux (talk) 05:15, 17 February 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 intend to continue active participation as an editor, but use the administrator powers to maintain Wikipedia, such as enforcing AfD consensus (Keep or Delete), warn and block editors with clear histories of vandalism, mediate disputes, and take action on media marked with speedy delete.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution to Wikipedia is probably my history in articles related to the Civil Air Patrol. I have extensively edited and improved such articles through my work. I have been bold in editing articles, and placing templates where they apply.
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 had conflicts, but typically when I have a conflict over editing I discuss the conflict on the article's talk page. Once or twice I have self-reverted if an edit of mine has a negative consensus, and have often worked edits out through compromise with other editors.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Per my criteria, user does not have enough experience. I would suggest that you instead ask for a editor review here. --ChetblongT C 04:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Also try WP:ADCO. And reconsider ideas such as enforcing consensus - sounds corporate, pretty far from the WP idea. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose due to inexperience - self-admitted, at that. Sorry, I can't support with scarcely more than 100 mainspace edits. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Overall lack of experience, I would recommend trying WP:ADCO and preform some WP:CSD tagging as well. Tiptoety talk 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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.