Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedernst

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] Tedernst

Final (0/11/0) ending 16:35 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tedernst (talk · contribs) – It's me, what can I say? Tedernst 08:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nomination from myself. I withdraw the nomination and enthusiastically thank those that asked me to do so. Please let me know if this statement isn't sufficient for a withdrawl. Also, for reference, I will take all suggestions below to heart and keep working on Wikipedia. I also intend to go review the Administrator rules again since I didn't see anything in there the first time about edit counts or amount of time being active. I must've missed those requirements. Sorry about this.

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose Less than two months of activity is far too short a commitment to Wikipedia for you to become an administrator. Also, your edit count is pretty low, with too little talk and Project space edits. I would consider supporting in another 3-5 months.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Well for one, you can start telling who you are! With such a short track record, a bit more elaboration on the questions below, and why you are especially qualified to become an admin would be nice, despite your lack of commitment. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. It's you. We know that. Can we know more? Also, 650 edits is far too little, although I'm trying to stay away from editcountitis. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Self-nomination too brief, almost flippant. Normally, I'm not an edit hound, but in the context of that nomination, 650 is too low. This will still be an oppose if nomination is expanded, as the first posted brief content showed poor judgment on nominee's part. Xoloz 11:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Comment - Indeed, it seems almost flippant. Good grief, who is he; King of Wikipedia!? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 12:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, too little time on Wikipedia. Try again in a month or two. — JIP | Talk 11:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vanity, delete... oops, wrong page. Oppose, out of touch with the community. Alphax τεχ 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Too new and 650 too low --JAranda | watz sup 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Kindly oppose; user is on a good road, but some more contribs and community involvement is needed. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Sorry, Tedernst. One suggestion would be to get reaquainted to Wikipedia (I see you've been registered since 2002) and learn how the process works. "It's me, what can I say?" is quite frankly a turn-off for voters, and seeing that this is a self-nom, you need to be extra-cautious towards making the right impression. Linuxbeak | Talk 15:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose the shortness of the answers coupled with the shortness of time actually editing are not a good combination. However, in a couple of months I would be willing to re-appraise. I notice that you were able to merge Buiteraptor. Good one. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 15:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose —Your nomination description show that your are not quite ready for it. If you really want to became an administrator, here are a few good tips you could follow: Try contributing more; spend more time on Wikipedia writing articles ad interacting with others; you will get experience. Also here are a few good links: Vote here on a regular basis. Others are more inclined to vote for you when they see that you parttake in the process of adminship. Secondly, vote on AFDs ect; show others that you have an intimate understanding of Wikipolicies. Try contributing to Recent Changes—revert vandalism, warn editors using the {{test}}, {{test2}}/{{test2a}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}} as appropriate, and welcome others using {{welcome}}. you could also go on newpages patrol and tag speedy deletions ect. Make sure that you interact a lot on AFds and RFA talk, user talk etc. By doing all these, others will see that you are working hard, they will trust you and you will be successful; when you return in 1-2 months, you will be a shoo in. PS:And next time, if you are nominating yourself, show that you want the extra tools and responsibilities. Put thoughts into the questions Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

  • Tedernst's edit count - 650 edits, the first made in 2002, but activity beginning only last month.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Tedernst-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of edit summaries is 93%. Average edits per day is ~14 per day. --Durin 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I call on Tedernst to withdraw his nomination. Otherwise, it should be removed before a pile-on. It's clear it won't succed. Try again in a couple months.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'm interested in all backlogged tasks. I'm already doing some of these that don't require an admin and am interested in learning more about what tasks need an admin. Clearly there is a need for more volunteers and more people to take on more responsibilities.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've dabbled here and there. Chicago. Bikes as Transportation. The Humanist Party. Stub-sorting. Merging articles (worse is better style).
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. Just once. I asked others to get involved while reverting every couple of days (3 times total). Eventually others came in and I bowed out (I think my opinon prevailed, though that's not the important part).
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.