Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tellyaddict

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] Tellyaddict

Final (0/9/6); Ended 21:20, 07 January 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself to become an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I believe I have what it takes to be an administrator and would use the tools in a sensible manner and never mis-use them. I have made 3218 Contributions so far. I try to see the best out of all situations and be optimistic. Almost everyday I welcome the New users and revert vandalism. I patrol the New Pages on most days and mark any pages for speedy deletion where I think it's necessary (somebody has said that I marked a page once for speedy deletion when it didn't need it but I sorted it out with this user). I am a registered user of Vandal proof and since I got the software a few days ago I have used it regularly. I have also created a small number of articles which I can provide the names of if necessary. Just recently I have become involved in the Wikipedia:Adoption and have so far adopted one user (User:Javierbaires1) and am ready to help him with any problems he has relating to Wikipedia and I'm ready adopt more, if anyone requires this. I respect other peoples opinion and try to be polite to all users when writing on their talk page. I believe that I could help Wikipedia a lot and make it a better place if I become an administrator, but even if my self nomination fails I will continue to edit Wikipedia in a good way, If anybody disagrees with my nomination I can fully respect that because everyone has the right to their own opinion. Thank you for your time reading this request: Tellyaddict[[User_talk:Tellyaddict|Talk</span

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept (I made a self-nomination)

I have closed this RfA early, as it seems like there is no chance of it succeeding at the current time. Please read the comments made on the RfA, and I hope you will consider re-running in the coming months. Nishkid64 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
Although their is a limit as to which I can do as a user; I try to anticipate with Administratve chores by, for example: Marking a page for speedy deletion so it can be reviewed by an Administrator and then deleted if necessary, this makes it easier for the person deleting the page. I also have given warnings to users before about Vandalism of articles such as here, of course I cannot block them but it makes it easier for an administrator to review the cicumstances and make the decision of whether to block a user or not easier if they have been given several friendly warnings. As mentioned earlier, I revert/remove vandalism and give users warnings where this is appropriate, and generally try to make Wikipedia a better place.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Well... I am proud of all my contributions but the main two I am pleased with are probably the creation of the article Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service, which has now been made better with the help of Daysleeper47 and Escaper7. The other Contribution I am proud of is the expansion to the article Much Ado About Nothing (film), I expanded the synopsis and made sections about the character Bio's. Unfortunately though, when I expanded the synopsis, Wikipedia logged me out (I'm not sure how this happened) and it saved as my IP address but I have mentioned this in the edit summaries. I think that no matter how large or small your contributions are, they are always valuable to Wikipedia as long as they are not vandalism. I am proud of these contributions because just knowing that you have made Wikipedia a better and more reliable place is good to know.
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?
I am not sure whether this may count as one. I had a friendly discussion with Escaper7 over the capitalisation of some words on the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service article but that appears to be resolved and I am going to de-capitalise some areas of the article shortly, I'd realised that I was wrong and he was right. Although I am not sure whether this would count as an edit conflict, I though it would be best to mention this. This has not caused me stress, I believe it has just tested my ability to remain calm and to remember that things should not turn it into an argument, and I think I have succeeded with that.
General comments
  • See Tellyaddict's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Thank tou to everyone who takes the time to voice their opinion on my request. TellyaddictTalk


  • Your needing to fix your signature though. It's a little long and might not be displaying correctly. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose — Sorry but user has only been active in December, sorry but that isn't enough experience for me to offer support, I suggest an Editor review and a few more months experience, you look like a good user who is on the right track. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You have no contributions to XfD or other policy-related areas at all. Good on the vandal warnings, though. I second the use of the editor review facility and recommend four more months-worth of contributions before you have another go at adminship. Areas to pursue include:
    (aeropagitica) 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: as someone who thinks there should be a mandatory threshold of edit counts in order to be a candidate, I plan to point to this RfA as an example of where edit counts might be a necessary but not sufficient criteria. At least 1000 of your edits are simply posting "Welcome" messages to new users. That may demonstrate dedication to the project, or the ability to do routine tasks repetitively, or simply an intent to get a lot of edit counts in order to look qualified for an RfA. In fact, those 1000+ edits are worth less than contributing (usefully) to 20 XfD discussions, in my opinion. Also, that you've posted 614 times to articles and only 11 times to article talk pages indicates to me that you've had very little interaction with other editors on improving articles - which means you quite possibly don't fully understand a lot of Wikipedia norms like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, at least not in the way that actually having experiening content disputes would prepare you. In short, I worry that you don't understand or don't agree with Wikipedia:What adminship is not#Adminship is not a trophy. -- John Broughton | Talk 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all the above. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose While edit count is not the only consideration, it does give some idea of your depth of involvement and breadth of knowledge in wikipedia. Of your 3,219 edits as of now, 2,398 are in User talk. You have only 611 mainspace edits, which is low but not disastrous, but only 23 Wiki edits and only 6 in Wikitalk, which is not good. You may have read the policy pages and not participated, but without active participation we cannot tell that. I suggest that you take a more active role in WP:NAMESPACE and come back in three months or so.--Anthony.bradbury 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Wikipedia: 23; earliest 12:02, 26 October 2006. These two factors need to be fixed. Edit for a few months and do some policy work in AfD or other. Yuo could certainly be an admin in the future with some improvements. --Wizardman 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose echo Wizardman. --tennisman sign here! 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. No crz crztalk 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral. Tellyaddict, I might support you in a few months, as now is just too early for me. Also, this page full of welcomes is nice, but not needed. Welcome users you happen to come across, don't actively look for them. --Majorly (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Tellyaddict is an enthusiastic and capable editor. I would be proud to nominate him myself when he has a bit more experience.--Runcorn 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I'm in a similar boat, so I can sympathize. I'd be glad to support in the future. Just H 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: I would be willing to support after you have more experience. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral You need more time and some more experience. I suggest withdrawing this RfA. ← ANAS Talk? 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral (And this is a true neutral, not a "neutral to avoid pile-on" neutral.) A good user? Absolutely. However, only 23 WP-space edits and 11 article talk edits means he does not have enough experience in dealing with the community. Yet Telly shows a need for the tools, and makes tons of positive contributions, so I see no reason supporting once he digs a bit deeper into WP policy and communicating with others in the article space. -- Kicking222 19:52, 7 January 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.