Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Unisouth

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] Unisouth

Final (0/11/5); Ended 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw per WP:SNOW. Maxim(talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unisouth (talk · contribs) - Founder of many popular WikiProjects such as London Transport and BBC. Unisouth (talk) 16:05, 9 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: Deletion
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Arguably my WikiProjects as they have grown to be very popular as I have said and most of it's members are civil.
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: Yes by compromising ideas.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Please look at some other RfAs. Your answers are nowhere near satisfactory. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In the users defense, the questions are optional. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the questions are optional. If a candidate chooses to ignore them or answer them in an unsatisfactory way, as is the case here in my opinion, others are welcome to take this into account when making a decision about the suitability of the candidate to become an admin. If you are asking a group of people to trust you with a set of tools, it says something about you if you are not willing to give serious answers to questions asked. Gwernol 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - You seem to be a experienced and hardworking editor, but you don't inspire confidence in me. Not only do you fail to use the edit summary very often, you also fail to mention specific cases of conflict, or indeed anything less vague than "by my compromising ideas". I'm also discontented with the lack of elaboration on the other two answers, though as Rjd0600 mentioned, they're technically optional. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Sorry, but you haven't participated in any AfD's (at least back to Sep 06), and that is a must for an admin that wants to focus on deletion. The answers to the questions leave something to be desired as well - what specifically do you want to do deletion-wise? What compromising ideas?. Though you're a great encyclopaedia builder, you need more experience in admin processes. XENON54 | talk 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. OpposeCertainly the questions are optional, although the answers given do enable a more definitive judgement of an applicant's qualities to be made. On this basis, your superficial answer to Q.1, together with your very low usage of edit summaries, can only indicate to me that, in spite of your significant edit count, you are not yet ready for the tools. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Whilst the questions are optional, there's a good deal of (adverse) inference to be drawn from failing to answer them to a satisfactory degree. The unwillingness to respond fully demonstrates the lack of an essential attribute I think we need in admins. GBT/C 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Opppose I did not like the way that you answered the questions abruptly like that. It made me seem like you answered them without thought, and that is something that an administrator needs to do in order to be a good administrator. Razorflame (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. 'Weak Oppose. An experienced editor, but low edit summary usage, and very short answers to questions don't inspire me. Wants to participate in deletion, but last AFD participation was April 1, 2006. Useight (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Editor is experienced, but has little if any experience in the area he said he would work in. Also, answers are far short of satisfactory, to the point that one might, emphasize might, think he were hiding something. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - You have experience as a general editor, that much is apparent, however, you lack the experience in Wikipedia namespace beyond the scope of editing projects. Also, inconsistent use of edit summaries are a concern here. Branch out a little more, always make sure to use your edit summaries (change the feature in your preferences). Also, I was a little put off by your taciturn remarks in the opening questions. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. I have similar concerns to the other contributors to this discussion. Your answers to the standard questions, and the somewhat unfulfilling nature of your nomination statement, do not provide much of a picture on which the community can judge you: many of us may never have encountered you before (I happen to have seen you about, but have never interacted with you), and I am unsure how you can possible expect us to make anything but an opposition to your nomination—you are doing yourself a disservice, as much as the community. Additionally, as pointed out in the "Neutral" section, you regularly fail to make use of edit summaries; personally, I believe they should be compulsary, and really are nothing but a common courtesy. Overall, there is something of a lack of effort coming from your end of the park: the fact that you do not opt to use edit summaries, and barely include answers to your questions, seems to suggest an absence of willingness to invest time and effort into editing, and as such I cannot envisage anything more from your administrator duties. For that reason, I cannot support your nomination, and regretfully, I oppose. Anthøny 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for now. Very bad answers to the questions, but a good user. Might support if better answers are given. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Although you are an experienced editor, those answers are extremely unsatisfactory. Rudget. 16:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    I will be open to change this if they answers truer reflect your knowledge. Rudget. 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose, pretty much for the same reason Rudget gives. Gwernol 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. See User:Rudget's answer. You are a very experienced editor, but your answers don't reflect that. However, I would encourage a larger use of edit summaries. SpencerT♦C 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'd say wait a few months, and try again with longer answers. Also work on edit summary usage. Malinaccier (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Avoiding the pile-on... try an admin coach. Jmlk17 01:44, 10 February 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.