Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VivioFateFan

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.

Closed early per WP:SNOW. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] VivioFateFan

(talk page) (4/15/8); Ended on 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

VivioFateFan (talk · contribs) - After much consideration, I have decided to attempt an RFA. My current experience on Wikipedia includes Articles for Creation, Articles for Deletion, new page patrol, recent changes patrol as well other activities. The focus of my adminship would be on speedy deletions, occasional page protection as well as the other admin activities. Also, regardless of the success of this, I will continue to engage in my usual Wikipedia activities. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (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: Like I said in my candidate statement, my activities would focus on speedy deletions, as well as the occasional page protections and other admin activities.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am not really sure I have any "best contributions", but I try to do well at whatever activity I may participate in. But I guess if I would have to give a few of the "best contributions" that "I" have done would be my efforts in Articles for creation.
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, some minor conflicts, but nothing that makes me lose sleep over. Any of the conflicts that have involved me, I will analyze the situation and if I was at fault I will undo whatever it was that I did wrong, offer a formal apology, and learn from the situation.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Moral Support, you're on the right track, and I see nothing in your edit history to indicate that you would be unsuitable as an administrator. Give it a bit longer (and possibly do a bit more article writing) and I think you'll fly through RFA easily. Lankiveil (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
  2. Support--n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral support - I think in a few months you could become a good admin, just keep writing! EJF (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moral support - try again in 3 months. The Transhumanist 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Sorry, only two months experience and short answers do not inspire confidence. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Upon you suggestion, I expanded on the reasoning as it did seem a little to vague. Also, on the length of time... I don't think that a certain amount of time or lack there of should a criteria to qualify/disqualify a person. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just do not see how one can gain admin experience in only two months. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - good experience with Articles for Creation, but very little mainspace editing and not much upon which to judge an understanding of Wikipedia policy (XfD's, contributions to Wikipedia policy pages, etc). The strong understanding of templates and tags from the earliest edits makes me wonder if there is a previous account as well. If so that's your business, but for an RfA on this account alone, there is too little experience across the range of likely admin activities to get my support. Euryalus (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose account is too new; get at least three months of experience and I will support you. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Per answers to questions. I think this users attitude is not becoming of a administrator, this RfA seems rushed and not thought out. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Not quite experienced enough, though I think in a few months I'd likely support. Maser (Talk!) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Kurt, we get it that you don't like self-noms, but can you oppose them without actually accusing each of them of being power hungry? At some point it starts to seem uncivil to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with AliveFreeHappy. It's not just uncivil, it's very rude, too. And factually seen it doesen't make sence, too, because self-noms don't show power hunger. It's just very nice if someone would like to do such a job for the community! So it's very inappropriate to call such volunteers power hungry. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I see you as a keen new wikipedian, and doubtless you will continue to improve. But. But you have little mainspace editing experience, your answers seem immature - possibly inexperience is at fault there - and I am not convinced that you can continue with the same energy you have brought at the outset. Will your keenness wear off? Give it some more time, some considerable more time, and let us reassess your readiness then. If you carry on as at present, I will happily support you. docboat (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: Per above concerns -- you are a bit new to WP, however, give it another five months or so, rack up some great WP-namespace edits, and you should have no problem. Good luck in the future, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for now - I think you're on the right track and with some more experience will make a fine admin. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Lack of experience is a problem here, in a few months try again. Also try to get an article to GA of FA standard. Harland1 (t/c) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose with Moral Support Lack of experience seriously worries me, but with a few months time, I'll be ready to support. Happy Wikying! Perfect Proposal Happy Holidays! 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose simply because you haven't been on the project long enough. Give it 3-6 more months and if we're still seeing the fine contributions you've been making, I will give my whole-hearted support. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Sorry - your edit count is high enough, but I notice that almost half are in user talk and that there is relatively little contribution in policy or admin areas. Mix it up a little, and come back. Avruchtalk 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. No sorry not just yet - keep editing and building up on content of policies and guidelines for some time longer. --VS talk 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. I can't honestly support at this time, given your lack of time here, but you seem to be a good editor in your own right. Try to get a stub up to good article status, for starters. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. So close. . . . I was ready to support despite the low time count based on the high number of edits and high number of deleted contribs w/ deletion tags. Unfortunately, your answer to Question 3 dose not show a good feel for conflict resolution. Please review that. Also, I could not find talk page archives to review. It's important to know a user's temperament before giving the buttons. Also, you were totally puzzled by question 2. Many participants at RfA require significant article building before giving the tools. You might want to spend more time creating new articles and expanding existing ones. I look forward to supporting a future RfA when you have resolved the issues raised. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Good contributions, but answers to questions don't show a good understanding of policy knowledge. Rt. 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. A potential candidate, but needs more experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. I think two month are enough, I think his edit count is very good, too. But the answer to the questions don't show me for what he would like to use the new tools. I have never seen him in recent changes patrolling, so I think one month more would be fine -although I think generally 2 month with such an edit count should be enough-. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. In a month or two I would be happy to support your RFA, but you need just a bit more experience. Sorry, Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Per everyone else; in a couple of months, I'll support you. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Per Dlohcierekim; you're certainly on the right track, keep it up! --Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:56, 31 December 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.