Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nenyedi

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] nenyedi

Final (2/15/3); Ended Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:52 UTC

nenyedi (talk · contribs) - Self Nenyedi 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept, Self nominated.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate being able to delete pages, as recently, I have become involved in tagging pages for deletion by patroling the recent changes page, and the new pages section of the recent changes page. I would like to be able to review the tags that others have placed, while doing the same thing that I am currently doing now, and help with the deletion process as I have now gained a better understanding of the wikipedia deletion policies by doing the patroling.

I would also like to be able to place blocks on users who are persistent vandals and cause disruptions. Throughout my time as a recent changes patroller, I have come across many vandals and users who are disruptive to Wikipedia, and need to be thwarted promptly. Currently, I am required to place a notice, and wait for an administrator to come and review the alert. As an admin, I would be able to stop these vandals, and also stop vandals that others have alerted me to.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with my removal of vandalism, my deletion of unencyclopedic content, and contributions to subjects I know about, such as aviation, retail history, and locations in my region of Kalamazoo, MI. I also have send numerous welcomes to new users I see while recent changes patrolling. I am also a user of Vandalproof.
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 never been stressed over conflicts, I always deal with them politely and as efficiently as possible, while maintaining good faith. I also am friendly when dealing with newbies, and do not "bite" them.
General comments
  • Adminship would be an extreme help in increasing my productivity when editing Wikipedia.
  • About not being logged in: I added my RfA from another brower, and I admit I overlooked this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nenyedi (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
  • See nenyedi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support under the basic pretenses stated many, many, many times that Adminship is not a big deal, and that post count is not idicative of experience. User has never vandalized pages, and has demonstrated interest in combatting vandalism. I have noticed many times that people are willing to oppose because of your edit count, regardless that the majority of your edits are anti-vandal edits. Kntrabssi 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - I have no reason to doubt that the user would be conscientious with the admin tools. However, it does not help that the user forgot to login before adding his RfA - [1] - Richard Cavell 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose You need more experience, especially in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. —dgiestc 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose simply not enough experience, low activity, I'd find it difficult to advocate such a relatively inexperienced user with the tools. With 11 wikispace edits, I can't be sure that nenyedi is ready to make judgements on XFD's. The Rambling Man 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Less than 500 edits and less than a dozen to the policy space shows that you need more experience in all areas of the project. XfD discussions where you can refer to policies and guidelines; new article/ recent change patrols; article creation/contributions; user Talk page interactions - all of these would be good places to start. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose The fact that the self-nomination is virtually non-existent is the first prime indication that user is unfamiliar with wiki-norms. Suggest withdrawl. Xoloz 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Also suggest withdrawal. Try again when you have more experience. Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Per aeropagitica. Keep working hard! --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. 700 edits + no real self-nomination text = suggest withdrawal.--Wizardman 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose While a fixation on edot count is certainly to be avoided, your count is quite low. And we do need some evidence of understanding of policy, which we can only see by your involvement in WP:NAMESPACE, which is not at present extensive in your record.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Sorry, Im ust oppose based on far too little activity. In a few months and a few thousand edits, definitely take another stab. Imageboy1 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - less than 500 edits is way too low. An admin candidate should have around 5000. Patstuarttalk·edits 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Too little experience (less than 500 edits). Michael 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose You need more experience in all areas. Your nom is incomplete, no statement, unsigned while not logged in (checking "remember me" when logging in fixes that). You should withdraw this nom and try again in a few months when you become more experienced.-- Dakota 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Sorry pal, but with that low of edits, you can't even get one key! Lol, but with a few months , you should come back. VD64992 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Far too few edits, poor edit summary usage, bad answers, and self-nom. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Needs more experiences. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'll never oppose a user who I don't think will abuse the tools, but I don't think this user is quite ready. The problem isn't so much the small number of edits, but rather the small mistakes that he or she has made just on this RfA. Forgetting to log in and forgetting to sign comments simply doesn't look good for an administrator. Keep up the work, and I hope to support next time! --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral as evidenced from your self-nom, I suggest you withdraw and send several months gaining more experience.-- danntm T C 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Danielrocks123. Keep up the good work and come back in a few months when you have more experience. Rockpocket 06:45, 13 March 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.