Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oo7565 2

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] oo7565

Final (0/7/0); closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Ended 11:31, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

oo7565 (talk · contribs) - I am trying for this again after 6 months have past since i tryed last time i have gotten to know wikipedia and it polices better and improve myself in the area i lack last time i think and i hope you guys agree as well. i know i my fail again but i do fail i wish you guys leave me comments on how i can improve on here and so in the future i can become a admin on hereOo7565 05:04, 7 November 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: I expect to work in reversion of vandalism and afd's and prods to start with then over time to expand my help to other areas as well. I will keep up welcoming new users to wikipedia and help any user's who may need help on here as well
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: this is a hard question for me to answer but I give it a shot I have created many articles ranging from high schools article's to sports teams articles also soccer players articles as well. I have made some edits to some anime articles as well.
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 would not say I have been in any conflicts before but I have to say when I started on here I rely did not know how wikipedia work so I may have caused other user's stress but in the past months I have greatly improve myself on here so hopefully in the future I will use my expensive on here to help others to avoid conflicts

Optional Question for Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs)

4. In your own words, why do you feel your first RFA failed? What did you learn from it? Did you make any changes based on it? 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A. well I did not the wikipedia polices on here and over the last months I have learn and understand fully the polices on here. I came of as arrogant in the last norm and I did not mean to come off like that. I have also improved my spelling since last time, which the entire user commented on. I also have communized better with other users since then. I answered the first 3 questions better this time as well.
5. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A: The unblock policy states if I see a another admin block someone and if I disagree with the blocking admin and we would talk about it and see if we can come to a agreement on the block user if we can not I would go to Administrators' noticeboard to get more help on the issue. I totally agree with the policy and i would adhere too it fully.Oo7565 08:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/oo7565 Requests for adminship/oo7565 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/oo7565 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • to let you know i was born with 2 holes in my heart so speaking and writing English is rely hard for me but i am trying my best to get better i do not want you to feel sorry for me by telling you this i hope you understand me better. Oo7565 08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

one more thing in my own norm on this rfa I might not get this but i want to keep this going so i can learn what I need to improve on so one day i can become a admin on here.Oo7565 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I offer you a suggestion? When your Rfa ends, get an admin coach if you feel you need one. They will help you out. Cheers!--SJP 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose, per the way your questions were answered. The grammar is quite poor and admins have to communicate with other users. Also, scanning through your contributions, I found nominations for deletion such as this. If you look her up on Google, she has quite a lot of search results, suggesting notability, and if it fails WP:MUSIC, how about trying to fix it? Also nominations for deletion of articles such as this, a quite obviously notable label. Many of the pages you nominate for deletion are still here and have had the tag removed. For this reason and my other reason, I will have to oppose. — jacĸrм (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    comment on the Julien_Aklei prod did a google seach on her only 2050 hits thats not a lot only hits that were helpful were the post article and her own web site northing else. if she was well Notable there wouled be more info on here with References on her the main reason i proded the article was the lack of References on herOo7565 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment, 5. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    A: If I did see an another admin have blocked a user. I would look at the reason why the user was blocked and see if was the right thing to do if it was not. I would unblock the block user.
    You might want to re-write your answer here. — jacĸrм (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You have to improve your skills in writing English. I'm sorry but nobody would take you seriously as an administrator if you wrote in this style regarding any issue at all. Nick mallory 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Several of the editors who commented on your first RfA were far too harsh, and I apologize to you on the community's behalf for that. Yes, your spelling and grammar are poor, but that is no reason to insult you like they did. That being said, your grasp of the English language seems to be quite poor, and communication is paramount when it comes to admins. Furthermore I don't see any encyclopedia building from you. Nearly all of your mainspace contributions seem to be adding tags, reverting vandalism or nominating for deletion. We're here to build an encyclopedia, bottom line. It's not that your contributions aren't appreciated, but I need to see well-rounded contributions from prospective administrators. Cheers, faithless (speak) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Comment

    Nearly all of your mainspace contributions seem to be adding tags, reverting vandalism or nominating for deletion. We're here to build an encyclopedia, bottom line.

    I agree that his contributions could be more varied, but admins are regular users with extra tools for maintenance. Why should we criticize someone who is helping with that? L337 kybldmstr 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking, but I'll do my best to reply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking his chosen form of contribution. Nor do I mean to trivialize what he does around the project. However, my concerns are twofold: 1.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every editor should make building up the content of the encyclopedia their number one concern, while other tasks (vandal fighting, etc.) should be secondary. Of course, this is just my opinion, and you're free to agree or disagree. 2.) Someone with as little experience writing articles as our friend here would very likely not possess a very thorough knowledge of WP policies, nor how and when they should be implemented. We all have our specific criteria when judging an RfA, things we look for. For me, it's exceptional mainspace edits and article building. If I'm hiring an English teacher, I'd rather hire Thomas Pynchon than his editor. As far as admins go, I'd rather have an excellent content contributor than someone whose sole interest is "backstage" type work. I hope my response make sense, it's past six in the morning and I haven't slept. If you'd like further explanation, I'd be happy to try and elaborate. Cheers, faithless (speak) 11:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, while you do seem to be trying hard, and your edits are in good faith, you haven't yet fully understood Wikipedia policies. For instance, an article being a stub is NCD (not criteria for deletion). Also, you should consider improving your English as people are more likely to support someone who has a good knowledge of the English language. If you can improve in those areas I'd be more supportive of your RfA, but until then I don't think you're quite ready yet. L337 kybldmstr 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per issues raised above. Still not ready yet. Jmlk17 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Referring to your answer to question 1, none of what you have stated requires admin tools. So the question remains "why would you need the tools"? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The diff Jackrm has provided lead me to believe that you may misuse the tools. I'm not saying you will abuse them, what I'm saying is that you will accidentally misuse them. You are not ready for adminship. Sorry:(--SJP 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.