Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/987li

Add links
Source: 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.

987li

Final (2/19/1); ended 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Originally scheduled to end08:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC) per

WP:NOTNOW --Guerillero | My Talk 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination

987li (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia on August 27, 2011. I began making edits to Wikipedia, thinking that I am very helpful, but I wasn't really helpful at that time. I never really vandalized Wikipedia before, but I made articles that I thought made at least some sense. Since then, I began my interest in Wikipedia. I made lots of edits to it: creating articles, updating information, creating Template pages etc. I really want to take a next step to Wikipedia and become an admin.987li (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I contribute to mainly episode guides and new articles on the episodes listed in the episode guide.
Examples:


  • Family Guy (season 10)
  • Modern Family (season 3)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The best ones were probably contributing to
Mama Luigi
(a TV episode from Super Mario World). These are probably the best ones because they provide a lot of information to many viewers/fans of the subject. (Template page: Because there might be some articles with issues like this)
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. In January - February 2012, I created a biographical article (
Jim Bonacci
). I knew the guidelines of biographical articles, and one is to have sources. I did have sources, but then I came across an admin who said that the sources were not reliable. I had trouble finding third-party sources, so the article was deleted.
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Moral Support You have great intentions, but your timing is premature. edit: Although you have only made 600 edits to the encyclopedia and only created four pages, you can and will gain the necessary experience required of an admin, and after months/years of decent work in administrator-related areas such as
    WP:AFD, you will be ready to be an admin! Best of luck, Bmusician 08:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Bmusician: Are you not familiar with
    WP:REDACT#Own_comments? You have changed your comments after others have commented on your original !vote. Leaky Caldron 12:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I am familiar with that. That's definitely not necessary here as I really did not change the meaning of my comment at all (except for three words in the middle). Is it clear that I don't have much to redact? Bmusician 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You altered both the wording and emphasis. Clearly you changed the meaning in an attempt to be less "confusing". How can you claim to have altered only 3 words in the middle? Look at this diff [1]. Leaky Caldron 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely this is an Oppose - with moral support not a Support wth moral support? Leaky Caldron 09:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Bmusician should be in neutral section with moral support as I have seen in few RfAs (held few yeears back) which had moral support in neutral section. Yasht101 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? It's up to Bmusician if he wants to support him or not. It doesn't matter if it's weak support, it's still support and it counts. Petrb (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with you that it is upto him, but our only concern is the support statement that he has written because there is nothing upon which we can say that he insists to support. Yasht101 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great intentions coupled with premature timing, lack of edits and all round lack of experience is a completely unsupportable situation. It's not even neutral. It is an oppose statement dressed up as a support which is a false representation of Bmusician's real position which is oppose. In fact it is disingenuous and intended purely not to hurt the candidate's feelings. Leaky Caldron 10:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ignore these accusations by LC and will honestly state that I morally support this candidate. Where in my !vote did I state anything negative in this candidate, aside from the premature timing/edits? Why does this relatively new editor deserve so many hostile opposes when running for RfA? Bmusician 10:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does the candidate benefit from you offering moral support in the support section when everything you subsequently point out is, correctly, wholly unsupportive of the candidate's application at this particular time? I withdraw disingenuous and substitute mistaken. The candidate is currently clueless as to what is required to succeed at RFA otherwise they would not be here. It would be preferable if prospective Admins such as yourself were more candid. Leaky Caldron 11:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I am not wholly unsupportive of this user, as the first part of my !vote states. My !vote basically means: 987li an excellent user with good intentions, but only needs more experience. Bmusician 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Spare the rod and spoil the child... I appreciate your opinion about hostile opposes, but they will have to learn a lot before going for RfA. Probably they even aren't aware of all the works that admins can do. The opposes are not unfriendly as if more supports showed up then I fear that this editor would feel that they did the right thing by starting the RfA but failed and would again do it. Yasht101 10:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Yash (post immediately above). Only one of the opposes (at time of typing) looks possibly hostile, and that one is stating a current status that will change if the advice given by others is followed. I also think that BM has the right to give moral support (immoral support would be another matter altogether...) and that their post gives good advice and I remember that this is not a head count, but that posts are read by the closer. Peridon (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Peridon and Yash have very valid points, I still don't understand why this user deserves so many opposes. Of course the main reason is that because
    they're not ready, but besides that, is there anything bad about this user? Of course, opposing new users is definitely necessary if besides NOTNOW, they truly have other significant issues in their editing behavior (such as this rfa). Bmusician 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Because he doesn't merit any support. This will be a withdrawal or a snow closure. If you can't see why he deserves to be opposed at this time I suggest you look at the requirements for applying for the role. Leaky Caldron 11:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, he does merit some support. I don't see why having a low edit count means he doesn't merit any support. And there are no official "requirements" for applying for adminship, as
    WP:GRFA states. Bmusician 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Doesn't the fact that this candidate is currently 1/12/1 suggest that community, so far, has identified no persuasive argument that they are capable of carrying out Administrative duties? Have you asked any questions of the candidate to establish his credentials? Would that not be worthwhile or do you simply offer up blind support for someone who, at least, has done no harm? Your approach is alarmingly naive. Leaky Caldron 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please kindly refrain from interpreting my moral support (note the word moral) as "blind" and "naive", I certainly did not intend to give a "blind support" or whatever that means. It's my opinion and just a vote. What's wrong with that? Bmusician 12:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support per the above. This clearly isn't going to be a successful RFA, but I think the candidate is smart enough to read through the comments in the oppose section and find recommendations on how to become a better editor. Familiarize yourself with the role of admins (and bureaucrats) in the operation of the Wiki, involve yourself in managing some of the perpetual backlogs, establish a body of work in the article space, etc. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/987li 2 will be successful if you take the constructive criticism on board and get involved. But if you don't end up as an admin, no worries - you don't get kicked out for lack of a promotion around here. Indeed, many would argue that Adminship is no promotion at all. Good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to my esteemed colleagues above - guys, let it go. You've made your points, and they are clear to all who have wits to read them. Let's go edit something, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please. There's absolutely no need to continue that...especially if I have expressed my own opinion. How does it affect others? Bmusician 13:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BM. The whole drama above was of not much use so far this RfA was concerned. Yasht101 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am entitled to expose what I consider to be weakness in any editor's !vote, comment or statement. I have done that without consequence to the unfortunate candidate. However, if a 100 people offered "Moral support" in the Support section of an RFA we would end up with a totally clueless Admin on our hands. Leaky Caldron 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what we'd have is an unsuccessful admin candidate having the idea of Consensus explained to him, and why the closing bureaucrat gave appropriate weight to the "Moral Supports" when balanced against the substantive concerns of the "Oppose" editors. RFA is not a vote, and the closing Bureaucrat exercises discretion in closing the RFA - and a crat who gave the tools to an editor with only moral support and significant opposition would lose their own tools in short order, and rightly so. If we did see a bunch of editors supporting this candidate for realsies, then obviously there would be some re-evaluation to do. I don't think that's likely in this instance. You are indeed entitled to engage with editors regarding their comments, as you see fit, but you've done that already - repeatedly. The discussion then turned into something less about the candidate and more about the morality of moral supports - a discussing best had elsewhere. That's why I suggested moving along. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Sorry, at just under 600 edits it's way too early to be requesting adminship. Also, the answer to question 1 suggests you don't quite understand the point of the question. 28bytes (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On grounds of overall lack of experience, no edits in Wikipedia namespace (so no administrative experience) and a way to go on understanding what makes a good article (noting all the deleted articles and the number of new strange redirects created).
    TalkQu 09:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. WP:NOTNOW. --Rschen7754 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. WP:NOTNOW also. Best of luck in the future. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 09:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Oppose Currently clueless. Leaky Caldron 09:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WP:NOTNOW - Yasht101 09:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Oppose Too few edits. Good luck for the future, but
    WP:NOTNOW. --sparkl!sm hey! 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Another Not now. Your answer to Q1 shows no need for the tools. You don't seem to be working in areas where admins work - CSD, AfD, the notice boards, SPI, etc. Get some experience in those places (at first just watching...), and in RfAs too. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WP:NOTNOW - Your heart and your passion are in the right place. I applaud your inclusionist perspective. Stick with us. Keep the faith. Lasting contributions to human knowledge should never go unacknowledged. ;-) Faustus37 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. The answer to question 1 doesn't show any understanding of what an administrator's role is, or why zie would need the tools. I'm not even going to say NOTNOW, because at this stage there is too little editing history to give me anything on which to base a future decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm afraid you don't have anywhere near enough experience, and you don't seem to have a clear idea of what being an administrator means. "I really want to take a next step to Wikipedia" is not a good reason for becoming an administrator: being an administrator is not a sort of badge to show that you are progressing in a Wikipedia career. Your answer to question 1 does not mention any administrative work at all, suggesting that you are not aware of what admin work is. I can see no evidence of any experience of admin-related work in your editing history: anyone undertaking the job of an administrator has to have relevant experience. Finally, I have found some cases where you have shown a lack of the understanding that is required for an administrator. Maybe you will make a good adminitrator one day, but not for quite a while. At present you are nowhere near ready.
    talk) 11:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose. 987li is lacking experience and doesn't seem to understand the role of administrators. On the other hand, I believe that he is genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia. I recommend more editing and also find a mentor who will guide him. If 987li still wants to be an admin after, say, a few thousand edits, he should discuss this with his mentor (or another experienced editor who knows him well) and then be nominated by the mentor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Will support you may be after a after or after few months, with few thousands of article space edit count. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - 450 edit in mainspace is not enough. mabdul 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support I can only offer moral support. You have good intentions here and no doubt if you work hard in a vareity of places here that you will no doubt be an admin in a year or 2.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose
    talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. WP:NOTNOW - It seems that everyone likes the work you're doing, but we just need a larger record of your actions before we can trust you with some powerful tools. Keep working at it, you'll get there. Achowat (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  18. WP:NOTNOW - keep at it and come back later Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 13:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Oppose because of
    AndieM (Am I behaving?) 13:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral
  1. I like your edits. I really do. It's just that there a re so few of them! Make a few more edits, [by few I mean a lot], and then come back. You're sure to get everyone's votes. Till then, I don't think you'd succeed. Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits don't actually matter. Sir Nick became an admin with 3000 edits. It is the quality of edits, experince and good understanding of policies that speaks. Your neutral vote gives a comperatively less experinced editor a view that only edits are important. Yasht101 10:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of my vote being neutral is lost now. It is known that edit count does not matter. I DID NOT mean that edit count matters, I merely stated that a little more edits [which implies more experience] is required. If it were indeed about edit count, it would be in the oppose section right? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should state it in your vote because this editor is relatively unexperinced and also little impulsive who doesn't understand exactly how RfA works. So, if you don't eloberate your concern, then the editor can be mistaken and may go on wrong track caring only about edits. Yasht101 10:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that there a re so few of them! Make a few more edits, [by few I mean a lot], and then come back. You're sure to get everyone's votes. Till then, I don't think you'd succeed.
    By this statement, even an experinced editor would think that your concern is only about edits. Thanks. Yasht101 10:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you are so concerned about what I say. Can we please take this to my TALK PAGE? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Additional discussion moved to this RFA's talk page.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/987li&oldid=1224024005"