Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abcdefghijklm

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Abcdefghijklm

Final (0/5/3) Ended 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abcdefghijklm (talk · contribs) – I suspect most editors will take my edit count and throw it at me, saying it is not high enough. However, this is misleading as I have had 12 months experience as an IP user. I have the interests of the project at heart, and I wish to be able to contribute more towards the community, as I like to protect the work of others. I spend a lot of time doing RCP and Disambiguation link repair. I hope that you will consider me for adminiship on this basis, and trust me to remember that admins are like cleaners rather than managers, which so many who have gone before seem to have forgotten!!

Please don't confuse this with a newbie who is trying to fast-track to being an admin, I think I am a relatively experienced user now, and I am not afraid to seek help when need be. Most of my edits as an IP were in the article namespace, so I will be looking to get a bit more experience in the WP namespace, and hope to look to other users for guidance when I am stuck. I do feel I now have sufficient knowledge for adminship.

Some diff's for you:
City Council - I built the table as an eventual replacement to

EDITS: 500+ (I am sure I make it well in to the thousands through my IP contribs)
MISTAKES: Everybody makes them. I have to admit doing a hasty revert once, when I was trying to protect a page from a vandalism attack, and accidentaly got the wrong page.
SUMMARY USAGE: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits
INTERVENTION: I once intervened where I saw the 3RR rule was about to be broken, and I advised the feuding editors on the best way forward. They have since reached a peaceful conclusion. Abcdefghijklm 14:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdrawn by Candidate

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose sorry. 567 edits just isn't enough to get any kind of picture of what sort of editor you are. In addition, an account only one month old just isn't old enough. I cannot support giving you the tools to block people, delete, undelete etc if I can't get an idea of what sort of editor you are. Enthusiasm is appreciated and recognised, but sorry, I have to oppose. Try again in a few months.
   Talk) 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I completely understand, and take your points on board. Thanks for taking the time to leave a constructive comment! Abcdefghijklm 15:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate and admire the maturity you have shown in responding to comments here and, like Gwernol below, will be happy to be a strong supporter of a future RfA if you continue your Wiki-career in this way.

   Talk) 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Oppose. Please don't take this personally (or as me having editcountitis), but your length of time here (since June 9) and your contributions (<600) are pretty much deal breakers. I recognize that you probably edited under an IP address, but there is really no way (other than Checkuser, I guess) to link those contributions with your current account. They're not wasted...but they are lost for the purposes of this discussion. Please come back in a couple months when your username has a little bit more experience. Alphachimp ^talk 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. You haven't been here long enough to have the experience. There is also this warning on your talk page [2] which makes me think that you are not ready for the tools administrators have. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a few months.--John Lake 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This issue is actually in the process of being resolved. I don't think it was actually meant as a warning, but just the user didn't want to type out his own message. I can cite sources to recreate this article if we agree this is the best solution. Abcdefghijklm 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, sorry but insufficient experience. Recommend withdrawal. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose less than one hundred edits outside of Main, User, and User Talk. If you had a consistent IP during your IP-contributing days, providing a link to that address and its contribs might give a clearer picture of your work, but probably that still won't suffice. - Draeco 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I would do this, but unfortunately my IP varies. I am now withdrawing this candidacy, as recommended. Abcdefghijklm 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Contributions in Portal Talk and Category Talk are a plus but low overall edits and time with the username are big minuses. Diff's (i.e. links to specific edits) for the contributions mentioned in the nomination would be a big help. Eluchil404 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I can't in all all honesty support you yet, per Sarah Ewart's excellent reasoning. I have no
   doubt that you do have a lot of experience as an IP editor, but we just don't have the evidence available over an extended period of time that allows us to be sure. However, I will certainly not oppose you. I've seen you editing here a lot in the last month and have been impressed with your work and sound judgement. Give it another 2-3 months like this and I will be a strong supporter of your next RfA. My personal advice is to withdraw this RfA early, continue contributing and you will be an admin. Good luck, Gwernol 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Very many thanks for this comment. I am intending to leave this RfA open for a short while only, before withdrawing it. Of course you need to be able to trust that you are giving the admin tools to a genuine user, so I am happy to wait another few months for these tools, and I am certainly in no rush to get them. I made this RfA because I thought I was ready for the tools, however I widely suspected it would not be sucessful. As I say, I will keep the RfA open for a while longer (to get more advice if nothing else). Again, thanks for your comments. Abcdefghijklm 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral per
   Guinnog 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• See Abcdefghijklm's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Abcdefghijklm's edit summary usage with Interoit's tool 2

Username	Abcdefghijklm
Total edits	575
Distinct pages edited	327
Average edits/page	1.758
First edit	17:01, June 9, 2006
	
(main)	256
Talk	11
User	106
User talk	122
Template	6
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	69
Wikipedia talk	2
Portal	1
Portal talk	1

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would participate in regular Recent Changes Patrol. I would also help with deletions and always keep an eye on the admins noticeboard to help out other users. I hope to be able to contribute in these capacities more effectively as an admin, but I will always act like a regular user when it is not necessary to use my admin tools.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am very pleased with my edits to

Chester City Council, on which I built many of the tables myself. I have also made a draft for a vandal fighting group on my user namespace

, I hope to one day to be able to introduce it to the Wikipedia namespace.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:I have never had any major conflicts, nevertheless there have been some minor ones, for example my hasty revert, which I mentioned before. I have also, for example, made an edit which another user disagreed with, such as my announcing John Terry being appointed England captain. I had seen the claim in a Sunday newspaper, but could not remember which one, so could not form a citation. When another user complained, I compromised. I have recently been alerted to the fact that I attempted to create a page for the upcoming Labour leadership contest, another user did not think that this was acceptable. I have left a message on his talk page, and I am currently waiting for him to get back to me. When he does, I will form a compromise with him, on the way forward.

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.