Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renaissancee

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.


Renaissancee

Final (28/29/15); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 02:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

WP:AFD and the like. Renaissancee is a great editor, welcoming to newbies and constantly on a vigilant lookout for vandalism. Good luck Ren, CanadianNine 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am fully aware of this nominated and accept.Renaissancee (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator I would engage in multiple duties, but mostly general vandalism. Already, I am engaged in general article vandalism, and am currently snooping around in Request for Comments, AFD's, RfA's, as well as and Administrator intervention. If I receive the administrator status, I will be more likely to be working with anti-vandalism and page protection. After become more aware of the rules and guidelines for administrators, I hope to begin giving rollback to trusting and potential future administrators.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Currently my best contributions are anti-vandalism campaigns and a small amount of work on British naval history, and minor articles that pertain to South Dakota or the British Empire. My first article created was Sailing and Fighting Instructions, but since have reduced edits due to my large involvement in anti-vandalism. Hopefully I can find time to add to that.
Edit: Not sure if I can change these answers or if they are set in stone, but whatever. I've recently started working on
Sioux Falls Transit
and it seems to be going alone well, large amounts of information to still be added.
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: After receiving my rollback status in late 2008, I have two incidents which caused a minor controversy, due to naive behavior and rushing through reverts (Yes, bad idea; I know...). After the first conflict, I began to more closely watch my edits and try to gain a better understanding in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Continuing after that, I have had no controversies with users.
Additional questions from Tempodivalse
4. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content disupte, et cetera.
A: Consensus would be an overall agreement to an article change, policy, guidelines, ect. As for determining consensus, it would most likely vary a large amount due to what scenario we/I hold. AfDs, SPIs, and so forth I think would require extreme consensus, due to the fact that they are either destroying someones own work, or getting ready to discipline an user. But overall, it depends on the scenario, parties involved, to find what percentage an overall consensus would be.
Additional questions from — Σxplicit
5. Can you think of a case where you would immediately speedy delete a page despite a {{hangon}} tag?
A.
6. Can you think of an instance where you would indefinitely block a user without any prior warnings?
A.
7. In your own words, can you describe the difference between a block and a ban?
A.
Question from Ceranthor
8. One editor in the oppose secttion expressed concern that all of your edits to one article were marked as minor. What do you think constitutes the difference between a major and minor edit?
A.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • I recall that just last summer 3-4 months was the requirement, things have changed 0.o Icewedge (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neuro(talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Support
  1. Support
    Why the hell not?--Giants27 T/C 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can think of a few reasons. I think you are using the "Why the hell not" argument incorrectly, frankly using that rational to legitimize everything is dangerous. — R2 07:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no reason to believe that Renaissancee isn't ready and able to use the sysop tools. Seven months is plenty of time to grow accustomed to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And a focus on anti-vandalism work isn't necessarily a bad thing: we need more vandal whackers with the mop (in fact that's sort of what the mop is for).
    Talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Moral support
    Until It Sleeps 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Support per
    WP:AGF, i.e. no blocks, no memorable conflicts between us, etc. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Support everyone should become admin (except vandals)
    talk) 08:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support. Seven months and 3600 edits are not WP:NOTNOW territory. Yes, I see a lot of huggling, but I believe that Renaissancee has the necessary experience, trustworthiness and knowledge to become and admin (and per the questions and ability to admit and learn from mistakes). Cool3 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support RfA standards have ballooned to absurd heights in the past years, in my opinion. Several months on the job and several thousand edits are more than enough to establish trust and knowledge of policy here, in my mind. I don't see any reason to oppose. tempodivalse [☎] 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. says you, says me, suggestion box 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. SupportSeven months and 2800 edits are certainly sufficient to be considered for adminship-- enough of a picture emerges. I am a little concerned about 2 instances of vandalism warnings that were incorrect and an incorrect CSD tagging mentioned on User talk:Renaissancee/Archives/1. Sandboxes are generally for sandboxing, so it's good you removed the warning. I count 23 successful CSD taggings among less than 500 deleted contribs. I do like notifying creators of CSD tagging. and of notifying users of reversions. The last 10 AIV reports resulted in blocks. More experience is never a bad thing, so please continue to gain it and fuller understanding. Hope to see you back again. Oh, and specialist admins are fine with me. You don't have to be a great article creator to be an admin. Dlohcierekim 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My review of the automated edits shows the user knows when to revert and when to tag for deletion, and yet is not perfect. At least one opposer seems to assume inability to use the tools correctly based solely on the candidate using automation instead of waisting time/energy doing it all by hand. Personally, VandalProof and then TWINKLE were God sends for me 'cause of my essential tremors reducing my typing rate to about 10 words a minute. Anything that helps a user do a better job is an asset, not a detriment. I've come across bad Hugglers as an admin and would oppose them if I saw them here. Their talk pages are littered with urgings from an admins to be more careful. I've not come across any such warnings for this user. If I had, I would be the first to oppose. (Also, for the candidate, that stop sign at the top of your talk page is bitey and makes me lose confidence in my confidence in you. It needs to include an apology if it's going to be there. If you've got a string of errors I did not catch, leave me a note so I can unembarrass myself.) And remember, a bad Huggler just makes it harder for the rest of the automated users. So make damn sure you're doing the right thing with it.) Dlohcierekim 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: RfA's have definitely ballooned to ridiculous levels (relative to
    cleaning tools and turn this RfA around. (Oh, and the nominator's wiki-youth is irrelevant to the acceptability of the candidate)--It's me...Sallicio!
    22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I actually don't see why not. Seven months of experience, need for the tools, and good anti vandalism work make it pretty easy for me to support--
    2216firestar 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is not the Cavendish physics laboratory; you are not working for Ernest Rutherford developing theories of atomic nature. Seven months is more than enough to learn the ropes around here - I seem to remember learning differential equations in less time. Candidate doesn't seem drama-prone, appears to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and there is zero evidence they will abuse the tools.
    Tan | 39 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Frankly, I don't believe that seven (or for that matter four-six months) is too short to gain the knowledge to become an admin. It does not matter whether someone is experienced or not, it only matters whether he can be trusted or not. I disagree with NGG's reasoning and think that you are much better than some admin candidates whose RfA passes.
    Talk 07:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Support, no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  15. Support Good user, likely good administrator. I'm not sure how much more we need to be asking of people. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - honestly don't believe the candidate would get into trouble performing the duties outlined in the response to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support, not a fan of solely-hugglers, but I'm willing to take a shot. Wizardman 15:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. On principle, as some of the opposes are ridiculous and this will at least even out the numbers. – 
    iridescent 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Support - seems a good editor from what little I've seen. I don't think it's a bad thing to have some who focus strongly on anti vandalism – it helps those who prefer content related edits feel less guilty for not pitching in! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - there are valid experience concerns, but overall nothing that really disturbs me. A good editor who's shown good sense and dedication; I wouldn't have a problem with having Renaissancee as an admin. I only find heavy Huggle use to be a bad thing if it's incompetent Huggle use, and that does not seem to be the case here - there's enough experience to show what I need to see. ~ mazca t|c 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Has done good work, not done anything crazy, and is not entirely empty in content creation, even if the focus is on anti-vandalism. (I do recommend balancing the vandal fighting with some article work as that will lower stress levels.) Seven months is more than enough time to gain knowledge of how Wikipedia works; I got my sysop bit after about three or four. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per almost everyone on this page. I was particularly impressed that the only diff I spotted in the oppose section was an error from four months ago. If the opposers had found incivility from four months ago then I would be concerned, but evidence that the candidate might not have been ready last December is IMHO scarcely grounds for an oppose now. By the standards of a couple of years ago when RFA was working you'd easily pass, so if this fails please don't take it personally. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Suppport per Wizardman - meets all of my usual standards - user of at least six months' experience with a sufficient number of edits, has rollback rights, useful user page, etc. The only issue that I have is all those automatic Huggle edits. But we need more
    otters. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Support – Five months of good experience and thousands of edits; a good user and I have no reason not to trust him/her. TheAE talk/sign 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Plus one. Has plenty of experience, IMO. Also, per Iridescent above. Keeper | 76 16:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. five months is more than enough to learn the ropes and become and admin. South Bay (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moral support - This one will not pass, but please don't get disheartened. Work hard for WP, and try again after few months. AdjustShift (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose-Slow down. You've only been here seven months. I'm sure

NGG) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to note that I was
talk) 08:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes well I'm sure you'd done a bit more than him whether it was here or another wiki. I oppose because 1)Terrible use of rollback. 2)Barely any mainspace edits and 3)Clearly needs to study up a little more on policies.--(
NGG) 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Terrible use of rollback? Could you please provide some evidence to support that claim? I was going to support, but I may have to reconsider if that is indeed accurate. #–Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prime example.--(
NGG) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Err, that was several months ago, but fair enough. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not making excuses for the candidate, but we all make mistakes. It's how we handle our mistakes that's important. That was a while back , and I don't think it's representative. Hopefully, the candidate will learn from the feedback and be better prepared next time. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was quite a ruckus when I first received my rollback, not going to lie about it. After receiving it, I was eager and ready to help Wikipedia, since I had just found the possibilities I had here. Of course, I got a overexcited and started causing more havoc then good.Renaissancee (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not particularly reassuring, considering adminship brings new 'possibilities'. — 
neuro(talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to bring in a 12 step cliche-- the first step in fixing a problem is recognizing it. Suggest looking forward to the next time. The opposition has the weather gauge and has cut the wind from your sails. Live and learn, learn and pass RFA next time. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it will make a difference, but this is possibly the stupidest "oppose" I've ever seen, and I include prima facie in that. – 
iridescent 16:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Neuro, would you rather have me lie? Just because I caused a few errors in the beginning doesn't mean I didn't learn from my mistakes. Renaissancee (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Not ready; you just need a few more months of work. -download | sign! 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry but I think that you need more experience with content creation. You showed us
    Sioux Falls Public Transit is a brand new article, so I wouldn't expect it to be much, but I would think at least a stub template would be nice. Peter Gooderham looks okay but it also seems that most of the proper formatting was added by other people. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose. You can't Huggle your way to a support from me (85% of your edits are via Huggle). I want to see more communication with other editors. You also have very little experience in the Wikipedia namespace, aside from updating the Huggle whitelist and report vandals via Huggle. You're too focused on one area for my taste; spread out a bit, become a Renaissance Man. Useight (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, Soap (talk · contribs) and Useight (talk · contribs) bring up some good points. I'd recommend taking some time to work on gaining experience in varied capacities on the project. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Unlike NGG, I don't think 7 months is intrinsically too short (I know people who just joined in January and do way better work around here than I do). But the article creations Soap pointed out don't demonstrate much knowledge of content guidelines and policies or how to write a proper stub. You don't need to have multiple featured articles or anything, but it would be nice to see more knowledge of content creation before entrusting you with the tools; I don't think admin tools are needed for only vandal-fighting, since you already have rollback and
    WP:AIV can generally handle blocks pretty quickly. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Minor Oppose Given his answer to Question 3, he is on the right track and is on his way to becoming a better editor. But seven months isn't quite the experience level that an admin needs. Give it some more time and experiences. Take up more admin related duties like AFDS and ANI and you will be truly the perfect candidate for the job. Good luck!  
    (Talk)  04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Per Soap, Useight, and Rjanag. Also, I'd expect at least a few reports to
    WP:RFPP before implementing blocks on one's own.--chaser - t 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Oppose. Needs more experience (several months, at least) with further progress on the Wikipedia learning curve. — Athaenara ✉ 07:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Your article contributions show a worrisome lack of knowledge about our content policies and guidelines, and per above, having nearly all of your edits done via Huggle does not equal aptitude for adminship. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose - 7 months is not too short in my book, but I think the concerns above do bring doubt on your knowledge of policies and guidelines. — 
    neuro(talk) 11:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Oppose this candidate because the high proportion of automated edits prevents me from assessing his knowledge.

    Work hard at writing some stuff, see it hit by some 100-edit-per-hour automated tagger, then defend it at AfD. :) That's a good way to demonstrate your suitability for adminship.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  12. Oppose Poor answers to questions, and no evidence of a good understanding of policy. Mayalld (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose I am hesitant to oppose, but I feel this is going to result in a case of
    WP:NOTNOW. Your heart seems to be into it, but I think you need to study up on admin and general wikipedia policies a little longer and gain more experience beyond automated reversion. Adminship requires a lot more manual labor than Huggle or Twinkle and I don't know if you are ready to handle it at the current time. Please take what we are saying to heart and reapply when you are ready. Valley2city‽ 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Oppose. Again, limited collaboration with other editors. Evidence of article building would also help. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose mainly due to not being impressed with answer to Q2. Would prefer to see at least one GA/FA/DYK. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per the above concerns. Timmeh! 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose as the user does not have enough experience to become administrator. Sure this user has a lot of edits, but don't forget that they have been ballooned by Huggle. Tavix |  Talk  01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Get a bit more broad experience, and you'll make a great admin in a few months.  Chzz  ►  01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go away.
    Tan | 39 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. Oppose This came to my notice as a result of an article created by Renaissancee on AfD (Sailing and Fighting Instructions) that was created just a few months ago. When investigating this I noticed that almost all of Renaissancee's edits were marked as "minor" when they shouldn't be. I just think more experience and a broader knowledge base is needed to be an administrator. Drawn Some (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not the best done page ever. Got some "keep" votes, too. My first page got speedily deleted. I think the creator has improved since then. Dlohcierekim 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was one of the "keep" votes, the issue I have is with the quality of the article and lack of follow through in improving it. More disturbing is all of the edits default-labeled as minor when they are not. An administrator shouldn't be doing that and should be aware of such matters. It's not that I think Renaissancee is untrustworthy, just that a broader level of knowledge is needed. I would be willing to support when that is demonstrated. Drawn Some (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got gigged on the minor edits thing to. Of course, most of mine were minor edits-- vandalism reverts, etc. Hopefully he will now unclick that button so the issue won't come up again next time. Dlohcierekim 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Excluding this month, the candidate has only 4 months of serious activity, and only 52 Talk space edits. The candidate just hasn't shown us enough of himself, particularly in regards to constructive inter-user communications. Sorry, but you're not ready just yet. Rami R 10:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose for not enough experience. Alio The Fool 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose as per above sorry good luck next time.
    Hate Comments 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Oppose Careless AfD votes—at least two in the last three days alone.[1][2] —Emufarmers(T/C) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. The concerns I have are with your experience outside the rvv realm. I was hoping for answers to the additional questions from Σxplicit. Without that, my opinion is formed with what little can be found on your knowledge of guidelines and policies. Please continue fighting vandalism. I also encourage you to keep guiding new users kindly. You are clearly a responsible user, who would block, delete, and protect with good intent. Demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and you will have my support. --Preceding unsigned comment 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I don't have a problem with the short timespan of editing, and the relatively small number of mainspace edits aren't a deal breaker. But looking at the last 500, most of them are with Huggle. I don't have a problem with hugglers, but I don't feel like I get an idea of this editor's contribution style when there's so little. Same for user talk edits -- almost all of them are with huggle, so I get very little feel for the communication style. Add to that recent AfD contributions that show a lack of understanding of AfD arguments ([3] and [4] are two of the three random recent AfDs I looked at), and I don't feel this candidate is ready yet. I hope to support in the future, but not now.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak Oppose
    WP:NOTNOW. Later, but not now. It's a little early yet. Sometime in the future, you can see me on the Support side, but not now.--Unionhawk Talk 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Oppose. Unfortunately, without the answers to my questions, I am unable to have confidence the user has enough policy knowledge to trust them with the tools. — Σxplicit 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. There is not enough time remaining for me to evaluate his answer. May switch if his answer are good enough. Ceranthor 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I don't wish to pile-on, but you're going to need more experience than automated vandalism-reversion before getting adminship here.
    talk) 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I see your concern with this, as a large amount of other editors do. I've always been the one who was liked doing behind the scenes work, such as vandalism. It gave me a quiet little place to do my own work, with no distractions and a good working environment. But you do take up good points for automated messages. Acting as a 'bot' won't get me everywhere, won't it? ;) A lot of this constructive criticism I believe will help me a lot, and may be one of the finer points in RfAs. Multiple users have tackled my weaknesses in both user confrontation as well as article creation. And as seeing fit, I've beginning to shape up and expand my approach into Wikipedia relations and other things. In the next few months hopefully I can be more presentable and able. Renaissancee (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think you need some more substantial edits. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 10:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I am in agreement with Stifle. This is a well-intended but premature candidacy.
    talk) 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral per Stifle. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral because I was going to support under no big deal because most of the NBD crowd opposed, but I felt that it would be a little mean. I honestly don't see any major problems with your candidacy, so work on things, put yourself out there more, and you'll probably be an admin before you know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. South Dakota and British naval history are both topics near and dear to my heart, so I really can't oppose. I also don't see seven months and 3,600 edits, in themselves, as being too little experience. However, I'm going to have to see some more quality article work before I'll support. You do seem like a good editor, and I'd be happy to support after a bit more article writing experience and perhaps a GA or two. AlexiusHoratius 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral You look like a good candidate, it's just hard to judge your trustworthiness and whether or not you're likely to abuse the tools without much manual edit history. However, I disagree with users who have said 7 months is too early to get the mop. Perhaps there aren't enough edits, but I don't see why only being active over half of a year is an issue. hmwithτ 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, partly because I was an admin in just nine months (and hmwith passed her second RfA in roughly seven months' time, and has turned out to be an excellent administrator). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per Stifle.
    GT5162 (我的对话页) 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Neutral per Stifle. America69 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ditto. Also (and no offense to
    talk 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just a thought The nominator is irrelevant to the acceptability of the nominee.--It's me...Sallicio! 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be controversial or aggressive, overconfident, any thing like that, but just because I've only been here 12 days doesn't mean I haven't begun to establish myself in different areas of the project. CanadianNine 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with your nomination, but when my account was 12 days old, I doubt that I even knew what a Wikipedia admin was, much less how to pick a suitable candidate and nominate them. Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I was beginning my 5th decade on the planet back then. I sincerely apologize if I've offended anyone with my previous comments. —
    talk 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Neutral I would have expected that Renaissancee would have at least moved one page or uploaded a file. Try out some more features to give some broader experience! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Per stifle. PerfectProposal 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Having taken a good look at your user and talk pages as well as your contributions and the other posts here, I'm of the opinion that you're a fine editor and an asset to Wikipedia. I don't base my opinions on experience or edit counts but I just don't feel you have the variety of edits required for the role. If you were to come back in a few months, having made more substantial contributions- for example major re-writes, article rescues etc, I would have no hesitation in supporting you. Sorry. HJMitchell You rang? 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seven months is long enough in my opinion, but you need to get more experience in areas that do not involve Huggle. I want to see more Renaissancee in your edits than just a machine edit summary and work. Try your hand at participating in
    WP:AFD a bit more and look to edit some articles for content. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Neutral Come back with more substantial edits and edits and different areas. As of right now, it does not appear as if administrator right and tools are neccesary for you to continue your work on Wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 04:33, 4 May 2009 (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/Renaissancee&oldid=1091462307"