Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Averross

Add links
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.

Averross

[edit]

Final (0/16/3); Ended 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Averross (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia for a few months and though I have made a few mistakes, I have also worked to improve it as much as I could. One of my larger accomplishments on this site is reverting quite a bit of vandalism. Hopefully I will be granted power that will further help me stop vandals on the site. It's always been a great resource for me and I hope to keep it that way. Averross 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Okay


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Combatting vandalism and improving articles as I see fit. I'm also focused on the Cvg and Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Hmmm, not really.
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've only been in very minor ones stemmed from simple misunderstandings. They have all been settled with very little dispute.
General comments

Discussion

  • You really want to answer the questions before starting an RfA; if you don't answer the questions or at least provide a convincing argument as to why you haven't, it's likely that you'll just get a pile-on of opposes. --ais523 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral Support. Diffyoeu224 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Account has six edits, all to userpages and RfAs. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, suggest withdrawl You aren't nearly experienced enough, you haven't shown evidence of being able to apply policy (for instance, Admin's Noticeboard discussions, Wikipedia or Wikipedia-talk space discussions, etc.), and you haven't shown a need for the tools (that's one of the things the questions are for, which you haven't answered). See this RfA's talk page for my evidence. --ais523 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Now that Q1's been answered, I'll elaborate: Before I'll trust someone with the ability to block users directly, I'll expect them to have blocked more users through WP:AIV, and blocking's the only administrator ability that you're asking for here. --ais523 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Id. - crz crztalk 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose sorry, but with fewer than 250 edits (and nearly half of those are to your user page) there just isn't enough evidence available to me to support you. In addition I am worried by your answer to Q1 "Combatting vandalism and improving articles as I see fit" - first you can combat vandalism and improve articles without the admin tools. More importantly the admin tools should be used in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, not as you see fit. The role of an admin is to enforce policy, not do whatever they like with the tools. Sorry, Gwernol 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. You mean well, but you need WAY more experience. --Wizardman 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose More experience in all aspects of Wikipedia required. Come back in a year. (aeropagitica) 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose and suggest withdrawal per others. --tennisman sign here! 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Technical Oppose nothing against the candidate but have a couple of comments, your sense of humour could cause the occasional moment of friction, and there's a few users who will intensely dislike your enthusiasm to be an administrator, but assuming all goes well, I'll be quite happy to support in a couple of months time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Star Wars Oppose. As stated by many others, you simply don't have enough experience on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Automatic Oppose - Needs much more than 152 edits to have a chance of passing. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose You should definitly wait and try this again after you gather a lot more edits. Right now, you just don't have the experiance, sorry.Ganfon 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, admins shouldn't be calling other people "dumbasses". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose- Not enough experience--SUIT42 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Your keenness is certainly appreciated, but you are not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 Wikipedia edits, and a track record of several months as a consistent, positive contributor (usually with an average contribution rate of over 100 edits per month). This allows the community to develop the trust in them to agree to give them the adminship tools. Right now, just keep contributing as a regular editor becuase you don't need to be an admin to help build the encyclopedia. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again sometime in the future after significantly stepping-up your contributions. Zaxem 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose Did you even take a look at WP:GRFA? ← ANAS Talk? 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Sorry, but come back when you have 2000-3000 edits. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose You lack experience in many areas. Come back when you have at least 1,500 edits and the right proportion of mainspace and Wikipedia edits.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Just to avoid a pile-on. You have right now 152 total edits. When you have 3,000, spread over Mainspace and Namespace, try again.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral and urge withdrawal per pretty much everybody. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Avoiding pile-on. I'm going to give you some advice that I gave to another user during his RfA: You need more edits! It's not that there's a specific edit number that you have to have, but it's the experience of dealing with people, vandals, and policy. You must demonstrate a serious attitude in order to have the extra tools. You might be a serious person, but your answers were answered poorly and without much thought. The RfA is a serious deal. Adminship is not something that Wikipedia throws away to everyone. Spend 5-6 more months on the English Wikipedia, make a lot of useful edits (just don't get editcountis), read over the admin reading, get some admin coaching, take some virtual classroom classes, and we'll see from there. If you do that, and try again for RfA, then we'll probably see the votes change. Hope this helps, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 04:38, 11 January 2007 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Averross&oldid=1146588757"