Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barts1a

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

barts1a

Final (1/11/1) Scheduled to end 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Closed per WP:NOTNOW by –xeno^talk 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

barts1a (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination, mainly to see if the community is willing to trust me with the mop. Please take this as seriously as any other RfA Barts1a (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As it is a self-nomiation I accept

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: Mainly applying blocks to repeat vandals that obviously need a 'wikibreak' to think on an issue

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think that my best contributions to wikipedia are my various vandalism reversions

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: When it happens that I get caught in an edit conflict (which has happened several times!) I warn the user appropriately and if the user initiates discussion I usually respond appropriatly. If they decide to try and ram their point of view onto the article in question and/or me after being warned that the edit being made is not appropriate for wikipedia I discuss/shrug off/revert the attempts, if they continue I repeat/report as necessary.

General comments

• Links for barts1a: Barts1a (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for barts1a can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support- your RfA is going to fail, as it should. You simply do not have enough experience yet. Clearly you are acting in good faith and have good motivations, and I hope this doomed RfA does not put you off. Best of luck in the future, and maybe we'll see you here again in six months or a year. Reyk _YO! 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too inexperienced and the answer to #3 gives me pause. Your first step when engaged in a conflict should not be to warn the other side, but to engage in discussion. You should also not be perpetuating the revert war as you said you do. either way (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose but with moral support. Really not enough experience yet, and answers to questions aren't really there. But please stay with us and keep making great contributions - once you have a wider range of experience, I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose because of (1) lack of experience, (2) answer to #3 and (3) almost no content work, almost all of his edits in the article namespace are reverts. He has violated WP:3RR many times. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Q1 is poorly answered. Applying blocks for those who need a break is discouraged. Also, you've called this edit vandalism when actually the IP was adding references. I'd advise you to read WP:Vandalism first before re-applying. Minimac (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'm forced to agree with those above - you need more experience and more content work before submitting to RFA. Do stick around, though, and do not be discouraged. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. Moral support, but you're a bit too inexperienced. Edit conflicts are not anyone's fault you do not warn users involved in an edit conflict, rather you discuss the edit conflict on appropriate pages. I commend your eagerness and willingness to participate in the project :) Don't give up your hopes :) Regards and happy editing, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:25pm • 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Not yet enough evidence of experience in either quantity or quality. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - You clearly don't have enough experience to become an administrator. And we don't block people who need a break. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
9. See WP:NOTNOW Townlake (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am taking this seriously. I can imagine myself supporting a candidate with a thousand edits or so. But an editor with a clue would realize that a nomination with this few edits is going to have to present a case to explain why this situation is unusual, and deserves support. I not only don't see a credible case, I don't see an attempt. If you would like me to take your nomination seriously, you have to meet me part-way and show that you take it seriously. I don't that. Sorry. Hope this does not come across too harsh, and I hope you gain experience try again when you are ready.--SPhilbrickT 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose Don't be discouraged, but you don't have enough experience and knowledge to become an admin yet - Q1 is an example, it's well-known that "cool-down blocks" are not appropriate, but come back in maybe six months to a year and you'll have a shot. ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 14:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Comment - I'll comment, rather than piling on another oppose. I don't want to discourage a keen and well intentioned editor. However, I can't support you yet, because your experience is not sufficient to be seeking adminship right now. I'm sure that, later, with more experience, you could make a good admin, and judging from your helpful contributions so far, I'd be likely to support, then. I'd recommend reading WP:NOTNOW, and looking through some previous unsuccessful and successful RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing in the meantime.  Begoon•talk 13:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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.