Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielspencer91

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

Danielspencer91

Final: (0/9/0); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by wiooiw (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Danielspencer91 (talk · contribs) – This is me,Gregory House M.D. (talk). I wasn't sure which name to use, my log-on name or my nickname. I probably got it wrong, so hey.

I have been editing Wikipedia on and off for three (or more) years now, and have been involved in many Wikipedia projects such as anti-vandalism and Adopt-a-user, and have helped patrol breaking news articles to revert edits against the consensus on the talk page Gregory House M.D. (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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: My key aim would be to protect articles fully against "rumor edits", where users flock to a page to edit it due to the latest rumor on Twitter or Facebook. That would make many peoples lives a lot easier, and allowing factual and user consensus on edits before editing the page itself. For example, if I were an admin during the death of Ronnie James Dio, it would have made the reverting and blocking of unconstructive edits a lot easier. Another "pet peeve" I would focus on are vandalism posts, and would find vandalized pages and take action with due diligence.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia would probably be the creation of new pages, such as York Housing Association, Grevillea australis, Koningsplein and Living Tomorrow. It is one of the best feelings in the world to see other users take these pages and develop them into professional articles, in a way only Wikipedia can.

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: The few conflicts over editing I have had in the past have all been with IP addresses. those that have vandalised, I have reverted their edits and sent a standard Wikipedia message to their talk page asking them to cease. if they continued to vandalise, I contacted an admin, who have previously blocked their accounts (thank god). With general unconstructive edits to articles, such as with the Ronnie_James_Dio debacle surrounding his death, I confirmed with the talk page on the consensus around his death, along with the media, and reverted posts as necessary, giving reason in the edit summary.

General comments

• Links for Danielspencer91: Danielspencer91 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Danielspencer91 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Oppose

1. Oppose With under 900 edits, i can't support, but please keep up the good work! Pilif12p :  Yo 
2. Oppose Less than 1,000 total edits, less than 100 this year. I can't evaluate a candidate with this little experience in absence of unusual circumstances (such as a sysop on other WMF projects). Courcelles (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
3. "I probably did it wrong"... no you didn't, but I would advise observing other successful and unsuccessful RfAs to see what the standard is, before you next run. I hate to oppose, but you're really not ready. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Pilif12p; even globally less than 1000 edits. Keep up the good work and come later. --Leyo 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm concerned about copyvio here [1] and mildly annoyed by the signature not being the username, but I can get over that :). Also, full protection would have been very inappropriate, I think, for the page you mentioned. It used be possible to become an admin with <900 edits; unanimously, even: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Meelar. I'm not sure why this has changed. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose per WP:SNOW. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, maturity. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose per lack of experience and activity. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. BejinhanTalk 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)