Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mollymoon

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

mollymoon

Nomination

Final (2/10/0); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by — Aitias // discussion at 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mollymoon (talk · contribs) – A Wikipedia Lover - Great Future Administrator Mollymoon (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I think I'd be a great administrator, and hope everyone else agrees. I know there's not much on my user page, so look at my contributions page.

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: I may start a Wikiproject for some of the articles I've noticed need some work. Also, I would mark articles that need it as candidates for speedy deletion. Those are probably some of the main things I'd do, but I'd definitely do other administrative work, too.

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

A: I think my best contributions are probably the articles I've created, and the ones I've corrected factual errors in, or changed the way things have been said so that they are clearer. I'm sorry, but I can't think of a specific article now. I think they're best because they have, in my opinion, made Wikipedia better and more accurate.

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: A: I have not been in any conflicts, except for one thing on the Pixar article. Someone kept deleting the teaser trailers section and leaving only something like "See individual pages for more information" when the pages didn't have anything about the teaser trailers and I put it back. I said we should keep it, but I think it was decided that the information would be added to the articles, which was fine, too. If something like that happens in the future, I think I would vote to add the information to the individual articles.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

You have less than 500 edits, and while edit count should not be a factor in RfA, 500 edits shows an extreme lack of experience. This will be closed per WP:NOTNOW. Withdrawal recommended. iMatthew // talk // 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, that's a bit contradictory, wouldn't you say? :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that while it's only March, you have only 75 edits this year. We just can't judge your knowledge of policy and how you'd act as an administrator; this is not a bunch of editors opposing but rather saying "we just have nothing to go by". Recommend you withdraw and come back at a later date with more policy knowledge and accompanying experience. Frank | talk 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a wikiproject w/o becoming an admin.--Res 2216 firestar 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also mark articles for WP:CSD without being an administrator, and in fact, it's one of the criteria most often cited as showing an editor's experience level (or lack thereof) when trying to become an administrator. Frank | talk 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Moral Support - Unfortunately you don't have a lot of experience in many admin areas. I don't want this RfA to go through with no supports, since I think you are doing your best. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support I agree with J.delanoy. Thank you, Mollymoon, for your sincere desire to help Wikipedia. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry, but I'm afraid WP:NOTNOW applies. You only have 312 edits, and while edit count in itself isn't an indicator of experience, it seems that you misunderstand the position of an administrator. Best of luck in the future, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Juliancolton.--Res 2216 firestar 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - far too inexperienced and few edits at all, and believing "my best contributions are probably the articles I've created" only shows this far too well when one looks at those articles. Just in the first page of contribs, one is a duplicate of an existing, older and fuller article; and the other three are non-notable single line items. This candidate has a lot more to learn before considering RfA. Recommend starting at the tutorials and How to Edit pages. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the disruptive behavior shown of late is not a good sign at all. You disagree with the overwhelming consensus against having MPAA ratings in the Film infobox, so you make your own version then run around replacing existing ones and make a fake project to promote this goal? Not good...not good at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support per above. sorry too inexperienced.--Giants27 ^T/C 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your morally supporting yet you placed your vote in the oppose section. Huh? 137.154.73.31 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A moral support is essentially the same as an oppose, so the two are generally interchangeable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it simply sounds better than Moral Oppose....- Fastily (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too inexprienced per above. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too little experience. Try again perhaps in a few months and more edits. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WAY too inexperienced and you don't need to be an admin to start a WikiProject. Molly has no need for the tools. Tavix (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of experience, somewhat egotistical nomination statement, and your editing is sporadic. Also, you seem too only sporadically use edit summaries. My recommendations would be to firstly commit to editing more, secondly gain experience in Wikipedia processes (WP:XFD, for example), and finally wait some time before trying again, or you could pick up a label of "Too desperate for adminship" before you've really been able to establish yourself. Esteffect (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry but under 500 edits is just not enough edits to become an administrator. Apply again when you have more experience. Unfortunately I'd suggest you withdraw your request or this will be closed per WP:NOTNOW. Neu_tralle 10:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far too soon I'm afraid. You need to build up much more experience of how Wikipedia works --Ged UK 11:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.