Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nations United
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (1/5/1); withdrawn by candidate at 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw my request for adminship. I knew it was a long shot but I got some good feedback. I'll continue to edit Wikipedia as I always have. Thank you everyone. Nations United (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
[edit]Nations United (talk · contribs) – Hello fellow Wikipedians. I would like to nominate myself for a sysop because as someone who is kind, understanding and helpful, I think I would be a great administrator. I am going to first address the issue that I know all users reviewing this RFA will notice as a problem. I do recognize that I have a low edit count and many of you may think that because of this I am not experienced. I don't think that is the case. I say this because I know all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures. Over the months I've been here, I have read and understood all of these guidelines. The reason for my low edit count is that editing is not my main purpose on Wikipedia. My main purpose is to fight vandalism, deal with issues and problems, and be as helpful as I can. I love to help and have helped various people with their issues and questions. I would like to keep doing this but also fight vandals. Vandalism is a big problem on Wikipedia and I want to help Wikipedia overcome this problem. I want to stop vandals by making them understand what they are doing is wrong. I believe that blocking is a tool that should be used as seldom as possible because I think that users should first get the chance to understand what Wikipedia is all about. Although, I know that unfortunately sometimes blocking a user is the only way for them to learn. I want to help Wikipedia to the full extent and although I have a low edit count I believe that this shouldn't be a big issue. The tools that administrators have are for people who are prepared and that can use those tools in a responsible manner. I am one of those people. Wikipedia is already a fantastic encyclopaedia and it will only get better. I want to be one of those people who make it the best it can be. If this RFA is unsuccessful I will graciously accept it and continue to serve Wikipedia as I always have. Thank you for reading this RFA and I hope, no matter the outcome, we can all improve Wikipedia so it can always be the great encyclopaedia it has, is, and always will be. Nations United (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]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: I intend to help new users or any user with questions or problems. Whatever they need, I want to be there to help. I mainly would like to fight vandals and make Wikipedia as vandalism free as possible. To do this, I will always try to talk to the user (unless they are rude or extremely disruptive) in my own words and make them understand what Wikipedia is all about. Before I use one of the most powerful tools an admin has, I want to make them understand that there is no point in vandalizing and that they can easily be a constructive editor.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions I have to say is vandalism fighting. I have fought vandals for hours at times and to be honest I really enjoy doing it. I know that every little vandalism edit that I revert, I am making Wikipedia a better and more constructive place.
- 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 haven't really been in many conflicts because I try to be as understanding as possible but there has been a couple of users who have annoyed me. The way I deal with these users is first I always talk to them in a calm way and get them to do the same. If this doesn't work, or they start to insult me or anyone else, I tell them to stop immediately. Although this hasn't happened, if they get too out of hand and disrespectful I report them to an administrator. In the future I would like to deal with these problems the same way I always have. Calmly, rationally and respectfully.
General comments
[edit]- Links for Nations United: Nations United (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Nations United can be found here.
- Here is my edit chart
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
Support
[edit]- Moral support With under 300 edits, I'm going to have to say not right now. Pilif12p : Yo 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]- Not Now, sorry Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry, but fewer than 300 edits is nowhere near enough experience. The claim "I say this because I know all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures" is really not convincing - nobody knows them all, and you can't hope to understand how policies really work until you've spent some time actually using them. Also, "The reason for my low edit count is that editing is not my main purpose on Wikipedia. My main purpose is to fight vandalism, deal with issues and problems, and be as helpful as I can" doesn't make sense, because you can't do any of those things without doing edits. We need to be able to see evidence to support claims of how good you are and what you say you know, and that takes at least a few thousand edits - so please stick around and try again when you have that level of experience, and I hope I'll be able to support you at a later time. (Oh, and if you haven't done, have a good read of Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No experience in Wikipedia space at all, which is where an admin would be expected to work. Fighting vandalism can be done without the tools. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inexperience, and candidate's failure to understand why this matters. Townlake (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As per WP:NOTNOW .I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- There is really not enough yet to evaluate your candidacy. On the other hand, I haven't seen anything that leads me to distrust you with the tools.--Chaser (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2010 (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.