Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockstone35

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.

Rockstone35

[edit]

Final tally: (3/11/0); closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Rockstone35 (talk · contribs) – I, Rockstone35 wish to humbly offer my services as an administrator to the wonderful Wikipedia community. I have for the past several weeks and months studied wp:List_of_policies and of course wp:banned users, amongst other things. I understand all of the policies of Wikipedia, and am extremely interested in preserving it's function and stopping the mounting vandalism. I feel that I will be a valuable administrator to Wikipedia, being here for more than three years. Most of my edits are on talk pages and the like. I prefer discussing things rather than changing them abruptly.

I suppose I should mention that I am aware that my edits number around 1000. I tend to read discussions more than comment on them, unless I feel the need to, and I don't want to edit things for the sake of increasing my edit count. That is redundant.

I understand that I have had conflicts in the past, which I will address to what I hope is anyone who reads this satisfaction below. Rockstone (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 want to stop vandalism especially. There is only so much I can do to stop it as a regular user. Right now, when no admin can assist me, I feel like I'm saying to vandals "STOP! Or I'll say STOP again!". Should I have technical ability to block them, it would be a great benefit.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Good question. My best would probably be Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Page_rename_proposal, where I debated civilly for the rename to Catholic Church, and along with my fellow editors, won.
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: Yes, a few. My first real conflict was when I deleted something that called Communist States oppressive. (Since that was NPOV, yes, it is oppressive, but you don't have to be blunt about it, its criticisms should speak for it) That was way back in 2007, and my methods were ill advised at the time, but I have improved. Also, Human Rights in the United States has been a large topic for me because I thought the scope of the article did not include Abu Garib. It appears that the main thing I fought for, which is that the pictures which serve no purpose be deleted, did occur a few months after I disengaged from the article. I am glad I did, and if I am admin, I won't mediate things I have vested interest in (being a US citizen and all). Later problems have been related mostly to my incorrect Speedy Deletion tags, which is why I plan to stay out of article deletion until I am well versed in that.

Optional questions from [flaminglawyer]

4. You find an IP vandal who's been having about 2 edits/day (all vandalism) for the past 3 days. You revert the edits.
a. What comes next? Do you block the guy, or do you nicely ask him to stop (mentioning, of course, the punishment if he continues)?
A.
b. (if you chose not to block him) You check his contributions the next day and he's done some more. Now what?
A.
c. (if you chose to block him in either A or B) What would be the duration of the block?
A.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rockstone35 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral Support. You clearly seem to be here for the right reasons. However, as you are already aware, many people will be uncomfortable with supporting someone with such a low number of contributions. I must regretfully admit that I am one of those people. Please do not get discouraged if this RfA fails. If I'm not mistaken, someone will shortly produce a list of specific things you may want to consider before reapplying, so I'll simply say: Keep up the good work, and if you have specific questions, feel free to ask me anytime. Sincerely, decltype (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support. I would've wanted a MUCH HIGHER edit count. And I'm not merely talking about several hundreds more but several THOUSANDS more. I will morally support you even if I'm 99% sure that your RfA will not pass,--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, the editcountitis doesn't bother me, and I see only good faith contributions in this user's history. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Regretfully. I really would like to see more experience in terms of mainspace edits. -- Ϫ 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as per WP:NOTNOW. When you have more edits I'm sure I'll be able to give you a support vote. Good luck. HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I appreciate the enthusiasm and willingness to help out, but I'm going to have to oppose per lack of experience. You mention that you want to fight vandalism, but you've never made a single report to AIV. And, unless I missed it, you only started giving warnings to vandals earlier this month. I'd like to recommend taking a less passive, and more active role in the areas you work. I do look forward to being able to support in the future. Useight (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Would like to see a bit more experience. Would consider supporting at a later point in time. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - the example you give of your very best work is not inspiring. There's also some archived talk page messages showing clear lack of understanding of deletion policies. I guess I'd like to see a couple of thousand more article edits (not using scripts and not adding templates or tags), a lot less deletion and more creation, before I could support. Good Luck next time though. --NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Fairly good contributions so far. More collaboration with other editors and content creation would be good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Your speedy deletion attempt on Melinda Schneider a few days ago either shows you hadn't done any research or don't know the rules. Either way it's not good just as you're applying for adminship. Nick mallory (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I realize that I erroneously marked it as a speedy deletion candidate when it wasn't. I'm sorry. --Rockstone (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I hate editcountitis but you need more edits [1]  Francium12  12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per WP:NOTNOW. I don't like editcountitis, but 900 edits in 2 years is not impressive. Pmlineditor  Talk 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the user's main goal as an admin, from his responses at least, is to block people. That seems a little power-hungry to me. I question his motives. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sorry, not enough experience at this time. See WP:NOTNOW. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]


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/Rockstone35&oldid=1142573475"