Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipedian2 3

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

Wikipedian2 3

Final (0/4/1); ended 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW - 28bytes (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Wikipedian2 (talk · contribs) – I wish to be given the mop to incorporate more effective care of the users, responding to requests to deal with vandalism (using rollback and blocking under WP:BP), review articles under AfD using WP:DP, and review articles under WP:DRV. My experience includes the use of rollback with Huggle, reviewing Pending changes, (just recently) reviewing GANs, and significantly working to remove the backlog at WP:AFC. Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2011 (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:I intend to work doing as much as possible, mainly the menial and small jobs that keep Wikipedia flowing. The things I will focus on mainly I mentioned above. I want to do this because I believe Wikipedia contains too many people who wish to do the high-profile work, and I want to support the other really hard-working people who don't often get noticed behind the scenes. The people behind the scenes are fantastic, as play their part and make Wikipedia unique by adding their own style to where they work, but remain central-orientated - making sure they work towards a common goal through consensus.

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

A:I don't like to highlight specific contributions too much, as I like to count what is the "best" by my whole positive influence and impact on the community. But I'm especially proud of my work at WP:AFC, where I worked hours to remove the backlog there.

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:Conflicts are inevitable, people will not necessarily understand your actions, especially after reviewing their work. I think it is important to always assume good faith, understand they probably are emotionally involved, and try to see their view of the situation. I will begin by explaining the rationality of my actions, citing policies if relevant. Then I will highlight the processes that can be taken to resolve the situation, most probably elements of WP:DR.

General comments

• Links for Wikipedian2: Wikipedian2 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wikipedian2 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: I'm sorry, but I still don't feel you're experienced enough. The bulk of your edits are confined to this month. If you keep that up for the next 2 or 3 months though, feel free to try again. Another thing to do is to participate in deletion discussions and WQA more.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose: The third RFA for only having 2,673 edits is quite worrying. --Rschen7754 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose you've done lots of huggling this month, which is helpful in removing vandalism but that's not enough experience for adminship. Plus I disagree with some of your AfC declines (e.g. 1, 2), incidentally the only two I've looked at Jebus989^✰ 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose - I closed your last RfA 12 days ago per WP:NOTNOW. NOTNOW does not mean come back 12 days from now and you'll succeed regardless of whether you have addressed every single concern at your last RfA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

   Actually, the user has not addressed every concern.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

   My point is that even if he had, 12 days is still too short of a time period between RfAs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I havn't listened, I thought I had, but obviously not. I feel adminship as an extension of a user's ability to do good, with large room for mistakes, with adminship given to those who are shown they have good intentions and really want to get involved. I didn't think time was an issue. Maybe Jimmy's considerations saying "Adminship is no big deal" should be given a larger thought? Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's no big deal. You may want to consider an RfA after we reform it. See User:Kudpung/RfA reform.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While many appreciate Jimbo's idealism, adminship has become a big deal. I won't debate the social implications of having an admin/user hierarchy in a massive community but from a practical viewpoint you make important decisions that average users sometimes cannot view (e.g. deleted pages), so the community has to have a great deal of trust that you are making sound judgements Jebus989^✰ 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 2,416 edits this month. Focus on broadening your experience in all different areas (not just vandalism), get a couple thousand more non-automated edits and come back in 3-6 months. That's what we mean when we tell you to "come back later". Swarm ^X 19:50, 15 April 2011 (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.