Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Olz06 2

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

Olz06

(0/9/0); Ended 02:51, 05 January 2008 (UTC) Early close. Acalamari 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olz06 (talk · contribs)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

I am a very keen wikipedian. I have created an article - St Thomas More high school for boys and all feedback said it was a great article. I revert vandalism often and make great edits to many articles. I would like to become an administrator and help other users, make more good edits and block constant vandals who ruin wikipedia....And if there is sufficient evidence - delete pages in accordance with what is said on the deletion discussion page. So Please, i would have great pleasure in being an administrator and improving and making brilliant the wonderful world of Wikipedia.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would frequently patrol recent changes looking out for unusual edits, such as ones without summaries or edits where pages have been blanked or a lot of information has been removed. I aim to neutrally solve any disputes/edit conflicts and keep all parties happy. I will help to encourage new users by adding constructive comments and help templates to their talk pages.

Overall, generally, I aim to keep everything I can find as encyclopedia friendly as possible and answer and solve questions that people may have and leave out, through discussion, the people who aim to vandalize and add defamatory content to wikipedia.

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

A: I am pleased with my article St Thomas More High School for Boys. It was my first article I created and I think I did pretty well with it and the feedback has been great. I don't think any substantial information was removed by other wikipedians, but very useful content was added, but hey, what is Wikipedia all about?! I have made over 600 edits on wikipedia and many I was not logged in, which I never do now. These may be a little lower than other candidates but I think I have made a real effort in these contributions, where I have learned a great deal about how wikipedia operates and, of course, the wiki language.

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: There was a little conflict over a matter in St Thomas More High School for Boys. A user added a 'negative' comment to the article to which I opposed, so a mini-discussion was called. We managed to neutrally agreed to keep the information, but tone it down a little, as it is still sourced information, a key factor in Wikipedia.

Thankyou and please consider my request for adminship carefully!

Additional questions by Niyant:

4. A user requests semi-protection for an article because there's an edit war going on between him and an unregistered user. What do you do?

5. A user requests semi-protection for an article that has been constantly vandalized by an unregistered user. What do you do?

6. A user requests full protection for an article that has been constantly vandalized by the sockpuppets of a banned user. What do you do?

7. How would you proceed to decide whether or not to block users reported on WP:AIV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyant (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Olz06's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Olz06: Olz06 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Olz06 before commenting.

Discussion

I'm going to pop this here, as well as the section below. Please remove the fake "you have new messages" bar within your user space. It's a bit irritating. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 23:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this RfA a "2"? I can't find a "1". ^Avruchtalk 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/olz06. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest withdrawl - I know exactly how you feel, but I don't think your request will pass at this stage. Perhaps adoption (per Pedro below) or admin coaching. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the withdrawal recommendation, Tiptoety ^talk 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose I admire how keen you clearly are. However you have too few edits in your contribution history that are not to your own user space to judge you by as a candidate for adminiship. Please don't be discouraged however, as you're doing great so far. Some pointers; Try adoption for help in developing your work, and editor review for feedback. Also, please remove the fake orange "you have new messages bar" from your user space. It's off-putting and will confuse new (and old!) editors. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You're clearly a very promising mainspace editor, which is great because we need a lot more of those than we have. But I just don't see that you've got experience in any area in which admin buttons would be required. I don't see that you've ever reported a vandal, requested page protection, or participated in any deletion process except the one for St Thomas More High School for Boys. If you really want to be an admin, I'd advise you to start working in those areas a bit more. But there's no need to be an admin - if what you want to do is create good articles, then just keep doing that. An extra set of buttons doesn't make a contributor any more valuable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are on the right track, but we generally ask for more experience from editors before they can be granted admin tools. Please hang out and keep contributing and come back in a few months! ^Avruchtalk 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider self nomination prima facie evidence of power hunger, but I think this one may just be. User:Krator (t c) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons listed above, as well as the reason that you aren't ready for it yet. You aren't experienced enough to be an administrator at this time. Razorflame (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would need to see a much deeper track record of editing as well as user talk for evidence of judgment and civility under duress. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit reluctantly, but I think you are too inexperienced as yet, and also a little too limited in the range of experience. You should also really make more edit summaries. But a point made above is valid - there is a LOT of things you could do as "quasi-admin" without asking for the tools. Make a start there, and see how you feel in six months time. docboat (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - For reasons listed above. Try gaining some more experience and trying later. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Sorry, no. More experience is needed. :-( —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:41, 6 January 2008 (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.