Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dalekusa 2

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

Final: (0/4/1). Withdrawn by candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like his to be closed per WP:NOTNOW. I'll wait. Dalekusa (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalekusa (talk · contribs) – This is my second RfA. (I nominated myself when I was "green", having only three months of editing experience.) I have been doing more admin-like work, esp. in recent months. For example, I have been watching the New Pages log and I have tagged many pages to be speedied. I also participated in a few AfDs, like this and this. On 1 December, I applied sucessfully for Rollback. Dalekusa (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Reverting vandalism and blocking persistent vandals; monitoring, reviewing, and deleting articles nominated for speedy deletion; resolving disputes; and overviewing XfDs and carrying out deletions that have been recommended.

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

A: Articles related to Children's television, like Dora the Explorer, which I helped get semi-protected.

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 have yet to be involved in a conflict over editing.

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

---

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

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.

   As an admin, you will inevitably have to...

   1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
   2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
   3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
   4. Negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew ^talk at 21:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I'm sorry, but you're still nowhere near ready. I'd recommend withdrawing this under WP:NOTNOW. Your account has been around for years, but you've only made around 600 edits- rather than the several thousand most participants will want to see to seriousily consider you for adminship. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. per general lack of experience. Recommend early closure per WP:NOTNOW. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - I try to avoid editcountitis, but just over 500 non-automated edits is very low. You want to have the authority to close RfAs, but I see participation in less than 20 of them throughout your Wikipedia career. Your answer to question 3, if nothing else, indicates your lack of experience. Sorry, but way too soon for this. -- Atama頭 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Bradjamesbrown, and WP:NOTNOW applies here. Recommend snow closure to avoid further grief. ArcAngel (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not Yet I applaud your enthusiasm, but for me, you have too few edits for me to be able to judge if you would make a good admin: I'd suggest not coming back until you've got at least 3000 edits. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:15, 23 December 2009 (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.