- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
FINAL (0/3/0); withdrawn 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fightindaman (talk · contribs) - I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while now, and for the most part I've been fine as regular editor. However, one of my common activities is New page patrol. I feel that Wikipedia can only be as strong as it's weakest articles, and elimination of the junk that gets submitted is important. Admin tools would make it easer for me to do this. Fightindaman 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As I mentioned above, I do a lot of New page patrol, assisting in page deletion is the primary activity in which I plan to participate.
- A2 To answer SLSB's objection: no, new page patrol is not the only activity. Closing AfD/MfD votes and blocking vandals (both those that I come across and through AIV reports) are both activities which I would be engaged in that require admin tools.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I've spent a great deal of time patrolling New pages. I have several pages which I've either created or made significant contributions to, which can be found on my talk page. I think my actions with regard to the copyright issues on the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog page show my willingness to put effort into ensuring good content that also follows Wikipedia policies. I've uploaded several self-created images. I've also put in work policing and editing the pages of subjects with which I am more familiar. My edits tend to be smaller, but they are valuable nonetheless (at least in my opinion).
- 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: My most stressful situation on Wikipedia involved the votes for deletion of a vanity biography of Darren P. Grover (AfD page). The author of said page took many steps to attempt to foil said deletion, including meat- and/or sock-puppetry, and the making of false allegations about my actions (he claimed that I sent him obscene emails). In retrospect, the issue could likely have been handled better. I lost my cool and wound up antagonizing the user and making the situation worse. It may have turned out badly anyway, but I have tried to keep that issue in mind when conflicts have come up since (as they have in Henry Bartholomay and The World Can't Wait) and have not any more serious problems.
General comments
[edit]- See Fightindaman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Fightindaman: Fightindaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Deleted contributions show essentially the same pattern of inactivity in recent months as the non-deleted contributions. A batch in August, 1 in May, a handful in November 2006, ... 50 most recent go back to October 2006. GRBerry 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fightindaman before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]Support
Oppose
- Sorry. Per Q1 is new page patrol all? Per giggy SLSB talk ER 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've made 16 edits this month, and the last time you edited before that was in February. Trust me, things have changed a lot since then, so I really can't trust that you'll be able to use the tools correctly; deal with conflicts, use policy correctly, etc. Sorry, but I must oppose per this lack of activity. I suggest withdrawl. Giggy Talk | Review 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry but I have to agree with Giggy. Over the last 6+ months there has been a complete lack and void of activity. Although I believe that the edit count is not the determining factor in a RfA, it often shows the commitment of an editor to this encyclopaedia and frankly, your recent activity, or lack of it, may be one of the major factors in determining the result of this RfA. I believe that you should step aside from this RfA and work on and review your committment to this encyclopaedia. Nat Tang ta | co | em 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I am just getting back in from a rather lengthy gap in serious editing, so I will take some more time before re-proposing this. Request withdrawn. Fightindaman 02:40, 3 August 2007 (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.