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

Addihockey10[edit]

final tally: 0/11/3. Originally scheduled to end 8:57 pm, 6 June 2010; closed by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Addihockey10 (talk · contribs) – Greetings, I am a user that has been a member of the Wikipedia community since late 2009, I haven't been actively editing lately due to schoolwork but I plan to continue editing in 2010 as my schoolwork is nearly done.Addihockey10 00:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Addihockey10 00:42, 24 May 2010 (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 intend to take part in speedy deletion and vandalism administrative tasks. I don't want to say that I want to block, but I will not ignore that blocking is an inevitable last resort to end persistent vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: What are my best contributions? I'd say that I don't have any "best contributions", but I most of my work has been anti-vandalism edits. I believe that my ability to communicate with other editors is a plus such as this.
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: Overall, I haven't had any stress/conflicts/arguments with my time on Wikipedia and I have felt quite welcome. If I ever end up having a conflict/argument I will try to think through the situation and try to find a simple solution and avoid heated discussions.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. User has not opted in to the edit counter stats: please create User:Addihockey10/EditCounterOptIn.js. Graeme Bartlett. Also almost all edits are being done with Huggle, and how is Wikipedia spelled?[1] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose You seem to be a net benefit to the community, but you're not ready to have the tools. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ...there's something almost surreal about this RfA. Can't place what. But yeah, not now and all that.  f o x  08:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak oppose with very strong moral support. And a cookie. While I can see you do a very good job at vandal fighting and is obviously well trusted with rollback, you need a more well rounded experience. Again, I do sympthasise with you as I used to work in a similar way to you. Acather96 (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for the moment. You do good work fighting vandals, but there's more to being an administrator than that. It seems to me as though your contributions lie mostly in that realm, and a lot of them seem to be semi-automated. I'd like to see more evidence of experience with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or involvement with other admin-related tasks, such as WP:AFD (since you mention speedy deletion as an area you'd like to take interest in; AfD obviously isn't quite the same, but taking part in discussions there would help demonstrate your grasp of deletion-related policies and guidelines). Usually I also like to see some experience with article building, although a strong record in admin-related areas could overcome that. Basically, some more breadth of experience would benefit you. Shimeru (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience first, in some other well-rounded capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose per WP:NOTNOW. You're a good and useful wikipedian and I really appreciate your fighting 'em vandals, but as someone else has already pointed out, your experience is not well-rounded yet. I'm sorry. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. The candidate seems to have good intentions and overall is an asset to the community, but I don't see enough experience yet. Perhaps the candidate should work in a few other areas in order to gain additional experience and try later this year. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support (but reluctant oppose) Give it until the end of the year and go up for an RFA again and you may very well pass. Also do some article writeing! That's what we are all here for correct?--White Shadows you're breaking up 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose try again after you get some experience. Strengthen your cred's--Hokeman (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. Good work, but you need more experience. Immunize (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider withdrawing the RfA, as I feel there is almost no chance of passing. Immunize (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Well, reverting vandalism is one way an administrator does; But there are many other aspects too, like protecting pages and deleting. I would highly suggest you take WP:Admin coaching before going any further. Minimac (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Experienced in fighting vandalism, but not much else. Even though I commented on another recent RfA that there's no requirement for candidates to be familiar with, or experienced in, all aspects of Wikipedia, you really need to expand your resume into other areas that may require Admin tools, such as new page patrolling or third-opinion requests. At least minimal work in actual article creation would be very useful...it doesn't have to be a featured article, or even qualify for "good" status, but there needs to be some level of actual content creation. (Yeah, I know, I'm a fine one to talk!) As for the use of Huggle, I've also commented elsewhere on that, and don't count your use of that tool against you in any way. Again, to sum up, I'd like to offer full support, but your WikiCV is just too skimpy right now. --Alan (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral far too many automated edits for me to support at this time. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:44, 31 May 2010 (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.
Category