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

Eridani[edit]

Final (0/6/0); ended 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) -  7  04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Eridani (talk · contribs) – I am always seeking out grammatical errors and vandalism in every page I visit. I admit not every edit or article I submit is kept, but I do it in good faith and to improve Wikipedia. Eridani (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 continue to improve articles in any way I can. This includes grammatical errors, vandalism, and missing information. I have noticed several occasions where certain articles have received constant vandalism or unnecessary edits, compromising the authenticity of the article. There are many pages like this that the current admins do not notice, and I will do my part to protect these articles from destructive users.

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

A: My best contribution would have to be the two articles I have submitted, "Psychogenesis" and "Pseudohallucination." Both are still on Wikipedia. These two articles expand on rather obscure topics, but nonetheless are important in the fields of psychology. I have also created various category boxes that contain a wide range of articles, further categorizing articles.

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 was only really in one edit war. It was over a user-box I created that stated "This user is suicidal." It received much opposition, especially from a specific admin, who deleted it without review. However, there were some other members who felt its deletion was unjustified, and it spurred a long edit war. I was civil in the debate, but I eventually folded when I knew the admin would not let it pass. In the future, if there is a similar problem, I will continue to voice my opinion for my side, but I will still keep it civil, and hope for the best that my edit stays (or goes, depending on the situation).

General comments[edit]

• Links for Eridani: Eridani (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Eridani 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[edit]

• Since this is a self-nom, I do not think it should have been transcluded by anyone but the candidate, unless they specifically requested that someone else do it, and I see no indication of that (even if the candidate did answer the standard questions). decltype (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with that. This was transcluded by Mattgirling who then opposed the candidate. So perhaps it should be untranscluded until we know that Eridani wanted this to begin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I only transcluded it as it looked as if the candidate had done it incorrectly (in the same way as AfDs are often malformed). I've removed it from the main RFA page for the time being – what would be the correct thing to do with the comments below until the candidate shows full intention on this RfA? matt (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If there was an (unsuccessful) attempt at transclusion then it's standard practice to transclude. As for this RfA, I suppose it could be NOTNOW closed at this point. decltype (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, that too seems a bit unfair if the candidate didn't really want to run just yet. decltype (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

1. Too soon, sorry. You should continue editing, and come back in a few months. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Although edit quality is far more important than edit quantity, I'd like to see many more edits on user talk pages, especially if one of your main aims is counter-vandalism. Similarly, I'm worried that you've had little communication with the community – almost every edit to your user talk page since 2007 has been an automated message (image notifications, speedy deletion, etc.). With regard to what you aim to do as an admin, remember that fixing grammatical errors, vandalism, and missing information doesn't need admin user rights; I suggest you look into rollback for more counter-vandalism tools. If your contributions aren't always kept (whether they've been reverted or deleted), I feel that you may not be fully aware of the relevant policies and guidelines. Finally, I think your use of edit summaries should be improved too. On first glance, I can't see anything particularly worrying about your edits (I'll look into the userbox issue), so keep at it – but I just don't think you're ready. matt (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose, but with moral support. Sorry, but nowhere near enough experience yet. As for Q1, you don't really need the admin bit for all of that - anyone can make corrections, improve information, revert vandalism, etc. And it's not admins who "miss" stuff - it's ordinary editors like you and I who spot bad edits and revert them, and then report repeat vandals for admin attention. I'd suggest withdrawing this current nomination, getting at least another 6 months experience and a few thousand more edits, and having a look around all of the venues and tools available for tackling vandalism. Then when you understand the ropes a bit better, think more about what you can actually do with admin tools and how you'd want to use them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - You do seem to be quite a good editor. However, I think you need a little more experience before you run for adminship. I suggest you spend a little more time in areas such as: WP:XfD, WP:AIV and the various other admin related areas. It's also good to get admin coaching as it can often help. All in all, you are definitely on the right path, you just need to go a little further before you are ready. Good Luck. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 165° 10' 15" NET 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. You've been around longer than all the people opposing above, so I'm not sure "too soon" qualifies as a reason to oppose. Then again, judging by the many warnings on your talk page, you do seem to lack an understanding of our image copyright and licensing requirements. In addition to 7 seas' advice, I suggest you work on that too before applying here again.--Atlan (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Early for sure. Shadowjams (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yep, oldtimer here.;)--Atlan (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. Per WP:NOTNOW, as pointed out by all before me; it's not a matter of how long you've been here, but of how much experience you've gathered in that time and, in my opinion, that's not yet enough to warrant a support from me. I'm sorry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   And, by the way, you want to fight vandalism, which is always a very good thing, and yet you have no edit to WP:AIV or to WP:RFPP (for that matter). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

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.