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

Farrtj[edit]

Final (0/6/4); 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW; While I see that this is not the common case of SNOW, there have been many opposes built up with major concerns over lack of experience in admin areas. The candidate is really a nice content creator and the candidate's contribution is not the reason why it has been closed per SNOW but the way this request is turning out to be. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Farrtj (talk · contribs) – Farrtj (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (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 just want to be able to protect my articles from vandalism, and other articles from consistent vandalism, with the banning and locking tools. Farrtj (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A) Taken as a whole my numerous brewing company pages (McEwan's, Webster's Brewery, Stones Brewery, John Smith's Brewery, Boddingtons Brewery, Worthington Brewery). Significant research went into researching the breweries, solely conducted online. B) William Lax: a little known figure, my page probably represents the most detailed profile of him in the world. Farrtj (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC) C) My Paul S. Walsh page is pretty good. D) My KFC article is commendable, I just need to get round to sorting the references out. Farrtj (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 never had any serious conflicts with anyone. Farrtj (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I'm obviously not as forgiving as Sven. No nomination statement (I'd at least like to see something), very short answers to questions, botched transclusion, and botched start to the RFA. My advice to the candidate is start all over again after reading through all of the mountains of advice and guidelines to users requesting adminship, plus I would have at least expected the candidate to look at the other two RFAs at the moment to see the sort of thing which is expected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 92% of your edits being made to article space is great. However adminship responsibilities often take place out of article space. You have made no contributions to Wikipedia talk space and very few contributions to Wikipedia space. I simply don't see experience of vandalism fighting, dispute resolution, etc., which you claim are areas you where you want to contribute as an admin. Additionally, you were recently warned for personal attacks here for your conduct at Talk:ENFP in the Alicia Silverstone section. That doesn't inspire much confidence for me in your dispute resolution or communication skills, two important qualities for an admin. I could go on, however I think it's clear that, though you're a very productive editor in mainspace and have made numerous valuable contributions (>1000 on one article, and not just a bunch of little grammar fixes!), I don't think you're ready for adminship yet. Go Phightins! 00:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - simply not enough non-mainspace edits for one to be able to judge knowledge and understanding of admin work areas. Maybe when you have wider experience. KTC (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Callanecc and Go Phightins! --Webclient101 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - you should know very well that it's called the blocking tool and not "banning" tool, which is something else. Also, you shouldn't be requesting adminship just to operate on your own articles (which, by the way, even if you created them, don't belong to you), you should be able to operate on other articles too. No vandalism-fighting experience, per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not enough reasons to not to. Mostly, per opposes above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. My first instinct was to oppose because the candidate transcluded before answering all three starter questions, gave throwaway, one line answers to the ones he did fill out, and botched the transclusion. However RfA is unforgiving enough already, so if the candidate fixes all these things, I will "forget" any of it ever happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I botched the transclusion on my own RfA, it seems unnecessarily confusing to me as well. Fortunately, User:Pedro caught it in time and fixed it. One more reason is really helps to have an experienced user nominate you, to help you along with the process. What I see here is a very experienced content creator, and an obvious asset to Wikipedia. I haven't looked at the normal "adminy" stuff yet, but wanted to make sure that no one foolishly opposed only because of a transclusion error, as that isn't fair. Many admin did the same, just as I did. Will look at the contribs and such tomorrow, as I don't want to prejudge someone just because they are a person of few words. Even if it isn't time to be an admin, it is our duty to kindly offer helpful suggestions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Based on the nomination statement, I do not see a compelling reason to support this request. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Farrtj, if you intend to try for RfA again the the future, note that you will also probably garner criticism from your lack of use of edit summaries. Gigs (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (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