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

GSorbyDesroid[edit]

FINAL (0/6/3) Originally scheduled to end 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC); Closed by Courcelles per WP:NOTNOW at 14:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 help other administrators in protecting abused and vandalised pages and deleted and restoring images, since I am a very frequent image uploader. I notice that I contact administrators very often to restore images, delete them, and protect articles that are vandalized. I always try my best to stop vandals, even when they were minor edits. I'm on Wikipedia almost constantly, especially when I'm not busy, so I always catch vandals and non-constructive edits and revert them. I see when a user disrupts Wikipedia too many times, they get blocked from editing, after being warned several times. I would like to be able to do this. Accounts such as sockpuppets, that make threats, I will block without warning.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My top contribution to Wikipedia is uploading and updating images of any kind, and I correct an awful lot of mistakes in pages, especially typos. I also write a lot of information on List of EastEnders characters (2010), I made the Vanessa Gold section, the Jodie Gold section and the Harry Gold section, where I wrote most of the information. I was also the one that has uploaded all the images to that page. I do these tasks because I think it saves time for other users that dislike it, as I enjoy it very much.
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've had a couple of users that kept making jobs hard for me, such as annoying edits that were not constructive and completely messing up templates. To deal with this, I have notified an Administrator and they have either warned them or blocked them from editing. In the future, I will take it politely and calmly, regardless how nasty or demanding they get, I will always stick to the rules.

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 as per WP:NOTNOW. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but with only 437 edits you have nowhere near enough experience. (In fact, I find it hard to imagine how you could have done as much as you claim in Q1 and Q2 - have you used a previous username or done a lot of IP edits?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I was originally User:Gsorby, but I've now moved to User:GSorbyDesroid. --GSorbyDesroid 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Gsorby appears to have made no edits, judging by this and this. If your account was renamed, then any edits made will be included in the 437, which really isn't enough. But please do stick around and carry on contributing valuable content to the encyclopedia - I look forward to seeing a future RfA when you have at least a few thousand edits under your belt -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per WP:NOTYET. I don't like opposing here since you are doing a good job so far, and you may well become an admin in the future. However, adminship requires more experience then you currently have, mostly because your administrative actions can potentially cause a large amount of damage if used incorrectly. While there is no "Set" criteria for adminship, most current admins have at least a year of experience, and several thousand edits under their belt. Just keep doing what you are doing now, get more accustomed with some of the administrative area's, and show you have good judgment when working as a user there. Once you feel that you are ready for adminship please go ahead and nominate yourself - but keep in mind to be critical when evaluating yourself. Other people will definitely be :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Not yet, but would be happy to reconsider in the future. Tommy! [message] 11:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I'm sorry but I think you need more experience and to improve your communication. I would suggest setting your preferences to force an edit summary and also being a bit clearer when you revert someone else's edit as to why you disagree with them or that you are undoing vandalism. You might also look at using wp:warnings - there are plenty of templates for warnings that you can cut and paste for common issues like vandalism. When you've got a bit more experience of reverting vandalism and warning vandals I suggest applying for wp:Rollback. ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. User is definitely not ready yet. I would be happy to support once user has much more XP. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose - less than 500 edits; get some experience and mentoring and then apply--Hokeman (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Comment I don't want to vote Oppose , as I don't want to discourage you too much. I'm just going to comment here that I applaud your enthusiasm, but you really need to read WP:NOTNOW, and look through some previous unsuccessful and successful RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. Certainly, further down the road, I'm sure you could be a good candidate, but I'm afraid that isn't just yet.  Begoontalk 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How many edits would I need minimum? --GSorbyDesroid 10:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't mean to preempt Begoon's thoughts, but for me there isn't a specific number - some editors can show their suitability for adminship with just 2,000 edits, while others aren't suitable even after 20,000. But I think you should be aiming for at least the 2–3,000 mark. Best wishes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BSZ: no pre-empt, just a little e/c (lol)... There's no fixed minimum, people judge based on the quality of edits rather than the quantity in general, although some people do have a minimum number of edits they look for. Certainly people don't tend to stand much chance of passing here without several thousand quality edits (probably at least 2500-3000), and that still won't be enough for every voter. As I mentioned, look through the links in my post above to get a better feel for it all. WP:PASSRFA is another useful link to look at.  Begoontalk 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can only think of one successful RFA in the last 100 or so where the candidate had less than 3,500 edits, and many people look for far more edits if you are doing relatively straightforward things like vandal reversion. ϢereSpielChequers
  2. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/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. A candidate for RFA must be conversant in the related policies and guidelines. One should read and understand thoroughly--
    Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 6,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to gain enough community trust to attempt adminship. Also, candidates returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 6,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. Candidates need to have contributed a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. At the minimum, candidates will 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. One may also need experience in WP:RFPP and WP:UAA as well.
    • A clear understanding of WP:BLP is essential and of growing importance. Certainly, one must be especially careful to see to the removal of negative, unsourced material. WP:CSDG#10 should be taken as an opportunity to do so when it applies.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to 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.
    • Should an RFA be unsuccessful the candidate should wait at least another 6 months and 6000 edits before trying again. They should review the unsuccessful RFA comments and show that they have remedied any deficiencies identified there. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral Your enthusiasm, as stated many times above, is really good. Your edits are good when it comes to building articles, and equally good when reverting vandalism. I suggest using WP:Twinkle or WP:Huggle to revert vandles. Once you have several thousand more edits, try runinng. I'll look you over and migth vote yes. Buggie111 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[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