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

Paul2520[edit]

Final (1/11/5); ended 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW paul2520 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn (see my statement below)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Paul2520 (talk · contribs) – This user has experience on Wikipedia and has shown that they are ready to become an Administrator. They have also made amazing contributions to Wikipedia and have shown they are worthy by reverting vandalism, typos, and uncontructive edits. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept Mdriscoll03's nomination. I have been an active contributor for four years, with experience on two other wikis. I was an admin on an internal wiki for an organization, so I am somewhat familiar with what an admin can do. I enjoy starting new articles and fighting vandalism, and turn to Wikipedia when I have free time or need a break. = paul2520 (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination. I very much appreciate the learning that has come out of this process. Thank you to all who participated in the process! I plan to respond to the many constructive and encouraging comments. = paul2520 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (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 would want to spend a lot of time learning what it's like - so I would want to start by helping with the administrative backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have started 29 articles so far, one of which was deleted due to notability. I have many ideas (not all documented there) for more articles that merit creation. Other than that, I've been proud of some vandalism reverting & working through backlogs like finding missing/dead URLs. I've also worked on/cleared Category:Pages with missing references list numerous times. Working on backlogs has been fulfilling, as often there are other problems I discover or improvements I can make on those pages.
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 DYK submission for Bee Free Honee was removed from the front page after being up for a while. You can read more of the details here. It was a frustrating experience, but a great learning experience. I gained more respect for those who diligently review pages, and a new appreciation for the care required in maintaining our wonderful encyclopedia.
I've had some stress with editors (typically anonymous users) who repeatedly vandalize a page, often in a revert war and not responding to messages. Increasing warning levels and admins blocking their IP address has removed that stress - so I'd be happy to give back and return the favor.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

4. This is sort of a followup to #1 - the administrative backlog generally tends to have the tasks that are either the hardest to do or take the most amount of time/effort to do properly. I know that non-admins rarely have a true idea of what it means to do admin tasks, but are there any specific areas in which you already have some experience, that you would want to work on? Primefac (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support we need help. Give the editor a mop and bucket. I sense good faith enthusiasm and a willingness to learn.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose While the content creation is admirable, I'm not comfortable with someone gaining the tools that has so little participation in project space. Only 71 edits to Wikipedia space. Only has participated in 3 AFDs with an accuracy rate of 66%. I don't see anything that shows they know what goes into using the tools. They also don't have a CSD log, so I'm guessing not much participation in CSD either. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've checked their deleted contributions; they don't seem to have done any CSD work as far as I can tell. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ritchie333: thanks for the confirmation --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, that's not quite true, they CSD tagged Matt Padilla for A1 and Joseph Cumia for A7, but I had to go back a year to find those. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose with moral support. I'm happy with a candidate that's only active in one area, but having only three edits (one of which is a self-revert) to WP:AIV for an editor who appears to be primarily interested in anti-vandalism efforts is not enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per User_talk:Mdriscoll03/Archive 1, I'm more concerned about the nominator than the nominee. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Regretful oppose - As other's have pointed out, for a person who appears to want to work primarily in anti-vandalism, three total edits to AIV is not sufficient so show a track record of experience and consistent good judgement. GMGtalk 16:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose ((edit conflict)x10) And this is a true regret as I think it is extremely refreshing to see a non-admin nomination, such as we haven't seen for some time (since RfA turned into a Fordist production line anyway). But- sorry, there is a 'but'- there are a couple of issues I have to raise. Firstly, the answers to the questions are really a little weak. One at a time, although no-one expects an airfix admin that you pop out of a box ready made ("with working eyes and a kung-foo grip," as it were), I think if one is to be set loose on a backlog one should probably already have learned enough to do so, rather than use that as a learning curve in itself. Question 2, on consideration, is full of nice things, and thank you for that good work. Question 3, again, starts off weak, and unfortuantely ends up perhaps slightly overly-focussed on IPs being responsible for the majority of vandalism. That is wholly arguable, particularly if one considers the quality of the vandalism rather than just the amount of it. Still, I know mandatory registration is at the top of a lot of wishlists, so I don't insist on it- although WP:IPHUMAN is worth a browse. The second issue has been touched on above, plain and simply, the sheer lack of administrative involvement. It is (again) refreshing to have the opposite problem to what so often gets machine-gunned here ("lack of content creation"), but it is still the same problem, with merely the polarity reversed. The adminstrative napsack provides some powerful tools ("use them wisely" as the feller said), which can drive away more new editors in one fell swoop than even me (as some will be doubtless quick to point out). At least some experience in the environment and mechanics of the various boards (even if only the ones you choose to operate in- unnecessary to try and ever know everything!) is a must; one would not do a high dive without being able to swim, surely? WP:TLDR: give it a year (or so, if you're not in a rush, and want to silverplate your next RfA!) involving yourself in the stuff of backroom affairs, and because (apologies for leaving the positive vibes till last) your general attitude seems fine, and your ability to learn and educate yourself with it, you should have no problems second time around. Good luck today, in any case. — fortunavelut luna 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. (edit conflict) I hardly ever !vote in RfA's but just had to oppose this one, both because of what others say above, and because accepting an RfA nomination from Mdriscoll03 shows a serious lack of judgment (see link to archive posted by Power~enwiki above for why). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't feel that accepting the nomination shows lack of judgment (the situation is more bizarre than need be expected), and I wouldn't hold that against him on a future nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not checking the track record of the nominator does IMHO show a serious lack of judgment, since it shows they haven't looked at old RfAs. If they had, they would have known the importance of having a good nominator. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ouch! Holey moley, I see what you mean.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Regretful oppose Would need to participate more at WP:AFD, WP:Rfpp, WP:UAA, WP:AIV as well as CSD tagging. WP:AfC is desperately under staffed. Would like to see more participation reviewing Draft articles.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose due to a lack of involvement in administrative tasks, as several others have detailed above. It's always good to see a candidate with decent content creation experience, and if the candidate spends a year building on this by spending time gaining experience in the Wikipedia: space, I would be happy to consider supporting a future RfA. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose, but Moral Support Nowhere near enough experience in WP space. If you work in these areas for a little while, you'll be able to pass in about a year.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose you don't seem to have much experience of the kind of areas where admin tools are used. That isn't a problem at all, and an awful lot of editors never go anywhere near those areas, but it suggests you might not have the skills or experience to use admin tools in them. For instance you mentioned you're interested in countervandalism, the main admin process in that area is WP:AIV. You've only made two reports to AIV and one of those was by accident. Admin tasks aren't rocket science but there are things you need to know and screwing up can cause problems. Hut 8.5 18:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Regretful oppose, moral support – If you say you want to work on admin backlogs then practically no CSD tagging, 3 AfDs !voted on, and 3 reports to AIV is not enough. I recommend participating in admin areas for the next year or two, preferably NPP and AfC which have huge backlogs and don't require you to be an admin. J947( c ) (m) 19:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Don´t let this discourage you. Keep up the good work, gain some experience and if you are still interested consider another RfA in the future. We do need the help. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Moral support I can't support a nomination with only 3 AfDs and 2 CSDs. However, you have done a lot of work for the project and your heart is the right place, and you've unfortunately been effectively scammed. I agree with FIM above that you don't need an admin co-nominator, but IMHO anyone who knows enough about RfA to know how a successful nomination works is likely to be one anyway. I certainly won't begrudge you running for a more successful nomination some time down the line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Moral support. (ec) This is by all means a good editor, appears to be humble and friendly. I have always admired editors that focuses primarily on different forms of contributions to the mainspace. Majority of the content creations are short, but well-referenced and adheres to the style guide (probably should be autoreviewer). When it comes to adminship however, there needs to be sufficient experience outside of mainspace regretfully. Alex ShihTalk 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. (edit conflict)Moral support per Ritchie333. A review of your talk page shows you interact well with others and take advice well. However, there's not enough maintenance work to demonstrate enough WP:CLUE regarding administrative tasks. Also, the acceptance of this particular nomination brings questions of judgement. I do think you are potential admin material. I would recommend that you spend some time and familiarize yourself with WP:NPP and/or WP:WPAFC. You'll thus familiarize yourself with notability standards, while dealing with all manner of problematic edits and editing styles. Then seek the advice and nomination of an experienced editor who has earned widely held respect, if not an admin. Most of all, thank you for your volunteer time, and willingness to further serve here in greater capacity. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral I like to say that I have a two-prong test: not a jerk; have a clue. I do have an unofficial third requirement: have a track record. Part of that track record includes things such as project space contributions. You have 71 edits to project space, which isn't enough for me to make a judgement as to how you interact with others or understand policy. If there were more talk contributions, I might be able to make a judgement, but those are also minimal and the most recent edits to the talk namespace appear to be WikiProject tagging. I can't make a judgement, so I can't support at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral After a quick skim of talkpage history, and contrib history; there is nothing to merit a direct oppose in my opinion; but there is no apparent need for the toolbox either. In either case, I do not see any possible misuse of privileges. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update: Please do not take this in discouraging manner. I think you are a good editor, your communication with other users is good. But I would like to see more experience at AfD/speedy As AIV is a very fast-paced place, I dont mind lack of your contributions there. Regardless the contributions to any particular namespace, I want to see a clear understanding of enwiki policies. (Like AIV: lack of contribution on AIV page doesnt matter as you demonstrate your understanding vandalism vs good-faith edits through other edits.) It would be my pleasure to support you when you show experience (or understanding) in a field where admin tools are required other than vandalism. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[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.
Category