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

RegistryKey[edit]

Final (0/11/0); ended 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC), closed per WP:SNOW by Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

RegistryKey (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship to assist with the backlogs that are prevalent on Wikipedia all too often these days. While admittedly I do have less that 1,000 edits, I feel the niches I have chosen to take part in, such as CSD, identifying users for AIV, pending changes, etc. can only be better served by the tools available to me as an admin. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 15:57, 3 January 2015 (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: As mentioned in my nomination text, I plan to work in the areas of CSD, PROD, AfD, and problematic users such as disruptive users, promotional-only users and other anti-vandalism concepts. Additionally I plan to continue my work on Files For Upload, additionally with looking further into copyright issues there when they crop up.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Personally I feel that my best contribution was assisting the main editor of a scholarly journal update the cover of the publication he oversees. Being able to have that kind of impact on the global community really touched me. From a more general perspective, I would say my contributions have been consistently and efficiently identifying articles (and users) that do not need to be on Wikipedia, thus keeping it clean and easy to navigate, uncluttered with misinformation or unneeded information.
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: None to my knowledge. Should I encounter these situations in the future, I understand the ideas of dealing with conflict at the lowest level through concepts such as discussion and when needed mediated discussion.

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. Sorry if this is going to sound blunt, but by ignoring every single piece of advice about running for adminship, including the in-your-face template that I toughened up only this afternoon, you do not inspire confidence that you will read and apply any policies, guidelines, or other instructions and advice if you were to be a admin. FWIW, some advice you should have read are here and here and if you had, I'm sure we would not be here. Keep up the good work you have started, do some NPP and vandal patrol first, vote on some debates, RfA and AfD, and and come back to RfA when you have digested the criteria that the community generally expects for admin candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kudpung.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sigh. Experience, distribution, Qs. Glrx (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict) Not enough experience. Jianhui67 T★C 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Only about 100 article edits, general inexperience and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. Townlake (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for far too little experience, and suggest speedy close. Thanks for the work you have done here so far, which looks to have been very useful. But it's far too soon for you to be considering adminship. Your work in mainspace to date is almost all reversion of vandalism and tagging for cleanup. I usually oppose RFA candidates who have almost no experience of content creation/improvement. Perhaps you could get some experience of creating content - at least doing some of the cleanup instead of tagging for others to do it. --Stfg (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, less than 1,000 edits. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose And suspect this will be a ((notnow)) closure; you are off to a good start on the project, but are far below my expectations of experience for administrator candidates, you simply do not have enough contributions for me to be able to make a support recommendation. — xaosflux Talk 16:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per everyone above - It's great you wanna be an admin but unfortunately other than CSD'ing you don't really have much experience here at the moment so will have to oppose, (As some friendly advice I would suggest withdrawing here and continue doing CSD work as well as other "non-admin" tasks for roughly a year or 2), Good luck for future RFAs tho. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. You have a prominent userbox on your userpage that states "This editor is a novice editor." You've been here for 3 months - most admin candidates have around 4 to 5 years of experience. So good luck, and I hope to see you here again in a few years. Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 17:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose and close (WP:NOTNOW). Insufficient experience – for me, one year of solid editing and a few thousand quality edits are the absolute minimum for consideration here. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (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.
Category