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

Slon02[edit]

FINAL: (2/9/7). Closed per WP:NOTNOW. Courcelles 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination[edit]

Slon02 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I am nominating myself for adminship a second time. I wish to help Wikipedia even more by doing administrative tasks using the tools that administrators have. I am currently a rollbacker and a reviewer, and have participated most actively in fighting vandalism and participating in Articles for Creation, and more recently have participated in the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive, Wikiproject Geographical Coordinates, Articles for Deletion and the Typo Team. Slon02 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 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 participate mainly in counter-vandalism, such as blocking repetitive vandals, and also dealing with page deletion and page protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are counter-vandalism, where I have actively worked to eliminate and report vandals, and also my work in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Eliminate Drive, where I copyedited over a hundred pages for the Guild of Copy Editors.
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: The only thing that I would call a conflict over editing that I was involved with was at User_talk:Slon02#Boyar_.28caste.29, where I disagreed with another Wikipedian about what determines "claiming" an article for the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I dealt with it by arguing with him to state my views and, after there was still a disagreement and I couldn't say anything else without repeating myself too much, I requested a 3rd opinion. I would have dealt with that situation in the same way in the future, but I would have chosen to ask the drive coordinator to clarify things instead of going for the 3rd opinion from a person who wasn't involved in the drive. --Slon02 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from MichaelQSchmidt
4. Would you please describe in your own words A)) the differences between Categories and Lists, B) the purposes of each? C) how each serves the project and the reader, and D) what are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
4a:
4b:
4c:
4d.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Well I offered moral support last time, and I'm afraid moral support is all I can really offer this time. I think you've greatly improved since your last RfA, but that wasn't very long ago by RfA standards and I think you'd still benefit from some more experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support- not quite yet, but would be happy to support in the future. Tommy! [message] 23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. In my opinion, you need a little more experience before we hand you the sysop tools. Before nominating yourself again, though, give it time. Be patient. You don't have to have the tools now. My RfA failed because I wasn't ready, and I'm not going to try again until December, maybe even a bit later. So I think you should give it another six months, as I was told, and reapply then. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 23:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've gone through a few of your contributions and I think you are a very good editor who will sail through RfA in a few months. You seem to have recently started to contribute to AfDs and your contributions are looking really promising there. But you haven't been doing it long enough for me to be confident of you having the depth of experience to close debates. I was also really impressed with the way that you handled the little stoush you mentioned in question 3. You're on a rapid upwards trajectory and it's an unfortunate tactical error that you've nominated yourself now, just two months after your last RfA. But I'm not opposing becuase of that; I'm opposing because I don't think you have the experience yet to use the tools in the areas that you nominate. I suggest waiting a few more months (I suggest at least 4), and perhaps seek some advice before running again (you might even have offers to nominate you in that time). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per above. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict)Oppose with moral support per WP:NOTNOW. I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Issues respecting automated tool misuse are still fairly recent, not sure why you're in such a hurry to become an admin. Townlake (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, WP:NOTNOW. Last RfA less than 3 months ago. -Regancy42 (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, concerns regarding experience. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose NOTNOW, and this very premature self-nom gives me concerns about your judgement and patience. If you've observed RfA at all, you'd have known that this would have very little chance of passing even before trying. —fetch·comms 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. elektrikSHOOS 02:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - I don't see anything that worries me other than the you needing more experience. This is a little too soon given that your last RfA was just a couple months ago. I think if you keep up the good work you'll be ready by December (you'll have a full year of experience under your belt then). Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 23:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning support. You aren't quite ready for the tools. I'm sure you'll make a fine candidate in the future. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support, but oppose, so neutral. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 23:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per fetchcomms to avoid pile-on in the oppose section. Don't be discouraged! Airplaneman ✈ 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral- in four to six months you'll be in with a very good chance. Reyk YO! 02:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral Support Neutral I don't feel right opposing because the candidate is well intentioned, but definitely not ready. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Well intentioned but not there yet, my apologies. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 03:33, 7 August 2010 (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