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

WikiCopter[edit]

Final (4/13/5); ended 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - Closed per WP:NOTNOW - —fetch·comms 12:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

WikiCopter (talk · contribs) – I (WikiCopter) am a editor that has been on the site for nearly one year, previously as AirplanePro. I contribute to WP:MILHIST mainly and two important sidelines are WP:AIR and WP:GOCE. I have taken part in GOCE's backlog elimination drive in June, am running for coordinator of MILHIST and am having my first GA being reviewed for A. I'm not really a active or prolific editor, as I only have had one GA and nothing above. However, I am familiar with the policies and have garnered quite a bit of knowledge of what passes and what doesn't for deletion when I was patrolling new pages. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 02:46, 13 September 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 actively participate at WP:XFD and WP:AIV, as well as respond to requests at my user talk.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions so far are Arado Ar E.381 , and 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron
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: Not really so far.
Additional optional question from Mono
4. Would you like to defend your short responses to the above questions?
A:
Additional optional question from Mono
5. Do you feel that you have adequate experience to become an administrator?
A:

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]
  1. Moral support Sorry, but I don't think that you're experienced enough right now. Try again in 6 months or so, and keep up the good work! Pilif12p :  Yo  03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Moral support I have to agree with pilif12p. Try again later, 6 months, maybe nine if you want. I wish you good luck, and look forword to supporting you. Buggie111 (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support from a fellow airman :). I was, frankly, surprised to see this up, but I don't think you'll delete the main page or block Jimbo! More experience couldn't hurt. Please keep it up, Airplaneman ✈ 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh no. AGAIN?  ℳono  feedback 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Weak Support: Not quite there yet but has potential! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Not yet. Just 413 edits according to X!'s edit counter. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you count my edits as User:AirplanePro? WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Including your Airplanepro's edits, that sums up to 1700. It's not enough IMHO. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I wouldn't oppose simply because the user has a low edit count - it may be better to use the phrase "not enough experience"? Netalarmtalk 03:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the reason why X! disabled his edit counter, if we simply vote based on a user's edit count that would be considered a biased vote and would encourage editcountitis in RfX votes, while the user should have slightly more contributions (since this is not enough to confidently assess one's vote) its their participation on Wikipedia that we should be assessing our votes on not a simple edit count. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Lack of experience aside, did not fully answer the three questions posed. Not enough information available to really know whether this editor will be an asset to the mop. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Moral support. Sorry, good editor, but no.  ℳono  feedback 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Inexperience. Townlake (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Regretfully, per WP:NOTNOW, I have to oppose this as not having enough experience. Triona (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose, per WP:NOTNOW. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Moral Support, but Oppose. Sorry, but not yet. Access Denied 04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose. Sorry. I have no doubt that you're a nice person but I'd like to see more/broader experience in an admin candidate. This should not really be measured in terms of raw edit counts (I think it's possible to rack up a million edits in one narrow area, say typo fixes or reverting blatant vandalism, without ever really scratching the surface of wikipedia), but if you came back here in a few months with experience of different aspects of wikipedia, and kept a clean sheet in the meantime, I would happily support. bobrayner (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. Sorry, but you're too inexperienced and trigger-happy to wield the mop right now:
    • You say you'd like to work at AIV but you've only made two AIV reports and both were rejected. Your one AIV report as AirplanePro (18 June) was for an IP address that hadn't vandalized for ten weeks and hadn't made any edits for seven weeks. Your AIV report as WikiCopter (27 August) was about an IP who had made an ostensibly good faith content change to Ahmed Al-Muhammadi, changing the name spelling to "El Mohamady". I don't object to your reverting this change, but a brief web search would have shown reliable sources for that variant, and for "El-Mohammadi", being applied to the subject of the article. That's no basis for an AIV report on 27 August: the IP's edit was on August 15th. Previous to that the IP hadn't edited since June 19 and hadn't been warned since January. You should have known that AIV doesn't apply to situations like that.
    • You'd also like to participate at WP:XFD, but your speedy nomination of Candace Nelson seems a bit aggressive, as does your "Stamps???"' AfD which was overwhelmingly rejected.
    • On the content side, you're clearly making a valuable contribution. But 370 article edits as AirplanePro plus 152 as Wikicopter is insufficient. I don't want to get into editcountitis but the more you edit, the more you get experience of how things work. For example, you seem to have got mixed about the use of WP:CITESHORT in Arado Ar E.381 (on 12 August) but you've got it sorted now, etc. By the way, please consider making clearer edit summaries. Calling your most recent edit "cleanup" when all you've done is to delete an ((awkward)) tag left by an experienced editor is misleading, to say the least. Adding a new section (as here) isn't "cleanup" either! - Pointillist (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose. You're a very good editor, but I'm sorry I cannot support you right now, as I think you're not ready for adminship at the moment. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. OpposeWP:NOTNOW  Chzz  ►  11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose, concerns about breadth and depth of experience. -- Cirt (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Comment - I'm not going to oppose, because I don't want to discourage you. You seem to have made a good start. However, I can't support you, because you just don't seem to have enough experience to be seeking adminship right now. I'm sure that, further along, with more experience, you could make a good admin, but I'm afraid I don't think you're at that point yet. I'd recommend reading WP:NOTNOW, and looking through some previous unsuccessful and successful RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing.  Begoon•talk 04:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Echoing Begoon - don't get discouraged, you just need more experience in the intricacies of Wiki, getting a broader experience in all of the "odd" areas in which sysops are called to assist ;0 Skier Dude (talk 04:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral You aren't too bad at article writing, and I know from the logs that you are a reviewer and have a clean block log. But if you're going to try WP:AIV you need some experience with rollback. My suggestion for working in WP:AIV during your RfA week is to practice reverting vandalism at the Recent changes page using undo or Twinkle. Minimac (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral - Echoing the above users. You have my moral support, I'm abstaining from opposing or supporting at this time as your contributions are positive but you don't have sufficient experience in AIV, admin candidates should generally be active participants in the administrative areas they wish to work in. I was not satisfied with your answers to the questions. While edit count is important, I would like to see a few more contributions from candidates so that I have solid ground with which to base my vote upon. I'm not going to base my whole vote on edit count since that encourages editcountitis in RfX votes. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral candidate does not have enough time active on Wikipedia to evaluate if the candidate is ready for the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. (edit conflict) Neutral leaning support. You don't quite have enough experience to become an administrator, but you have potential. I'm sure you'll be good admin material in six months to a year from now. ~NerdyScienceDude 12:58, 13 September 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