Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dustihowe 2

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

Dustihowe

Final: (2/10/4); Closed 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) by Daniel (talk); Scheduled to end 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dustihowe (talk · contribs) - Dustihowe  Talk  19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, as I am nominating myself

Ok, here we go again. This will make my second Rfa, and I feel that I have learned a lot from my past mistakes. I feel that I deserve the mop and tool to mke my job a little easier while patrolling the new pages created and assisting me in reverting vandalism. We all know from patrolling the new pages ourselves that it gets frustrating in seeing all the vadalism that takes place here on Wiki, and admins know that the tools make patrolling a lot easier. I would appreciate the tools and in no way, shape, or form misuse the tools. Thanks in advance for all comments, concerns, ect. I would just like a chance, and if for some strange reason fail miserably, will back off and take a shot at it again in a few months, and a few more thousand edits.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The same things that I like to do now, such as patroll new pages, edits, ect. I feel that with the "mop and the bucket" will make this job much easier. I also like to welcome new users and patroll new user names. This is difficult in doing without the "mop and the bucket" as I have to repeatedly run around and report inappropriate or really annoying usernames. I feel that I can be a great asset in patrolling new pages with the mop and the broom and make things run more smoothly and efficiently.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I feel that my best contributions to Wikipedia is my involvement with welcoming new users and patrolling the new pages board. I feel that by doing this I am assisting Wikipedia in become a better resource for individuals around the globe. One of the things that I dislike most is the fact that somehow people outside of Wiki have gotten the idea that this site isn't a good site to go to since anyone can contribute. I try to reassure them that the changes are verified and that Wikipedia is a great resource to go to when you need information. So in essence, I am not only contributing here on the site, but also out in the general public reassuring individuals that Wikipedia is a safe resourse website to research 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: I haven't been in any serious conficts in the past. I have had minor disagreements with individuals over some time about minor changes, ect. But nothing serious that would have to go to the ArbComm.

Optional question from EVula:

4. You say this is your second RfA. Where is your first?

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by EVula (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be here[1]. It was closed per WP:SNOW Dustihowe  Talk  20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Dustihowe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Dustihowe: Dustihowe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dustihowe before commenting.

Discussion

• Recommend withdrawal. Tiptoety ^talk 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support With some advice. (and I know there seems to be a sense that a moral support is a waste of time, but I'm doing it any way). This won't pass, and edit count be damned. You've made some distinctly dodgy WP:CSD calls only today and that would be enough for me to oppose normally. However, I can't not admire your enthusiasm and your pleasent and civil comments. You seem to be a communicative editor with a sincere desire to help the project. So some help. 1) No more RfA's until you hit that magic 3.5k+ edits (or a bit more) for those that like to count them. Sorry, but it's true. 2) Find a subject you like and either create new content or better yet work on a drive to improve an article. 3) Don't obsess on RfA commenting - I did that when I was newer, and it can blur/bend your views on adminship. 4) Keep on enjoying the place and 5) Do not be down hearted. This is a pretty "serious" website in that it ranks 9 (8 now?) of the most popular sites in the world, so the fact that you are already well respected and that the opposers have nothing but respect and advice should make you feel pretty pleased with yourself. Best regards, but I recommend you withdraw this particular request. Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Admin Coaching and SuggestBot. miranda 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regretful Oppose I like your enthusiasm a lot, but I think you need more edits to show that you've truly grasped the hang of things around here. Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   With all due respect, who says that I have to have a ton of edits in order to have grasped the hang of things around here? I have done excellent so far in my edits and contributions without the mop and bucket, just imagine what I can do if I were to have those tools and abilities!! Dustihowe  Talk  20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - as above. Couldn't you at least provide a short summary of why you want/deserve adminship? Rudget. 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry, I don't think you've been active for long enough. I think an admin should be a good contributor rather than just a good mopper. And your spelling mistakes are annoying me (I'm just old fashioned in this). MSGJ (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   No offense, but I find your comment sort of ironic, seeing as you misspelled "contributor." GlassCobra 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   In your mind, how long is long enough? And what spelling mistakes are you talking about? Dustihowe  Talk  20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well, you misspelled "patrol" a couple of times when you were answering the questions above, for example. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, GlassCobra, I asked for that!! MSGJ (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I reccomend you spend several months of heavy editing than try again. There is no hard and fast edit count or time requirement but you currently have less than 500 edits. Many RFA applicants can have thousands and thousands of edits. Please dont rush another RFA, please feel free to ask for a second opinion from a respected editor and ask them if they feel if you are ready. I will offer to give you my opjnion on if you are ready to pass an RFA at any future time, just drop me a line on my talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose - I do not like to base my opinion on edit count, but with only a bti over 500 edits with most of them to usertalk space and only 94 to mainspace i feel that this user has very limited knowledge of key policies that would help them to make good administrative decisions. Just not time yet, needs more experience. Tiptoety ^talk 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Repeated invalid tagging of articles for speedy deletion [2][3][4] (and giving templated warning to the admin that turned down the speedy! [5]) clearly indicates that this user is not familiar with deletion criteria and likely to use the admin tools improperly. Incorrect tagging for speedy deletion has continued after being asked to re-read speedy deletion criteria.[6] -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Sorry, but I have to oppose per my prerequisites. Specifically, your editing just isn't as active as I prefer to see. Of your less than 500 edits (with my personal standard being 2,000), only 82 are in the main namespace; we are here, first and foremost, to build an encyclopedia, as given the frequency with which admins are expected to weigh in on encyclopedia-oriented matters, such a dearth of experience is a deal breaker. Also, you don't meet my personal requirements for activity; of the 10 months displayed in your edit stats, you only broke 10 edits in a single month three times (and all of them being only in the past four months). Sorry, but the time for you to be an admin hasn't come quite yet. Increase your participation and in six months time I might be singing a different tune. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - sorry, not nearly enough experience.   jj137 ^♠ 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Edgar181. You probably should read up on the criteria for speedy deletion and get experience in admin areas (requesting page protection, reporting vandals, etc.) before trying again. Also, try to get at least one Good article before your next RfA - you definitely need more mainspace contributions. Finally, attempt to leave an edit summary for all of your edits. Do these things, and your next RfA should run smoothly. NF24^{(radio me!)} 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose for a variety of experience related reasons. While I hate editcountitis, less than 100 mainspace edits, most within the last week or so, is just not a lot of experience. Add to that the recent incorrect speedy tagging Ed pointed out (and noting that all were within three minutes of page creation - rather bitey in my book for things that aren't vandalism or attacks), and I'm not seeing someone who is ready for the mop at this time. I'd encourage you to get about 10-20 times as many quality mainspace edits, work on using edit summaries, and read up on policies like WP:SPEEDY (especially Wikipedia:Patent nonsense) before trying again. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose I think the Kurt Weber applies here. User:Krator (t c) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry ... what on earth does this mean? MSGJ (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - A good attempt at the introduction, and a well-rounded editor in terms of basic experience and "civilness" - but still too unfamiliar with areas that are key. Rudget. 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   What would you say are the key areas? Dustihowe  Talk  20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Those that are explained above. Rudget. 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. It may sound strange, but I believe that the lack of participation in any conflicts in Wikipedia is, for the admin candidate, close to a flaw, and definitely not an asset. Just like with credit history in the US, where you have to build up the trust of the bank by showing you're behaving in a credible way, also in Wikipedia participation in conflicts (e.g. by informal mediation) shows how you're going to react under strong stress and if you are able to stay cool, which may be important in adminship. Also, I was not persuaded by your rationale for mop, and the CSDs you filed may be held against you. The low edit count is not of crucial importance in my view (I want to believe we WANT admins, who edit little, but are credible and trustworthy), but it doesn't help, either. You are a good editor and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you the next time. Pundit|utter 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Suggest withdrawl. Malinaccier (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral to avoid pileon. Only 500 edits, 90 to the mainspace (which is the main reason we're here). Doesn't use edit summaries enough. I do like your work in the Wikipedia namespace, I just need to see more activity. I recommend you don't run another RFA until you meet these standards, it'd give you a much better chance of passing. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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.