Admin Candicy and Talk

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

Dueyfinster

Final (0/15/0) ended 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (original time ending 20:49 Sat Jan 21, 8.30 (UTC))

Dueyfinster (talk · contribs) – I have been a member of Wikipedia since March 26, 2005. I patrol recent changes and nearly always put explanations and/or reasons for actions I take. When I do not it is most likely I am editing from my PDA or my phone, these input methods being restrictive, so I just take the vandalism out. I have read extensively and am familiar with how Wikipedia works. I support various groups within Wikipedia, such as counter vandalism, no personal attacks, neutrality, Wikipedians against censorship and I am an inclusionist. I have also contributed to WikiNews. Although I have a relatively low edit count, I see the length of my membership (approaching a year) and my quality of edits as important. Why do I want to become a Sysop? I feel it will help me no-end in helping Wikipedia stay the best free information resource, by fighting vandalism and encouraging participation. --Duey Finster 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

Oppose

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. Nomination statement decietful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inexperience, lack of edit summaries, very few project namespace edits, ~~a self-nom with no answers to questions~~, and only 111 edits (with most of them edits to own user page). I recommend you become an active Wikipedia editor, make some quality mainspace contributions, and get involved with the Wikipedia namespace, for a successful RfA in the future. For now, I also suggest withdrawal. — TheKMan^talk 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too few edits. --NaconKantari 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Edit count isn't everything, but with out edit I can't see how you contribute histroically. Not enough experience with many areas of the project. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: except for four edits in March of 2005 and two more in July, all contributions are within the past five weeks. Suggest withdrawal of this nomination; it is premature. Jonathunder 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs more experience. Ronabop 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs more experience, please withdraw. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of experience (30 article-space edits) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-14 01:35Z
Oppose. Not enough experience, very few edit summaries. Suggest that you withdraw at this time.--Dakota ~ ε 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Masssiveego 02:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - edits and edit summaries --Admrboltz (T | C) 06:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 30 article edits is just too little. Also, practically no usage of edit summaries is another problem. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lack of edits, lack of summary. I know this user from GameFAQs, he's a good person. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too little experience. Kusonaga 12:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only made five contributions from March - Nov. 05, lack of edit summaries --Nick123 ^(t/c) 12:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Edit summary usage: 1% for major edits and 1% for minor edits. Based on the last 13 major and and 17 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See information about Dueyfinster's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would help in particular with vandalism, and would be delighted to welcome new users (Which I haven't done so far, just didn't feel it was my place). I would also help putting articles which I feel need proper attention, with the appropriate template (Stubs, Expansion etc.) I would help sort through the images list also, but my main focus is vandalism and its' prevention.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I like Colaiste Chiarain as it contained original research, as I talked to the Principal and looked through various guides and publications they have produced. I also was able to secure use of the copyrighted image from the school, for illustration purposes. I and User:Mp3guy designed their website, giving us direct information on all the schools library of publications.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Not on Wikipedia, but on Wikinews I was dissapointed to see another user edit an article in such a way, I felt made the news article less readable, with bits of information not in order of relevancy. I was about to edit it back, but in order to not have an edit war, I decided against it. The article after all contained all the information I originally wrote anyway.

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.

Talk Page Archive Begins Here

Please, before you write here advising me against the Admin vote, please consider what I am about to write. I am self nominating because I plan to put another nomination sometime way in the future for myself. I have read the nomination failures, some people get through on second nominations. I just want to see what people think of my editing and NPOV and so forth.....to see whether other admins agree/disagree with what I have done so far. This I believe will improve my chances second time round, and I will have the experience behind me aswell. Also, people will watch my editing from here on in, knowing I plan another nomination, all the more important for a)watching for mistakes I could make b)support for next time. I thank you all for the time you have taken to write your opinions, I will read every single one of them and use it to improve. Thanks! User:Dueyfinster 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Greetings. With all respect, I'd like to point out that you have just 110 edits. Since I began keeping track (437 completed RfAs ago, back to June 27, 2005), not one person with less than 750 edits has had a successful RfA. Based on this, your RfA will fail. Your contributions are insufficient for people to draw any conclusions about you and your ability with respect to the project. Also, you should have answered the questions on the bottom portion of your RfA. Failure to do so will result in even more oppose votes. I recommend you withdraw your RfA until you've had more editing experience. In the very least, it would be a good idea to clear 1,000 edits prior to your next application at RfA. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. All the best, --Durin 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is so little to go on people are most likely all going to say the same thing; insufficient experience. I'll give you a tip; don't put comments at the top of people's talk pages. Put them on the bottom :) --Durin 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo what Pgk said below, and also add on that you should have a look at WP:GRFA. This should give you the direction you need. --Durin 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what you've just said above, I'll reiterate; there is too little to go on to give you any realistic feedback on your editing here. 34% of your edits are to your userpage alone. The only main namespace article you've had significant contributions to is Coláiste Chiaráin. Bottom line here is experience; get involved, make significant contributions, contribute more to vandalism fighting (yes, you've done some, but as with all else in your contributions so far, not enough yet). Also, you've got your preferences set to mark all edits as minor, I suspect. Minor edits are just that; minor. This edit by you is not minor. Also, you're not using edit summaries at all. I refer you again to WP:GRFA. Lastly, WP:RFA is not a forum to advertise yourself for future RfA attempts. You will become known and respected in the community not by having a failed RfA but by making significant contributions and helping out the project in meta ways. --Durin

21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- I didn't mean having a failed RfA as a way of getting noticed, it is a serious propostion, my response above is just an understanding of why it is likely to fail. I am not trying to waste anyones time. I will fix the minor edits issue and refer to the other wikipedia documentation reffered above, thanks for the advice.

Your RFA

Please see the instructions for making a nomination [1], the order is quite clear, create the RFA subpage before including the template in the main page. I seriously suggest you withdraw your RFA as you have no where near enough experience of wikipedia and I suspect you will rapidly amass a lot of oppose votes. You can see peoples personal guidance for what they believe is a support level here. Look at the other current RFA's and you'll see comments regarding the use of edit summaries, number of edits, number of project page edits etc. compare these to your own levels. You can also see your own edit summary here Thanks --pgk^(talk) 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you don't appear to have answered the standard questions, people will certainly comment on that. I'll also agree with Durin, talk comments go at the bottom of the list, not the top. --pgk^(talk) 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just fixing up a couple of mistakes in my original posts! --pgk^(talk) 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - No bother! Duey Finster 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RFA

Specific points in your nomination statement that appear to be untrue -- based on your lack of article space edits outside the articles you have contributed, you have done extremely little RC patrol, and contrary to your assertion, you do not "nearly always" put explanations for the edits you make. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my response to: (talk), please check, thanks. Duey Finster 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [2], you have made only one edit summary in the article space. Usually, editors explain the content of the edit in their edit summary. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Might I suggest an early withdrawal of your request? It's unlikely that your nomination will succeed and I would encourage you to aim your energy towards building up your edits so that a later nomination is feasible. Many thanks. -- Francs 2000 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]