Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arienh4

Final (1/5/2); Non crat closure as withdrawn per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=218238228&oldid=218226845 this request on my talk page] @19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) by Dlohcierekim

{{User|Arienh4}} - I am a very motivated vandalfighter, I went on a quite long wikibreak because I had some problems with internet and time, but I'm back and on full speed. I have experience for over a year on this wikipedia, and another year longer on the Dutch wikipedia. I currently have about 1,700 edits. Also, in a response to Frank's comment, I have been away for a long time, but that was because I was unable to visit Wikipedia. I believe before and after that break I have had my share of contributions.Arienh4^(Talk) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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: Especially AIV, and other vandalism related activities.

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

::A: Well, basically, the only real contributions that I have are vandalism reverts, so those.

: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: There was one time I was in a conflict with another user on my talk page, but I resolved that by just letting it rest.

• See Arienh4's edit summary usage with [http://www.toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Arienh4&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the talk page.

{{#ifeq:Arienh4|Arienh4||

• Links for Arienh4: {{usercheck-short|Arienh4}}

----

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Arienh4 before commenting.

1. Support I support you, I just signed up you seem like you can contribute and make the right decisions, but are open to others' input, and you are willing to admit your mistakes. Yet you can be forceful if needed. you would make a good admin.

SquierTheAspie (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You have a very inconsistent edit history, with 3 months spread out over a long period where you have a lot of edits and the rest with pretty much nothing - you need to be a bit more consistent. "Letting it rest" isn't really a resolution of conflict (although it's not always a bad idea). Almost all of your edits are done by automated tools, which I'd say are easier to get big edit counts with yet yours is still small. Sorry, I can't really support you right now. WP:NOTNOW and all that - wait a while and just edit normally. --Tombomp (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose (edit conflict) - Not enough edit activity, low edit count, and 94% edit summary usage. I think you need more a bit more experience first. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose No article work, just another teenager who sees Wikipedia as an alternate video game with Huggle as his supersonic vandal zap toy. RMHED (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
4. :Please remain civil and non-offensive. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
5. :::Ouch! With all respect, RMHED, that was pretty mean. Dlohcierekim''' 19:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
6. ::::A formal warning for incivility. Please remember you are still at wikipedia while commenting at RfA. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
7. :::::Nothing at all uncivil about my comment, very pertinent to this candidate I'd say. So I shall ignore your so called 'formal warning', thank you. RMHED (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
8. ::::::I have to agree with previous comments that your oppose seemed over the top. The mantra around here is typically to comment on the content, not the editor. If you are quoting the editor with your comment, then just provide a diff; otherwise, please stick to the content without attacking the editor.  Frank  |  talk  19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
9. ::Why do we give out the tools and then oppose for using them??? Thank God no one opposed me because of my extensive TWINKLE use. I could not do RCPatrol without automation because of my tremors. Somehow there seems to be an assumption of bad faith for wanting to use a tool that helps do the job better. I think we need to look at the judgment behind the use of the tools rather than counting the number of times a candidate uses them. Dlohcierekim''' 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
10. :::Agree with previous comments: RMHED's incivility is uncalled for here. Drewcifer (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Not Now--While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with less than/about 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in their readiness to become an admin. Nominees with less than/about 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
2. ::*Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
3. ::*WP:Admin
4. ::*the admin reading list.
5. :Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
6. :The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
7. :Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
8. :Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
9. :My suggestion to any nominees with less than/about 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim''' 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arden_Wohl_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=155182845] (the only AfD participation I noticed, so difficult to gauge how candidate would or would not close AfDs), i.e. AfD is not a "vote", potential is actually more of a reason to keep, and WP:JNN is considered an argument to avoid. I also agree with the above about the low edit count total. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral per WP:NOTNOW. Long break, followed by a flurry of activity...I would like to see a more consistent history first.  Frank  |  talk  18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't support at this time. Per above I'm concerned about your inconsistent editing history. Also, more article work would really help you along. While vandal fighting is greatly appreciated, it's better to have a well-balanced edit count between namespaces. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:41, 9 June 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.