Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:04, 23 August 2008

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

Jagun

Voice your opinion (talk page) Final (0/4/0); Scheduled to end 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed per WP:NOTNOW   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagun (talk · contribs) - Hello, I am Jagun, and I would like to be made an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. I have only been editing for about a year (111 edits) under this username; I have been editing for about 4 years (and ~1500 edits) under an IP address. I believe that I am ready to become an administrator, due to my thorough understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, extensive experience, and clean record (I have never been blocked due to a violation of policy). Thank you for your consideration. Jagun (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: Repetitive tasks, such as handling wrongly autoblocked users. I am also a part-time recent changes patroller, and although this can be done by standard users, admin tools would make the process easier, and if a vandal is encountered, he may listen to an admin (with the power to block him) more than a regular user.

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

A: My best contributions are those that A) remove vandalism or other violations of policy; B) correct spelling, grammar, and factual errors in articles.

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 have never been in an edit conflict or other conflict with an editor. If I were to run into such a conflict, I would best deal with it by clearly, concisely, and in a civil manner arguing my point, and if necessary, requesting an objective review by another user.

General comments

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

• Links for Jagun: Jagun (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/Jagun before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Suggest withdraw. Experience totally aside, 115 edits is not nearly enough to develop a level of trust anywhere near that which is required of administrators, even if you do have "~1500" edits under an undisclosed IP address. - Icewedge (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Ditto. Even counting the IP edits, which are very difficult to verify, that's still far too few. Ironholds 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for your comments. That was my main worry when I put up this RfA, that I might have to make a few more edits before I could be considered. If consensus is determined, I'll withdraw this via WP:SNOW. It's probably not my place to say this (it is my RfA, after all) but I personally believe that my relatively small edit count is not on its own a reason to deny my RfA, since my edits have all been thoroughly in compliance with policy and I have never been involved in a major conflict. Jagun (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Well, thanks for your enthusiasm trying to help the project and just that fact that you are aware of WP:SNOW shows that you are quite a bit more knowledgeable than users with comparable edit counts but as I stated in my first comment; before we can consider experience, trustworthiness must be considered; I don't see anything suspicions about you, of course, but it is a better safe than sorry thing. Not to spread an beans around but a rouge administrator can do horrendous damage to the wiki if they put their mind to it and the fact that a user has made ~100 edits to the 'pedia does not show they are not secretly plotting harm, I make 100 edits in three days, if the bar for adminship was low we would have undercover vandals pass RFA all the time and that would be a very bad thing. - Icewedge (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Moral Support With all do respect, I do not know if you have a grasp of Wiki-Policy. That is just based on the ~100 edits on the account you are running on. The ~100 edits weren't even made recently, a good chuck was made last year. I suggest focusing on trying to contribute more, and it doesn't have to be to articles. Provide a comment on a thread at WP:AN/I or if a user was insufficiently warned at WP:AIV write that there. Many people are reluctant to support if you have not at least shown a little bit in an administrative related area. I suggest trying to build up your edit count, but not in a way that it disrupts the process. Good luck with your wiki career and thanks to the contributions you have made so far. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Suggest withdraw As pointed out above, the point is not that you have a low edit count, the point is that we cannot safely judge your skills with such a small amount of data. I'd suggest withdraw and retry after a few months. After all, it does not do any harm and you can build up a track record for your next RfA :-) SoWhy 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
5. WP:NOTNOW Not enough edits to establish trust  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

{{

The above 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.

• Unsuccessful requests for adminship