Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 22 October 2012

Your RFA

I'm sorry to say but it was turning out to be clear fail so I've laid down an early closure. It has been closed as SNOW and the reason was the great amount of opposes comparing to support !votes. In no way this means that you are a bad candidate or are problematic. Your content work is great and we need more dedicated editors like you around. At RFAs, editors need to prove that why do they need the tools and should have experience in admin areas such as WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RPP, etc. It is okay if you don't get active everywhere around but some kind of admin related work is mainly required other then content creation. You stated that your edits at KFC were great, and I agree too. There is a bit lack of editors like you who focus merely on content work. Editors like you are the real pillars of our encyclopedia and your content work is highly appreciated. It is just that you need experience at admin related areas and show good understanding of policies around which are related to admin work. You will find these pages really helpful if you aim for running again after good 8-10 months; Misplaced Pages:Advice for RfA candidates. I hope that you wont feel dishearted or discouraged and will continue your good work. If any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! TheSpecialUser  02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you’re motivated to consider reapplying for the promotion, I'd recommend that you evaluate a variety of RFAs from 2012, and certainly review the guidance, recurrent questions, and informal criteria before pursuing a nomination. Regards, Mephistophelian (contact) 02:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC).

Hi Farrtj. It looks like your RfA has been closed very quickly. This is quite simply because RfA is a silly process and there are certain steps which candidates are expected to take. If you're still interested in becoming an administrator though, let me know - I created request an RfA nomination and have done an awful lot of research into it. I'd like to have a bit of a chat with you about what you want to achieve from adminship and what I can do to help you get there. Worm(talk) 06:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that content creation is absolutely critical to the encyclopedia. It is the whole point of us being here and should be our primary focus. The administrator role is a fairly small one in the grand scheme of things - work done as an administrator is not going to directly affect the sum of all human knowledge, it's a few extra buttons which should only really be used with consensus behind them. The three main extra tools administrators have is the ability to delete/undelete, to protect/unprotect pages and the ability to block/unblock problematic users.

Now, part of the reason your RfA was not successful was that you didn't quite follow the process correctly - it's an unforgiving area, and I'm happy to help you out there. The other part, though, is something you will need to work on. Currently, you have a little more than 500 edits outside article space. Adminiship is for life and so people like to see some experience to show you understand policy and won't mis-use the tools. It's not an area where you get the ability first and then use it.

You talk about "greater powers", which "powers" (or tools, because adminship is definitely not meant to be about power) would you be looking to use? Can you give an example of a time you have been unable to do something as you didn't have that tool?

If, on the other hand, you are looking to expand into new areas - helping out in new ways, that's great! There's lots of things you can do without the toolbelt which demonstrates you have the knowledge to use it. For example, if you want to delete pages, you can show you have a good understanding of deletion policy by participating in our article for deletion process or you can patrol new pages, tagging inappropriate ones for speedy deletion, which allows administrators to review your decision. Worm(talk) 08:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Richard Tomlinson.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.