Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KRSTIGER
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (talk page) (1/9/2) Ended 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Closed early by Chaser (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW.[reply]
Nomination
[edit]KRSTIGER (talk · contribs) – I am a contributing source to Wikipedia. It is my first stop to find information I need. I am also an administrator of wikianswers.com too. I am usaully on that but you can find me on Wikipedia too. --KRSTIGER (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to check that the information in the category is appropriate and shows the correct information. I will make spelling and Grammar changes too.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions... I have so many I can't think of my best one. Most of my contributions are well researched and if I don't know the answer I will ask for someone who does.
- 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 had one conflict and I did what I will do in the future too. I will show them the research I did and if that doesn't work I will ask how they would change it.
General comments
[edit]- Links for KRSTIGER: KRSTIGER (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for KRSTIGER can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/KRSTIGER before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
- Candidate has been left two messages on their talkpage suggesting that they withdraw this nomination before it is closed early. I would suggest allowing KRSTIGER 24 hours to withdraw before moving to close under WP:NOTNOW, unless the community decides to push for an early closure. SilkTork *YES! 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]- Weak Support: Not enough experience . . . But I like people who are bold. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]- Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Usually nominees require at least 5000 edits on a variety of articles, notice boards, and talk pages to learn policies and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Please contribute as a regular editor before potentially trying again. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose As above, there is not enough experience in your contribution history to make a judgement whether you should be an admin. The matters you have identified in your RfA are things that can be done by any editor of wikipedia, not just admins. I hope to see your around soon. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposer WP:NOTNOW to prevent pile-on opposes. The Arbiter★★★ 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sorry 22 edits is not quite enough for me to support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You have way too little experience, and you clearly have no idea what administrators even do here. I strongly suggest you simply withdraw this RFA and re-file when you have a lot more experience and an understanding of what the admin's role is on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WP:NOTNOW and your answer to Q2... of your three content contributions, only one was helpful. The other two, made to Walrus, were unconstructive and could even be considered vandalism. The first one was not helpful and the second was made just to undo the first. I guess what I was getting at was that you need more content work, as others have noted. This is clearly your best contribution; I commend the ample referencing. All in all, once you garner more experience, I'll be happy to support! Airplaneman talk 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose You may wish to read over our adminship page... fetchcomms☛ 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose perNOTNOW. Come back after having gained some experience observing and participating in the project space. RadManCF (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support but Oppose - You are obviously here with good intentions but this is what we call WP:NOTNOW, which means it isn't time yet; you don't have enough experience. If you edit a bit more then you can come back again in a few months and I'm sure you won't have as much of a problem. smithers - talk 21:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- Neutral 20 edits is no indication of your abilities as an editor to understand policy. Reviewers such as myself need much more than this to assess. I think a 'not now' is appropriate. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral For a couple of reasons: firstly, you have 22 contributions, of which only 3 appear to have been to articles (so why you think you have too many contributions to choose your best, I'm not sure) - this is far too few to be able to judge what kind of editor you will be, let alone what kind of admin you would be; secondly the answer to question 1 do not require you to be an admin. This is a neutral rather than an oppose, as I do not want to pile-on oppose. I think this should be closed per WP:NOTNOW -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.