Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ACBest 2

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

ACBest

Final (1/11/0); Originally scheduled to end at 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed by Rudget (talk · contribs) per snow closure. High opposition makes this RFA unlikely to pass at this time. Rudget. 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ACBest (talk · contribs) - Me again... Well, here I am about 1,000 edits later (Yup, this is my second...). Well, what can I say... I am getting better with my edit summaries, but I'm not there yet... My image uploading now probably takes up about a percent of Wikipedia's images!! Really, I'm getting better in all areas, not perfect - who is perfect? - and I am hoping to, this time, become an admin, so you better all say yes-- I mean, vote away!!! Many Thanks, Damon ACBestDog and Bone ^{Have I reverted an edit} _{by you, and got it wrong? Tell me!} 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Speedy Deletions, defintely, also Vandalism removal and blocking e.t.c.

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

A: I don't really know, I cant really say I have any...

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: Well, there was that one on Hull Trains last week, but hopefully, after a weeks worth of protection, all will now be OK. In the future, I would remember to talk...

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/ACBest
• Requests for adminship/ACBest 2

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

Discussion

• Recommend withdrawal. Tiptoety ^talk 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support - Admin coaching. miranda 16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The nom only adds to my maturity concerns. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Unacceptable answers...ending with "e.t.c." and "..."? You need to full answer the questions, not leave much of the matter up to the reader. Spencer^T♦C 11:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
3. oppose and constructive criticism While I appreciate nom's good intentions, I'm afraid that only about 1200 edits in the last 6 months does not give the opportunity for growth and increased understanding that I would need to see. Nom just has not gained sufficient experience for me to feel comfortable.

   Nom has recently been in conflict on Hull Trains because of a lack of communication. Communication is essential for an admin because people need to understand the reasons for our actions. Edit summary usage must be nearly 100%.

   I would have liked to see more speedy deletion experience-- including notifying article creators that their articles have been tagged.

   I see some vandal reverting and warning. However, if there were reports to WP:AIV, I did not see them. Nom's should have experience deciding when to report to AIV before taking on the job of blocking vandals. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 12:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

   Note Edit count shows 34 edits to WP:AIV - I haven't checked them all, but there are definitely two IP reports amongst his last 10 or so contributions to Wiki-space. gb ^{(t, c)} 13:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Sorry. But ~1350 mainspace edits are not enough. And the answers are not okay, either. And you don't use the edit summary... —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Answers generally, and to question 2 in particular, are quite concerning - not really answering the questions designed to find out whether one is suitable for adminship is hardly the best way to show commitment to the concept. gb ^{(t, c)} 13:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Never minding your uninspiring nomination statement and answers to the questions, the edit war you were involved in at Hull Trains [1] recently (and were warned on your talk page about) concerns me deeply. Pedro :  Chat  13:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Lack of engagement on questions demonstrates a less than serious approach to this proceeding. I'm not convinced candidate understands this RfA is a gateway to responsibilities, not goodies. The admin bit is not a merit badge. If you want tools, use Lupin or apply for non-admin rollback, and we'll see how you use them. If candidate is truly serious, I encourage the user to find an admin coach and work some steps. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Per nom, and per answer to all the question, especially number 2. Tiptoety ^talk 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Per all of the above, mainly. I see a lack of maturity shown, a satisfactory amount of edits to the mainspace (although, I must note that a good half of these seem to be through using rollback.) The other thing which has really nothing to do with your RfA is the confusing system on your talk page, I refer to the "main" messages, the archives and messages displayed on your talk page, this seems very long winded and somewhat difficult to understand, but I'll mention it anyway. The answer to question #02 leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Your signature is also rather long (yes, I can't be bothered to count the characters) and bright, maybe consider changing that. Overall, you're on the right track - but you just need a more time. I strongly suggest getting involved in content contributions (i.e. cleanup, copy-edit, bringing articles to GA status.) Qst (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
11. No option but to Oppose based on extremely poor answers to the questions 1-3. Perhaps the candidate should look at how other RfA noms have answered them, to get an idea of the accepted standard. King of the NorthEast 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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.