Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony cfc
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
The simple community has always been a wonderful place to work - much less stressful than English, my main project, and much more inviting. The most appealing characteristic of simple.wikipedia is the fact that it is so much more about writing an encyclopedia than policy debates or Requests for Arbitrations. In all, it's a welcome break from the rather heavy DR work I do there.
However, simple is growing - fast. The volume of vandals commuting between wikipedia.english and here is growing every day, yet the response time of our administrator team hasn't; a possible problem. The solution is - more Wikipedians equipped with the block, protection and deletion buttons.
My opinion is .. yes - I could do that. The community could trust me to promptly attend to Admin Noticeboard requests; to keep an eye on the vandal inputs - and all the while, continue Wikipedian duties: simplify articles, expand and cite others, and collaborate with my fellow editors I've grown to love.
This section is in response to a question below: how would you help out with the extra buttons? My main focus would be prompt deletions on VfDs that the community concensus tells us to get rid of; interpreting concensus has always been one of my strong points. Speedy deletes is yet another focus - chances are, I'll have Category:Quick deletion requests open in another FireFox tab :) if there's any admins watching, Reconstruction has been tagged since 8pm. I also plan to do a medium-to-large-scale overhaul of this page, with some help from my friends on here, including simplifying the voting process, and an automatic form for nominations.
Next up, I'd use the block tool whenever it comes to that sad event we have to lock somebody from editing, for the good of the encyclopedia; I'd use this when necessary, and when the appropiate warning templates have been added. The page protection tool would come in handy during US school hours, when several high-profile pages get replaced by "poop".
I'd also be able to deal with incidents such as this immediately, and without further harm to the encyclopedia.
To summarise, I would use my tools to help this project - to provide a pillar for the newer users; to provide a second opinion to my fellow Wikipedians that have the buttons but faced with a sticky situation. Therefore, I'd like each Wikipedian to first ask themselves...
| “ | ..do I trust Anthony cfc to promptly delete articles in line with relevant concensus, to keep the speedy backlog empty, to protect highly vandalised or edit-warred pages until the temperature's back down, and to use the block tool to lock out those that wish to harm the content, and to provide them with a template informing them how to contribute upon their return?.. | ” |
Let the community speak,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting votes
[change source]Neutral votes
[change source]- Neutral - You're doing it very well, but I think you need more experience and more contributions (You have 403 edits, and only 11 deleted edits). FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just a general question, to help me and others vote: what would you do as an admin? FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporated into opening statement. Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just a general question, to help me and others vote: what would you do as an admin? FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing votes
[change source]- Oppose - Only 109 Main space edits, only active 3 days in the last month with only 1 mainspace edit in that time (blanking a page tagged for QD). Of the user's 420 edits, 260 of them are either to User pages or User talk pages. -- Creol(talk) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I think in general you are doing good work, but you should do more of it. Wikipedia is not a forum; therefore most edits should be changing articles, or talking about how to change articles. Adminship is about the community trusting you, and relying on you to do good work. To get to there, you first need to be noticed; then you need to work on your image as an editor worthy to merit the trust of the community. It is for this reason, mostly, that there is this guideline of 3 months with the project, or 1.000 edits (presumably in the main article space). So in short: do more of what you are doing at the moment, focus a little more on the main article space, and try again once you have around 1.000 edits there. Please do not see it as a setback; I was also refused on my first appilcation. --Eptalon 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - sorry, but we normally ask for a bit more experience over here. Keep up the good work though. Archer7 - talk 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per inexperience. You're making good progress so far here, but I would suggest you try again in a few months after you have many more edits. Nishkid64 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, I oppose. Work for a little longer. Keep it up!-- Tdxiang 05:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - looking good but not enough main space edits. Ksbrowntalk 13:57, 10 March 2007 (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.