Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Unixer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an unsuccessful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Unixer

Final (4/17/2) ended 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn early by bureaucrat. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unixer (talk • contribs) – Hello, i've been contributing on wikipedia since March 2005 (what ?? :-) ). I do anti-vandalism, recent changes patrolling, and wikifying. About 50% of my time is dedicated to routine tasks, and the other half to creating/editing various articles.

Frequent subjects that i work on :

• Serial killers / profiling
• History
• Music (From pop to black metal, through electronica)

I'm also a recent member of Wikiproject Morocco

I hope admin tools will make me more efficient in the time I spend on routine tasks, and give me motivation to keep working harder.

Note: what i did on wikipedia is the work of 3 months or so. The previous time was dedicated to getting familiar with it, and reading.

guys, guys, what are you doing ? you're losing a good contributor here !!!are you crazy ?? Unixer 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: How does not yet getting the mop leave Wiki "losing a good contributor"? RadioKirk talk to me 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.

Support

1. Weak Support Although user has been active for only about 3 months, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Could be reading up on Wikipedia policies for the past year, thus the lack of edit counts. Anyway, I feel that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Moral Support please don't be discouraged if this RfA fails. Rama's Arrow 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Moral Support He may not have had enough time for many edits but seems to be a good user. If not this time,I am sure , his RfA will succeed in a couple of months' time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mail2amitabha (talk • contribs) .
4. Moral SupportLook forward to seeing you patrolling for vandals. :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, only active in recent months and only 9 edits to projectspace (as of toolserver lag). Edit summary usage is "meh" at best, with just 27% for minor edits. Malformed RfA compounds this. Become more active with *fD and whatnot and I'll support in a few months. --Rory096 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rory. Most of the tasks described below don't require admin powers. I'd also like the user to provide evidence that he has a full understanding of relevant policy and protocol, if possible. Badgerpatrol 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, the RFA acceptance (no signature), lacks of project spaced edits. Nine?? Do more of xFDs and I will support you when you have the qualifications. Come back in a few months time. --Terence Ong 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Not enough edits to Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces; Poor edit summary usage; Self-nom not a great idea; Only 2000 edits in 14 months is not a very good ratio; and as stated above by Terrance, Badgerpatrol, and Rory096. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 15:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, not active enough in WP projects (at least the log shows that) or voting in AfD. If you improve this, I can support your next nomination. --Tone 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - questions don't make me think you're quite ready yet sorry -- Tawker 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, too few edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Probably has the tools, needs more real-time seasoning. Can't find anything that tells me how this user would handle a dispute. Hope to see you back in a few months, or so. RadioKirk talk to me 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, would like to see more Wikiproject experience and edit summary usage. Royboycrashfan 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: too few edit summaries and too little attention to mechanics of writing in this RFA. Could benefit from more experience. Jonathunder 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose: 2 months is not enough. Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Hmmm, this user has not been here very long. --Knucmo2 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not trying to sway anyone's vote here (see my own above) but as far as I can see this user's first edit was in March 2005, 14 months ago. That's surely a reasonable length of time. Do you perhaps rather mean to say that his activity has stepped up in the last two months? Badgerpatrol 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    Look at the edit count immediately below; hence my suggestion of "more real-time seasoning". I've never been one for editcountitis, but time alone does not experience make. RadioKirk talk to me 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    I agree 100%- to be honest, I was raising the possibility that the two users above had mistaken 'March 2005' for 'March 2006'. Badgerpatrol 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    A possibility :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose - his self-nomination text is far from admin standards. Ending in bold with repeated punctuation ("??" and "!!") and no capitilization are just not appropriate actions for an admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets501 (talk • contribs) .
14. Oppose. Inexperienced and seeking adminship almost desperately. A veiled threat (underneath his nomination) to leave the project does not instill confidence that he has the maturity to handle adminship. Neither experienced time nor project-space edit count are sufficient to know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose Maybe later in May or June? ForestH2
16. Oppose Calling voters crazy in your nom statement isn't going to get you many support votes. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Not enough time as a consistent contributor. Reaction to legitmate concerns raised about suitability is also disconcerting. Zaxem 12:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Unixer's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Edit count with Interior's Javascript tool:

Total edits        2056
Distinct pages edited   1732
Average edits/page      1.187
First edit     21:10, 19 March 2005
(main)         1873
Talk           46
User           44
User talk      61
Image          1
Image talk     1
Template       3
Help talk      2
Category       2
Wikipedia      16
Wikipedia talk 7

—Whouk (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the articles which you claim to have created appear to be redlinks- is this the case, or is my machine playing up? Badgerpatrol 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. Badgerpatrol 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: A whole lot of Anti-vandalism, RC patrolling, Wikifying, and oh: deleting irrelevant articles.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm pround of some articles that i created and that have brought many people to contribute and add interesting content, like Jenny Saville when i was still known as user "whiny". I also create many stubs about various subjects like Crime scene photography, CHIP programming language, Netlink and Joga Bonito. Major contributions to Natasha Thomas

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: On articles, I never really had a problem with anyone. I try to do a lot of work and little bragging. Once, i had a problem with a user: I used to add links to some users' pages on my page, to keep track of their interesting work. One of them freaked because he noticed his name and got all paranoid. I just removed it and it was alright ;)

Question by Chuck (of course, optional):

1 Please describe how you believe the creation of stubs such as Asmahan, Fuct, Karaja (singer), Crime scene photography, and Firearm modification improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Paris hiltonz. Ponies !!! LOL more pink !

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.