Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Astatine-210

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

(talk page) Final (3/10/2); Ended 06:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) - closed by non-bureaucrat Anonymous Dissident per WP:NOTNOW. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astatine-210 (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia for a short time, but have been working hard to make keep this encyclopedia the best anywhere. I have been reverting vandalism constantly, and would like to request the admin tools to assist me with protection of popularly vandalized pages, and block disruptive users. astatine-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Blocking, afd, and protection.

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

A:

I like my contribs to the Isotope lists, 97+ By bringing it up to date, and my vandalism reverts.

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:

No. I will act calmly. Additional questions from Davidwr:

4. It is only the somewhat exceptional candidate that I can support before 9-12 months and the exceptional candidate that I can support before 6. You created your account on January 26. Is there something exceptional about you that would indicate you are as familiar with Wikipedia policies, practices, and unwritten conventions as someone who has been around much longer? Possible good answers include experiences on other-language wikis or months of intensive read-only or other not-logged-in usage of Wikipedia's policies and discussion pages. As it stands, I can only recommend you read WP:NOTNOW and User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• Links for astatine-210: Astatine-210 (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/astatine-210 before commenting.

• Astatine is toxic, radioactive, reactive, and unstable. Some cynics would say those are characteristics of a few administrators we already have.... Seriously, you are doing good work on the encyclopedia, but the consensus that this RfA comes too early is very likely to carry the day. I suggest withdrawing for now and putting some more time in, continuing activity in some more admin-related areas as well as your mainspace editing, and trying again here in awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support, looks fine to me. Wizardman 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, though you haven't been here particularly long. However, you should make an effort to branch out into more substantive article editing. Hermione1980 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'd support too, but I doubt it will pass right now. Keep up the good work and you'll probably get more support next time. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - While I appreciate and commend your attitude and dedication to the project, I'm going to declare this request to be premature. I just don't see enough to help me judge your abilities. I suggest spending some time in the content area without decreasing your fervor for fighting vandalism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Morally Supportive Oppose You've been on for less than a month. I usually like seeing 6-12 months of good solid activity in a candidate. If you keep doing some nice antivandal and article work, I will consider supporting in the future. Sam ^Blab 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Supportive Oppose - You're definitely on the right track, and your first few edits have been productive. Keep up the good work and try some new areas, and you'll have my support in a few months. FlyingToaster 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Love the enthusiam but you are too inexperienced since you've only been here for like 2 weeks, some suggestion go to XFD, and build a rep there also participate in more RFA's, but right now you are too inexperienced but are on the right track.--Giants27 TC 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. (edit conflict) I echo Wisdom in thanking you for your work so far. But you have only been editing for about two weeks and most of your work has been via automated tools. Your so far has been quite good, there's just not enough yet for me to ascertain whether you have a solid handle on policies and procedures yet. I look forward, though, to supporting your next request, should there be one. Useight (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose You have far too little experience. Admins generally have been around for at least 12 months (some less, many more). I'd advise coming back in 10 months for my personal standards. Keep up the good edit count, however; and remember to add edit summaries to your posts more often, 100% of the time, or near that figure, would be good. You should also get involved in some admin-type activities. All the best fr33kman -s- 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, despite the cool username. All of the above sounds like good advice to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Oppose. Gosh, I hate to have to come out from avoiding RfA, but I just told you that you were hardly ready to run for RfA after you asked on my talkpage. Blatantly ignoring my advice, when I've pretty much mentioned everything that has been said here really doesn't encourage me. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Oppose Before I looked at this I really thought this would come close to passing.see comment It leaves me puzzled for someone wanting to revert vandalism. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: I found another issue. You haven't been active before January. Your edit count is also low, so this actually will probably be a WP:NOTNOW too. Try again in a few months and this will be a for-sure pass. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That edit seems like a test to me, considering he/she reverted it within minutes. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) And it was on his own userpage. I chalk it up to a test. Useight (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It was clearly a test. Please re-evaluate your "strong" oppose in light of this new interpretation of that edit. Oh, and this will be a notnow and will probably be withdrawn or closed within a day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   But why would you be practicing vandalism with an admin template when you aren't an admin but in your RfA you said you were going to revert vandalism? I find that a bit fishy...switched to normal support though. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Moral Support but Opposing You're not ready yet. Give it time and some patience, you'll get there. Don't let this discourage you, it is not a reflection on you as a person, merely that you haven't been around long enough yet. Good luck. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I like the work you've done so far, but unfortunately, you have too little experience at the moment. I'd be happy to support you in four or five months. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. You've been doing good work. Keep going in this vein and you'll be a great candidate for adminship in a few months. Might be a good idea to diversify your edits; automated vandalism reverts don't impress me as much as quality article-building and participation in admin-related discussion areas, though they're definitely useful. Graymornings_(talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (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.