Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaelen S.

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

(0/5/1); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by SoWhy at 09:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs) – I am a long time member of the wikipedia community though I am relatively new with the actual editing process. I will admit that my actual chances of being voted in are slim but yet I strongly admire the wikipedia ideal and wish to help in the process of making it a more reliable and respected source of information that is accessible to people of all ages, races, and social classesGaelen S. (talk)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 serve as a human filter in the sense that I will spend a good bit of my free time going through various wikipedia pages and fact checking the various quotes and statements and ensuring that the quality of information is that on which you could write a research paper.

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

A: So far in my experience on wikipedia, I have primarily found subjects on which I know a good deal and done my best to expand upon the information provided there and insure that bulk of the facts included are informative and not misleading.

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: Due to my relative short tenure as editor of various posts I have done my level best to make sure that the information that I edited was indeed not true or needed improving and as a result have not run into any particular conflicts

• Links for Gaelen S.: Gaelen S. (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Gaelen S. can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gaelen S. before commenting.

1. Oppose. With a grand total of 11 edits to your name before you started putting up your name as an administrator, you have some way to go. Though I am mildly amused by your statement above that "I have done my level best to make sure that the information that I edited was indeed not true". -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Oppose. 17 edits? That is FAR too few. There's no way to evaluate you. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Uploading stills from a commercial TV show on commons? (File:Tom_Quinn.jpg) No thanks. NVO (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose While I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.It is WP:NOTNOW please try again after a few months.Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose but not keen on the first 3 opposes above per WP:BITE. On this RFA though, it is just far too little experience and WP:NOTNOW. I can see where this is going so I will suggest a close per WP:SNOW. AtheWeatherman 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 2,000 non-automated edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times.

   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, and WP:RfPP to learn when to do these things.
   • As an administrator, you would need to be able to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, and be able to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
   • I and many others believe that the best way to learn the basic theories and policies behind adminship is to work with articles. As everything else exists solely to support the articles' continued growth and stability, all Wikipedia administrators should know what it is like to not only defend those well-being of the articles, but to also help grow them. I recommend participation in WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:FL, or WP:FA as the surest ways to gain article building experience.

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another few months and couple thousand edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark.  7  09:00, 26 August 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.