Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nburden

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

Closed per WP:SNOW at (1/7/1) ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nburden (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've been a member since December, 2006, but didn't really have that many edits until October, 2007, when I how useful the recent changes link can be. Since then, I've been quite active in patrolling for vandals. Additionally, I'm active at WP:ABUSE and have done some work in a few wikiprojects. I will admit to having had a brief bout of vandalism during the HD-DVD key crisis (see here), but I think I've proven that I've changed substantially. Either way, thanks for your consideration. Nburden ^(T) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to use admin tools to help with RCP first and foremost. Additionally, I'd keep an eye on CAT:CSD and try to keep up there. Then, in my spare time, I'd go looking for backlogs.

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

A: I feel my best contributions have been fighting vandalism, specifically the fact that several times, I've been able to give some explanation and guidance which has helped build better editors. I will admit that I haven't added too much new content to articles, but as far as that goes, my best are Bomber Raid and SSG550 Sniper.

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: I had a brief brush with conflict over at Learning disability (see talk), but the whole thing was handled first on user talk pages, then at the article talk page, and with no name calling. Essentially, we disagreed on content, and we discussed content. I think that this is a good strategy, and will stick with it in the future.

Question by JetLover

4 Why did you vandalize at one time? How can we trust you won't do it again?

A

5. What happened with Wikipedia:Abuse reports/141.150.53.30?

A.

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

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

• "Comment' I went to Nburden's talk page and recommended that he pull this nomination. I's rather see him pull it than have this turn ugly.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment nom has not edited since transcluding. Dlohcierekim 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am highly dubious that anybody could gain an adequate understanding of wikipolicy and an adequate breadth of experience in 2 months to warrant the tools. Especially when you were blocked for vandalism 6 months ago.Balloonman (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I am pulling my oppose, not because I believe he has any chance of passing, but rather because I don't want to discourage Nburden. Nburden, please pull your nomination and come back in 4-6 months.Balloonman (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Per inexperience and vandalism. Also, you have less than 50 talk page edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Straight off the bat, the fact you admit you've only been really active since October this year shows me you're inexperienced. So far all your edits have been pointing towards being promoted to adminship, which although fair, is not the only reason why we're here on this site - Building an encyclopedia is foremost and you have done little to strive for that. I'd suggest waiting at least another 4 months before standing for adminship again, pick up a FA or GA, prove that you can understand our policies perfectly and stay out of trouble. With that combination, you'll be promoted in no time, but for the time being, 2 months work is not sufficiant to be granted sysop abilities. Stick at it and good luck. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per JetLover. Temperal^xy 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - per JetLover. Sorry, a few months more experience and a couple thousand edits will do the trick. For now, it's a no.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose You were basically inactive until October. I think you need to establish trust in the community for a bit longer before asking for a position of trust. Wikipedia definitely needs vandalism patrollers, so keep doing what you're doing. Past transgressions can be forgiven if you prove yourself trustworthy for an appropriate length of time. I don't think two months is enough. DOSGuy (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Impressive work in the last two months. The problem is, it's only two months. I don't think it's enough time to get a great handle on policies and procedures. Plenty of work in the mainspace, which I like, but not enough in the Wikipedia namespace, the areas where admins do the most work. I recommend withdrawing this RFA, spending some time in areas like WP:XFD, tagging articles for deletion, maybe find a backlog that you find interesting and work on it, and reapplying for adminship in a couple more months. Useight (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose due to lack of experience. Keep up the good work and consider adminship at a later date. Majoreditor (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Gratuitous advice and neutral to avoid biting and pile-on. Thanks for coming forth openly about the vandalism. It was 6 months ago. Unfortunately, you persisted until you drew a block. You have worked hard and commendably to make up for that aberration. I would recommend that you continue reverting vandalism and in a wikignome role. In addition, I suggest making more substantial edits. There are redlinks begging to be turned into stubs. Take part in XFD. Don't let this discourage you. After 3 months, 3000 edits, seek an Wikipedia:Editor review. Heed the advice that generates. Hang in there and try again later. Good luck for the future. I recommend that you withdraw. Dlohcierekim 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded (although I have already voted). DOSGuy (talk) 03:59, 29 November 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.