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

Final (2/12/1); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Useight at 13:30, 29 Sept 2009

Addihockey10 (talk · contribs) – Addihockey10 has been editing Wikipedia for a short time, just enough to have a good understanding of policies. Addihockey has been editing YPPedia for approximately a year. Please see Addihockey's contributions on YPPedia. This user understands the difference between YPPedia policies and Wikipedia policies as MOP pointed out there was a huge difference and advised me to read the Wikipedia policies. --Addihockey ^(t/c) 00:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Kinda hard to argue with myself so... I accept. --Addihockey ^(t/c) 01:06, 29 September 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: I intend to use the blocking tool quite often, I'll use the protection and deletion tools as I see appropriate.

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

A: I haven't edited Wikipedia THAT much yet, but my best contribs would be my warnings and reverting, I hope to add the third step to that process which is of course, blocking.

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 haven't dealt with any conflicts on Wikipedia; but if it happens in the future I will remember to take a breather and be sure of my actions before I go ahead.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. If you wanted to move an article but there was already one with the name you wanted to use, what would you do?

A:

5. Could you explain the difference between CSD A7 and Notability guidelines?

A:

6. Could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A7?

A:

7. What would you do if an article clearly should be deleted for notability reasons and is marked CSD A7 but has a source (not a reliable sources) and claims to be well known?

A:

• Links for Addihockey10: Addihockey10 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Addihockey10 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Addihockey10 before commenting.

1. Moral Support - you seem enthusiastic and I have no reason to believe you can't be trusted, however I suspect you may have jumped the gun a bit with this RfA. Consider the wisdom offered by those in opposition. Crafty (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral Support - while I applaud your contributions on YPPedia, they hold no weight whatsoever on Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   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, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.

   As an admin, you will inevitably have to...

   1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
   2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
   3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
   4. Negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. MacMed^talk_stalk 01:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, with apologies. You seem to have the basics down, and do good work here. Please take a look at WP:NOTNOW, and also carefully read the excellent advice given above. Best of luck to you, and we hope to see you here again in a few months. GlassCobra 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - As per above. LiteralKa (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per GlassCobra. Good on you for trying, but <200 edits is not nearly enough to demonstrate fluency with the intricacies of policies and site norms. → ROUX ₪ 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose, sorry but every other editor in your position would be opposed and you are no exception. Icewedge (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, Not sure what that other website is, but would want experience here, at this site. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Agree with all of the above, and respectfully suggest you withdraw for now. An admin needs a much larger amount of edits and experience, in my view. Would encourage you to try again next year, after more contributions. Jusdafax 04:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose as experience on other wikis doesn't transfer here, it only matters what you do on THIS wiki. ArcAngel (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Apologies but you are nowhere near ready enough to handle the mop. I would like to see more experience in our policies and their enforcement, more article improvement and participation in deletion discussions before I can support you. As a side, the wiki you refer to I have never heard of and likely has a very different method of operation.  GARDEN  11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. 'oppose - some advice for next time: Don't say that you want the mop so you can block people. At least mention some kind of dispute resolution. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. I'm concerned about someone who wants to delete and protect as they see appropriate. We have policies here and I believe administrators should use the tools in accordance with policy - by all means argue for changes to policy and of course you don't have to use the tools in areas where you disagree with the policy. If this prompts you to reconsider and expand on that statement I'd be happy to review my position. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - I just do not feel the candidate has the editting experience to determine his ability to resolve disputes with civility and good faith and his trustworthyness. I would like to see at least 6 more months of edits and quite a few more of them. I judge even myself at this standard because I am learning new things about Wikipedia consensus and policy every week. It's important to know how all the policies work together, not just know what they are.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, You're off to a good start, and there's no reason to believe that you can't be trusted, but I'd like to see some more experience before I feel comfortable supporting an RFA for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 29 September 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.