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

FINAL (5/13/2); withdrawn by candidate at 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. moose (talk · contribs) – Hi, my name is Mr. moose, and I have been on Wikipedia since 2006. I have over 1,000 edits, and I have reverted much vandalism on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and use it all the time. I would like to be able to give back even more than I have already. I have been on and off a lot, but I would definitely show up a lot more if I was an admin. I think I am a very trustworthy person, and I would never abuse this privilege. Mr. moose (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Update - Yes, I have been gone for periods of time, but that's mainly because I forgot. If made an admin, I would be on so much more. And I would like Admin privileges so that I can stop vandalizers without having to wait for an admin to do it. In my experience, while I am waiting for an admin to block, the offender vandalizes several more pages, and that can be difficult to clean up.

I withdraw my nomination Mr. moose (talk) 04:00, 13 December 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: The work that I enjoy most is reverting vandalism and/or mistaken edits. I like making sure that Wikipedia does not have false information online, as many people use it.

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

A: Verifying the integrity of pages to make sure that the info is correct. I never insult or get mad at users, but I do give them level-appropriate warnings, explain the situation if necessary, and answer any questions they may have.

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 have not had to deal with this situation, but I would peacefully work it out and adhere to the wikipedia rules to solve it.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

4. What type of administrative work do you see yourself doing in the future, should your candidacy be successful?

A: Whatever type of work Wikipedia needs most. Blocking vandalizers after they have been duly warned, settling conflicts, etc.

5. Could you please, in your own words, describe the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3?

A: A3, No content refers to articles that have no substance, only link and other items. A1, No context refers to pages that are short, and articles for which the subject cannot even be determined.

Additional questions from Jeffrey Mall

6. If you were to become an Administrator how would you deal with an editor that blanks your userpage?

A:

Additional optional questions from Pcap

7. If an IP/unregistered user blanks his/her talk page that has many vandalism warnings right after you issue a new one, what do you do?

A:

8. What is the difference between leaving a threat and a warning on a user's talk page?

A:

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

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

• There seems to be some indication of a lack of experience, especially with regards to policies, based off this edit to an IP user's talk page, despite guidelines on removal of warnings. I withhold !voting until my questions have been answered, but I figured it would be useful to raise this to others. Shirik (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  After thinking about it I cannot hold back from oppose at this time based on this edit. More info in my oppose !vote Shirik (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - I will admit that I did not understand that policy at that time, but I looked it up, and fully understand it now. I have also read many of the other Wikipedia policies in preparation for this request. I wish that you do not hold that against me, as I will make sure I do not do anything stupid like that again. Mr. moose (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I admire your desire and diligence in looking up and reviewing policies, however at this time I cannot disregard something like this. Don't take it personally; I like your hard work. I encourage you to do a bit more work in areas like WP:CSD, WP:AFD, and WP:AIAV to show the desire and knowledge to work with and understand guidelines and policies in a manner that everyone here can verify. I like you as a person, but as an admin all I can say is not now. Shirik (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Why not?. Long term user, seems like a friendly fellow, unlikely to fuck anything up that couldn't be repaired. Best of luck. :) @Kate (parlez) 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. ad astra per alia porci I agree with Kat. The RfA standards are getting just a bit too high. I can't see a strong reason why not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per above and because of the clean (albeit very short) talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Support: Great editor, With more knowledge and experience you will be a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moral support but urge withdrawal at this time and careful consideration of iMatthew's suggestions (top of the oppose section below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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. iMatthew ^talk at 20:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. oppose Per iMatthew. Also, you have not really indicated what you would do that requires the admin tools, and you do not appear to have done much work in admin-related areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Only 3 months of noteworthy activity in the past year. Nothing indicates that you'll stick around this time. I suggest you try again next year or so when and if you remain active.--Atlan (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak oppose I would go WP:NOTNOW. The things you want to accomplish as an admin can be just as easily accomplished as a user with rollback. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak Oppose. Vandalism reversion doesn't need sysop privileges. If you clarify more administrative work, I'll likely change. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. OPPOSE Per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Suggestion: Request an admin coach. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Capitals certainly a bit strong.  GARDEN  22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Sorry, but if you've never experienced conflict, the stuff being an admin will throw at you will be too much, I feel.  GARDEN  22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Opposed: You have 1000 edits in 3 years. That's barely 340 odd per year. I have just shy of 5000 edits in 5 years, and even I can't become an administrator here. I wish you good luck, but I fear you are quite rapidly heading for a place from which you may never return. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per iMatthew  and WP:NOTNOW, but most important, the candidate has no demonstrated experience in any of the deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted to make the correct decision(s) in these areas. ArcAngel (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose based on the edits performed here to an IP user's talk page, despite guidelines on removal of warnings, which lead me to believe there is the potential for misuse of tools (in this particular circumstance, inappropriate blocking of an anonymous user). It's not that I don't trust your personality, and I am willing to assume good faith, but I think you need some more time with policy and guidelines before you can be trusted to make these types of decisions. I look forward to seeing you back here in a few months. --Shirik (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Moral Support but Oppose - While I appreciate the work you have done, this looks like WP:NOTNOW. Also, I am very anti-automated, and the 70% automated edit percentages do not please me. smithers - talk - sign! 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Insufficient experience and knowledge of policy at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose/NOTNOW, only 2 1/2 months of even semi-active editing spread over the long life of the account just isn't enough time to show you have what it takes. Also, objections above need to be addressed before running again. Try in 9-12 months but only after 9+ months of heavy editing including 4 of the last 6 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral WP:NOTNOW. Mr. moose seems like a good, hardworking editor with a clean history. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have enough experience for adminship at this time. I recommend coming back after a few months of regular editing; you didn't edit at all between March and mid-November. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral As has been suggested I will echo the WP:NOTNOW suggestions. You have made many good contributions and surely will grow into a very experienced editor with a good command of policy and confidence. I cannot support or oppose this RfA as you haven't demonstrated you don't warrant confidence (thus opposing) but on the other hand you haven't (yet!) done enough to warrant support. I highly suggest continuing to revert vandalism, do new page patrolling and other maintenance tasks. I bet in just a short period of time you'll be golden for your next RfA. :) Basket of Puppies 01:49, 13 December 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.