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

Final tally: (1/9/0); closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texcarson (talk · contribs) – I have been contributing here for 3 years and some months, 4 years on the italian wikipedia, and I think I've learned quite a bit in that time. Probably the biggest area where I've been active is in writing new pages and fixing some pages which existed already -- I've written a number of pages which are fairly short, but informative and interesting. I can help the community by deleting pages which are accumulated on the backlog, and can also check images which don't comply with the current guidelines. With time i can also learn a few tricks to improve my skills as administrator. There are 1500 or so admins, but the wiki needs far more.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, i accept. Texcarson (talk) 15:58, 1 July 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: deleting pages which are accumulated on the backlog, and can also check images which don't comply with the current guidelines

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

A: Probably Raphael Sbarge, and Antonio Raposo Tavares. Original creations which were improved as time passed.

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: Not many conflicts, i actually never talked much with people, however i keep a cool head while in boiling situations.

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

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

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

1. Support I don't have a problem with you becoming an admin, if you're already one over at the Italian WP. iMatthew ^talk at  16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He isn't an admin at the Italian Wikipedia. SUL (talk) 16:10, 1 July 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. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read

   • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
   • WP:Admin
   • the admin reading list.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   • 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.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to 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. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, switch to strong oppose based on the vandalism that led to the blocking. Clear cut lack of understanding indicated by inappropriate CSD tagging. This is particularly troubling and less than 500 edits ago. There's more. Dlohcierekim 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Your rollback request was declined a few hours ago. SUL (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. You have a nice balance of contributions, which is good, and you've been here for a few years, which is good. However, you have a history of blocks: 1 2, especially one from February, which is very concerning. Keep contributing and you should be ready in under a year, assuming you get the blocks behind you. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. I appreciate that this user seems to have been a productive editor the last month or so, but with the exception of some minor edits there hasn't been a lot to show for since February, when the candidate apparently had a bad reaction to some of his uploads being tagged for fair-use issues. The manner in which the candidate responded to that issue was absolutely unacceptable and, even were he not blocked at the time, is enough to show that this user has yet to demonstrate the maturity or temperament required of an administrator. Shereth 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Now just isn't the right time for you I'm afraid. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong oppose, per vandalism history, block log, above diffs, and a stroll through the candidates talk page contributions. Recommend a solid year and ~5000 article-building edits before even contemplating another RfA run. Tan | 39 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Oppose Rollback request denied a few hours ago, the diffs, past vandalism all too much for me to support.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per this and this. Jafeluv (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Oppose per recent vandalism. Aditya ^α _ß 16:36, 1 July 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.