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

Final: (1/12/0). Closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW by non-bureaucrat Dylan620.

Wyatt915 (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination for Wyatt915. I have been on the English Wikipedia for well over a year now, have been entrusted with rollback rights, and have over 2300 edits. I have been using Lupin's anti-vandal tools from nearly the beginning, and have since seen hundreds upon hundreds of acts of vandalism. Having to report to an administrator to block an IP has always been somewhat of a hassle (although custom scripts do help), and I think that it would be quite helpful, not only to me, but having even one more administrator to cut down on vandals would benifit the entire Wikipedia community. Wyatt915✍ 23:31, 8 August 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: Cutting down on vandalism! There are many, many pages out there that need protecting, and vandals that need blocking to keep Wikipedia healthy.

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

A: I would say that my second article (Color mixing) was my best, or at least favorite contribution. I was utterly amazed that the two types of color mixing were not in the same article, so, I decided to create one. It turned out to be a very neat, concise article that summed up both topics quite nicely.

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: Surprisingly, no, I'm happy to say. Since the very start of my Wikipedia career, all of the users whom I've interacted with have been extremely kind and helpful. Of course, my first article was deleted once or twice before I got the hang of what the Wikipedia community wanted, but there were no conflicts between me and the deletors of my article, seeing as I was able to figure out what I'd done wrong (eventually).

Additional question from Frank

4. You have listed Color mixing as your best contribution. (You did qualify the answer with or at least favorite; nevertheless it remains as your answer to the question.) It looks to me like you last edited this article almost a year ago. Would you please critique that version and let us know generally how you would improve the article if you were editing that version today? No need for an article rewrite in this answer; just list any number of general editing guidelines you'd want to apply to that version today.

• Links for Wyatt915: Wyatt915 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wyatt915 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wyatt915 before commenting.

Benefit is misspelled in the nom. -- Mentifisto 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak Support, I would have preferred to see you warn a much higher proportion of the vandals who you you revert. But from what I could see you have a commendable mix of vandalfighting and some article work - I learned something from color mixing. Experience is on the low side by modern standards, but it is varied and by the standards of "before RFA was broken" is enough to show you can be trusted. ϢereSpielChequers 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, as far as I can tell, all your contributions are through Huggle or useless edits to your various subpages. No content contributions either. For a vandal-fighter, I need lot more than 2000 edits to support. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Afraid I have to agree here, but I can't see much in the last 500 edits apart from Huggle and edits to your userpage/s. Sorry. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. As above. Alan16 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose, as per above. I can find very little in the candidate's contributions which is neither automated nor very minor fixes. If you want to revisit this at some point, try to get some breadth between now and then; I would personally find it hard to support a candidate who does nothing but vandal-fighting in any case. -- Deville (Talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Regrettably, I must oppose. While you seem fairly knowledgeable, I'm afraid you've just don't have the experience I've come to expect at RfA. I think we need more vandal-fighters, and I encourage you to keep up the good work, but as Backslash noted, your contribution history lacks sustenance. I'm not asking for you to write an FA; in fact, I don't really care whether or not you've written any articles. In a few months' time, if you have some more overall experience (ideally including participation in admin-related areas), I'd be happy to reconsider. I really don't like opposing anybody, so I hope this rationale comes across as reasonable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Improper use of rollback here. Suggest snow close. (Note that this was a simple error, but in the hands of an administrator could be a huge error for a variety of unfortunately political reasons) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Normally, one or two rollback errors aren't that huge a deal, but given the edit count, etc., I'd wait a bit. Ooh, shamless plug! Come to the mediation cabal. Good experience :-D[reply]
7. 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 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Per iMatthew. He did a good job explaining. Sorry. America69 (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose as per above. Either a significantly greater portion of contribution to articles, or an even greater significant number of edits/rollbacks. I applaud you anti-vandal work and your rollback rights should suffice for now. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Moral support but overall oppose There is a lack of experience and knowledge of policy. I think this is a wp:Snow and WP:NOTNOW sorry SparksBoy (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. I am concerned that your approach to countering vandalism is militant and unbecoming of an administrator. —harej (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - No problem at all with your methods or history, it's just that there's not enough of it. 2300 is a really low number, and though I hate hard guidelines, that number is just way too low. Put in more time, and come back. There's a lot to do here without being an admin. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 9 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.