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

Final (1/20/1); ended 00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC) per WP:SNOW -  Frank  |  talk  00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addihockey10 (talk · contribs) – Hello, I am User:Addihockey10. I have been active on Wikipedia since September 2009. I am not an artist. I contribute frequently to WP:AIV and sometimes at WP:UAA. I am currently trying out WP:RFPERM. I have tagged many speedy deletion articles, I am semi-interested in that area. I use WP:Huggle and have just switched to Wikipedia:Igloo. I do not consider them automated edits, without those anti-vandalism tools Wikipedia would not be what it is today. I`ve created 2 articles, since I am not an artist they are just basic stubs. Those articles are Dover Bay Secondary School and Hello Time Bomb. --Addihockey10^e-mail 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work in WP:UAA, WP:AIV and WP:RFPERM. If I come across a page that fits the criteria for speedy deletion I will delete it.

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

A: I think that my best contributions are my vandalism reversions and I am proud of that because it`s satisfying to know that you are part of a growing community that is supporting the structure of Wikipedia.

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 would by lying if I said I wasn`t in any conflicts. Users/IPs vandalize my user page or my talk page - does it stress me out? No, not at all! I find myself a very calm person, and I intend to stay that way for the rest of my life. Now, I`m not going to say that I will always be a calm person and will never frustrate, but when I do become that confused/jumbled person I just take a break and come back when I am ready.

• 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 their contributions before commenting.

1. Moral support. Seen some of him, seems willing to help, but WP:NOTNOW.--TalkToMe_c^intelati 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: Fairly new, it seems you go on an editing spree and then you apply to be an administrator...You were quite inactive for about eight months, and then you made about 2000 edits, and then applied for an RFA again. It seems you just want to be an administrator, you have shown no commitment to the community. All your edits seem to be done with WP:GLOO. Absolutely not. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The reason why I was away for eight months was because I was on vacation. Also before that something happened in real life that is personal. --Addihockey10^e-mail 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, but that is not an excuse...you need to be active before we can trust you with the mop. 5,000 edits, and all that I could see coming from WP:GLOO is not admin criteria. Ohh, and [[1]] and [[2]] don't count. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand it is not an excuse, but my computer and numerous other things were stolen and a close friend passed away in that time. I was not actually able to edit for those months because I did not have a computer at that time and I had alot of emotional stress in that period that may have been problematic if I were editing. --Addihockey10^e-mail 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Your not getting my point, I don't care why you couldn't edit, thats not my point. My point is you were not here for eight months, and you are not ready. Because you say you were robbed is not going to make me support you as an administrator. You could be making that up, but is has absolutely nothing to do with your edits, besides the frequency. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Ohh, and on your second RFA in May/June 2010, you stated your reason for not editing was this:
   Greetings, I am a user that has been a member of the Wikipedia community since late 2009, I haven't been actively editing lately due to schoolwork but I plan to continue editing in 2010 as my schoolwork is nearly done
   Yet your reason for not editing this time was completely different, how can I trust you? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don`t want to argue mate, but yes schoolwork was one of the reasons, there are numerous other reasons why I wasn`t editing at that time - my priorities are family, schoolwork and frankly - myself! I do like Wikipedia, but it was not a priority at that time. I planned to continue editing, but when my computer was stolen and a friend died that was when the family priority took over. --Addihockey10^e-mail 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not trying to argue, I want you to know why I opposed so if you decide to open another RFA in the future you can be successful. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

2. Oppose Frankly there is alot of good intention from this user. Alot. But, I think this is premature from the last RFA. Just this week you tried to close a request for rollback apparently, while strictly an admin duty, I would have imagine you would have known that? What is bothersome though is the drop in editing following the last RFA, while natural and maybe for good reason, youve only been active for two months really since that RFA. I just dont see whats changed from the last RFA. All that aside. Theres alot of heart here from you and thats good to see, lots of anti vandal work. My advice, particiapate at the help desk, you can build up lots of policy knowledge and demonstrate it there and come back when theres been a longer continous track period to assess your potential better. Good luck and see you around. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose I see nothing to indicate the candidate understands why his first two RfAs did not succeed. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Too soon from last RFA and too many attempts in too short of a period of time. Sorry. Strikerforce (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. This should be closed per WP:NOTNOW, no major article wrting, seems desperate for the tools which means immaturity. Secret ^account 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose The lack of edits, sporadic contribution history, and fact that almost all of your edits are vandalism fighting demonstrate that you clearly are not ready for the mop. Plus three requests in such a short amount of time and with so few edits is not a good sign. Lots of people want the mop, but you want it too much. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, let's just close RfA now per WP:NOTNOW. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:NOTNOW isn't really for candidates with > 5,000 edits, but a candidate can choose to withdraw if they wish. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   While I understand that this RfA has virtually no chance of passing, I would like to hear what the community says so I can improve my editing in the future. --Addihockey10^e-mail 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't recommend that, RFA can be a very vicious place, it would only discourage you from editing. Secret ^account 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It is okay ;) --Addihockey10^e-mail 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay. I'll give you exactly what the community is (or at least should be) looking for.

   1. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and read up on all the pages in the sections "Should already know", "Content policies", "Copyright", and "Controversy". Also read the first four pages in "Deletion"

   2. Go and demonstrate your newfound knowledge by participating in AfD, the various other fDs, and possibly AN/I, AN/3RR, and the Help Desk.

   3. Careful on AN/I, as it has the habit of bringing the worst out of people. It feeds on drama and incivility. You can gain a lot of respect and trust by consistently keeping your cool at AN/I. That being said, pick your battles, not even the admins participate in every single issue.

   4. You got the vandalism fighting down, but you might also want to be on the lookout for improper usernames and edit warring.

   5. As important as 2, 3, and 4 are, the modern RfA will almost always fail if there is no content creation to go along with the vandalism fighting. Do constructive editing: Make an article or two, join a wikiproject or several projects, work on article promotions (GA, FA, and FL), or do a little bit of copy editing. Heck, do all four if you want. Other avenues include Featured Pictures, Spoken Wikipedia, the Signpost ect. Find something that unequivocally adds content and value to the project, and then set out and do it.

   6. Follow the RfA nominations of others, whether you vote or not, to see what the community standards are. You can see what is being looked for without throwing your name in the hat.

   7. Never, never, never, be afraid to ask for help, advice, or a friendly review by other respected editors. The worst thing they can do is say no, but if they accept, their advice and guideance will be helpful.

   8. Don't get yourself blocked. It really hurts your chances. That means avoiding edit wars and vandalism. It's not hard to avoid being blocked, but I figured I'd mention it anyways.

   9. Finally, spend at least six months, though preferably nine or twelve months, doing the above before throwing your name in the hat again. If you manage to follow this guideline, plus any other suggestions that get appended to it by others, I can't see why you won't be successful the next time around.

   Best of luck, see you around. Sven Manguard _Talk 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose but with moral support. I just see two short sprees here, and I think a good admin candidate needs to be here pretty regularly to remain focused and keep up with what's happening. (I'm not doubting you have valid reasons for your long absences, I'm just suggesting that now that your latest absence is over you need to stay around long enough to build up a good recent history of contributions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, and I agree with ϢereSpielChequers's comments about CSD too. With the exception of blatant attacks and blatant vandalism, Speedy candidates should not, in my opinion, be deleted on sight - they should be tagged and left to others to decide, partly to give the authors a chance to offer a {{hangon}} rationale, and partly because a lot of people get a lot of CSDs wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Needs more experience across the board. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Concerns with experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose you have the tenure and a clean block log, which is great. But you need to learn a few things before you are ready to be an admin. I've looked through the two articles you mention that you started, and I couldn't see you adding a third party reference. I'm not very harsh as far as contributions are concerned, but even for vandal fighters I do want admins who have added content cited to wp:Reliable sources to articles. I'm worried at your attitude to speedy deletion "If I come across a page that fits the criteria for speedy deletion I will delete it." would be fine for {{G3}} and {{G10}}, I'm not happy with that attitude re good faith article creation, as speedy should not always mean instantaneous. As for your amount of edits, if they were all or mostly manual edits you might well be ready, but an awful lot are automated, that doesn't mean they are bad, but it does mean that you can do far more edits in an hour (9 in one minute earlier this evening), though without necessarily learning as much as in an hour of manual edits. When you said "I do not consider them automated edits" I think you misunderstood what we mean by automated edits, if you are doing 9 edits in a minute they are automated. I'd suggest picking a subject that interests you, joining the relevant wikiproject and referencing some unreferenced BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't see enough effort and/or dedication in this candidate's work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I simply don't see you holding the mop well. Give it a few months and work in some admin related areas :) (Note, I opposed last time and I don't really see any bit of a change from RFA #2)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose with moral support. I don't think you're experienced enough to be an admin just yet, I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose It doesn't seem like you have enough experience yet, judging from your edits to the Wikipedia namespace. You primarily report usernames and vandalism, which is great, but you'll want to branch out and gain experience at other places too. Also, you'll want to work on what was pointed out in your request for adminship 2 and 1. I would also suggest waiting for a longer period and gaining more experience first, as your last RfA was around June 2010. Netalarm^talk 22:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Something about this RfA has my P.K.E. meter buzzing. Badger Drink (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Almost every edit is automated. I normally don't care about automated edits, but 81% is far, far to high. If there's a crat watching, this looks a bit WP:SNOWish. Ronk01 talk 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose ...and because he's keen, I feel bad that he's going to want to wait at least a year and 5,000+ more non-automated edits before applying again because he's here for a third time already, and getting thumped...people don't forget quickly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose 80.40% of all of his edits automated and too little content work. The articles he created have dubious notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we stop piling on? Consensus is clear. Secret ^account 23:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The candidate said, above, "While I understand that this RfA has virtually no chance of passing, I would like to hear what the community says so I can improve my editing in the future" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose Not enough experience quite yet, but don't give up. Keep improving--Hokeman (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose – Not enough experience. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, I forgot to respond to your message earlier. 5700 edits isn't bad, but when it's more than half Huggle, it really is difficult to pick out anything among it as evidence that you would be a good administrator. I meant to discourage you from running another RfA. —Soap— 19:42, 25 October 2010 (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.