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

Final (2/6/1); ended 14:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC) by non-bureaucrat ImperatorExercitus per SNOW

Altruism (talk · contribs) – I'm eager to receive both positive and negative feedback from the Wikipedia community. Thanks. Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:55, 28 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: I mainly intend to take part in Anti-Vandal activities, merge/move pages etc. These activities would be apart from my usual work of Wikify, adding new information etc. Thank you.

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

A: My best contributions (in my opinion) have been to Meera Sanyal, Mallika Sarabhai, Tellapadu, Guntur, Velagapudi Ramakrishna etc. Thank you.

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 admit, there were certain conflicts in the past which were amicably and sometimes unamicably resolved. However, I wish to put these behind and move. I also would take extra care when dealing with sensitive or issues where I might have a "conflict of interest," even if it meant recusing myself from such a conflict/dispute. Thank you.

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

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

1. Moral support as to avoid piling on. The advice in oppose #3 can be very helpful. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 10:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral Support - I would like to see a little more experience. I do applaud you for not using Huggle to obtain most of your edits. A little more experience is required, I think.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Very irregular activity, with less than a 100 edits in the past 4 months and about 1.5 years of inactivity before last March. I don't feel admins have to be highly active in terms of edit count, but at least they need to be around regularly. The nom statement doesn't impress me either. If all you want is feedback, then you could've started an editor review.--Atlan (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose – As above. You have just short of 5000 edits but less than 60 in the last 4 months. Your statement is very badly done as well, only one sentence for each of the 3 questions basically. Also, this isn't the place to "move on" from edit conflicts. Alan16 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. 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 • take my poll} at

   Just a comment, while I think this advice is definitely helpful, I think sometimes it may be useful to customize it for each situation. Altruism isn't really inexperienced, in my opinion, we just need to see more evidence that he's changed since 2007 when he was repeatedly blocked. And I think the template over-emphasizes edit count ... after all, we have a candidate who just passed RfA unanimously, and yet she has only 3500 edits ... so I think this templated response would be better, at least in the case of a nominee who has a sizable edit count, without those lines. (Also, the time in your sig seems to be blank.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd guess he missed a ~. Alan16 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Sorry, I hate to pile on, but I just realized after reading the first 2 opposes, if you exclude the long period of inactivity, it's really only been a few months since you were last blocked. I had planned to write those blocks off as being too long ago to matter, but I can't do that now. Nonetheless, I think that you look like a good candidate and depending on how active you plan to me you could certainly look at running RfA in a few more months. I would advise you to make sure you have good answers to the questions though. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Soap summarized it well. I don't know whether I can trust you with the tools yet. Aditya (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose suggest close per WP:SNOW  Francium12  14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral As to not pile on. Pay close attention to iMatthew's oppose there's a lot of helpful info there.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:41, 28 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.