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

Final (0/8/1); Closed as WP:SNOW by MBisanz ^talk at 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis23 (talk · contribs) – Been on Wikipedia for about 6 months now. I am part of Wiki Project Pro Wrestling and have made a lot of edits to help it. I am currently an adopter in the Adopt-A-User program. I am also very active in a lot of discussions. Just a brief summary of what I do. Curtis23 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (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 plan to help stop vandilism and take part in a lot of AfD's (of course from a neutral point of view). Make sure there is a consensus before deciding anything and not just taking what I think. Also I won't block anybody unless they are vandalising consistantly i'll just give them warnings.

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

A: My best contributions are probably in discussions because discussions help to make Wikipedia a better place. Other good contributions are when I try to help cut down on stubs by redirecting them when there isn't really any other information to add to them it really helps Wikpedia only have good and noteable articles.

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've been blocked once but I have been stressed by users a lot sometimes i'm falsely accused of things I didn't do but I just dealt with it by making sure that my edits didn't mess up anything that anybody said in a discussion or anything that was in an article.

• Links for Curtis23: Curtis23 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Curtis23 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Curtis23 before commenting.

• Edit stats posted to talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong oppose your last RFA was closed per WP:NOTNOW just over a week ago. Trying again so soon shows a clear lack of understanding of why your previous RFA failed and what is expected of an administrator. I suugest you withdraw this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2010 (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 at 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. This editor is actively seeking admin coaching after their last AfD on the 22nd Dec: "I want to be an admin but after my RfA was declined I saw I needed coaching." Quite. Has no experience in any area to do with adminship, and opening this second RfA shows quite a lack of judgement. Fences&Windows 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose I see no reason to suppose that you will not, in time, be a good admin. But you have less thann 900 edits in total, and while edit count alone is not relevant, we need to see a reasonable amount of editing in order to assess your skill in admin-related tasks. About 3000 edits will usually so it. applying for adminship too soon after a failed RfA is also not good. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Oppose per this display of woeful lack of judgement GTD 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose aside from what has been pointed out above, you have been blocked as recently as August last year. My suggestion is that you spend the next few months exploring the pedia and editing the areas you are most interested in, but don't consider another run for adminship until your block is at least twelve months old. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per Beeblebrox.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose You lack the judgement (blocked recently), patience (A week between RFA's), tenure (under 1,000 edits), or breath of experience (Few edits outside wrestling topics) to be an admin. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the candidate's talk page to suggest they withdraw this RFA, given their previous one was closed per WP:NOTNOW 10 or so days ago GTD 21:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose GTD 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral per my User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards. Too soon for adminship, too soon after last RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:54, 1 January 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.