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

Final (3/10/4); ended 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC) - Withdrawn by Candidate

Navy blue84 (talk · contribs) – I have been on Wikipedia for more then 2 years and have more then 3,000 edits. There are a lot of times where I see issues that aren't dealt with right away that require admin intervention, because all the admins are busy. --NavyBlue84 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw

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 plan to keep on helping fight vandalism. I will partake in assisting people who post to AN/I and other admin boards. I will also help in resolving conflicts where an admin is needed.

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

A: To me, my best cotributions are to TIROS-2 as it was the first article I created. I am also proud of my contribs to Thomas Marshburn and David A. Wolf as they had no sections and very few ref's, which I expanded upon and made to look like other bio's.

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: No conflicts I can remember. Others have caused me strees in the past. I dealt with it by walking away from my computer for a short break (ie. 15min or so), and coming back after cooling off and dealing with the matter. In the future, I will do much the same as I have in the past. If it continues, I may ask for another admin to have a look at the situation and advise on how to proceed and if I am correct or not.

Additional question from Parrot of Doom

4. Quote: " I will also help in resolving conflicts where an admin is needed." - how?

A: I will help with conflict/dispute resolutions that are requested on the proper noticeboards, wether they need admin attention or not, but especially if they do require an admin. For example NPOV or OR conflicts, I will step in, where I have no involvement, as a neutral party to resolve the issues.

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

5. Assume that you have just blocked a vandal. The vandal requests to be unblocked, saying that he promises to be good. What do you do?

A: If it is the persons first block, and their actions were not that bad, I would unblock with a strong warning not to do it again. If it is there second or more block, and there actions were not really bad, I would ask that another admin take a look and decided on whether unblock is warranted.

Additional optional question from Guoguo12

6. What is your stance on admin recall?

A:I think if an admin is blatantly disobeying the rules and regulations set forth for an admin, then they should be recalled. Admins are not always going to be the favorites of regular Wikipedian's, so it all depends on the situation and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Additional optional question from Perseus, Son of Zeus

7. In the event of a personal attack to a Wikipedian, how would you react? If you were that Wikipedian?

A:If the attack was on another Wikipedian, then I revert on site and warn with a strong non-templated warning. If it happens again, I would revert and block. If I was the Wikipedian being attacked, I revert and warn same as above. If it continues, I revert and warn again, but ask a neutral admin to step-in and help deal with the situation.

• Links for Navy blue84: Navy blue84 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Navy blue84 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• Edit stats posted on talk page by Περσεύς|Talk to me. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done this. I did not realize that it wasn't set-up. My apologies.--NavyBlue84 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Frankly, the fact that you have only 3,000 edits does not bother me in the least. You have been around for two years, and you seem to have a good grasp on policy. I don't see any issues. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral support—I don't agree with all of the 3,000 edits nonsense, but it does look like more experience couldn't hurt. I looked at a few of your recent AfD comments, including this and this; while they bring forth logical arguments, they seem weak because you provide no evidence (for example, sources) to back up your claims in one, while you give no reason for your argument to merge in the other. This is something to work on. Additionally, you don't seem to be very active. While this isn't and should not be a factor in your competence as an editor, many would like to see more activity (at least for a few months) for an admin candidate, as more active editors are usually more in touch with the goings-on around here. I have found that I have a bit of catching up to do even after taking a break for a few days. Another small thing that may help: work on spelling, etc. Examples from this RfA include: Admins are not always going to be the favorites of regular Wikipedian's, If it is the persons first block. It's a really tiny thing but, sadly, may make the difference in whether or not you're taken seriously by, say, an editor that you blocked. Overall, you're a great contributor, but I don't think adminship fits you quite yet. Good luck, Airplaneman ✈ 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral Support. Good editor, but needs a little more experiance. You have only 3000 edits in 2 years. BrownHoner (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose needs more experience. Περσεύς|Talk to me 15:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Only 3,000 edits — you are on the right track, but more experience is needed--Hokeman (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Hokeman, need more experience. You have my moral support though Acather96 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Hokeman and Acather. There has been very few users that have 3,000 edits or less that became an admin. Experience what is you need in other to be admin. Sorry. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, most admins from pre 2008 had less than 3000 edits iirc. The idea that 3000 edits is not enough is a fairly recent development and imho a worrying one. If the candidate made 3000 good edits, they are experienced enough, just like if they made 10000 bad ones, they are not. You should !vote based on the candidate's edits themselves, not on a number. After all, racking up a few thousand edits on Huggle is easy but does not show experience. Regards SoWhy 16:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose Sorry You are on the right track.Please try again with more experience later.Good Luck.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Fine contributions but I don't see a lot of experience in admin related areas or interaction with users. The silent gnome (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Failed to answer my question substantively, and appears to lack experience in more than one department. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose with moral support - you definitely have good intentions but there are still concerns about experience levels. I'm sure that if you came back in a few months with more experience and a higher edit count that I would be more inclined to support. Regards, ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per low edit count (despite SoWhy's valid remark--I want more from an admin today), per Parrot's comment, and per unsubstantiated remark at recent AfD. I could offer moral support, but it would come with the advice to a. get more edits that have substance to them (the satellite article is nice but it won't blow anyone away) b. get a firmer grip on policy and guidelines (Q.5) c. get edits in the fields you say you want to be active in (Q.1 and 3)--I looked through all your edits and found you had reported two IPs (maybe three?) to AIV, but I saw no participation in any of the notice boards. If you have participated in mediating discussions on talk pages (which don't require admin status, of course), I didn't see them, but I gladly stand corrected. Either way, that is the kind of thing you'll need to strengthen the argument you're making for the job, especially since many good contributions at ANI (where you say you will contribute--you can already!) come from editors who are not admins. Good luck next time, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose (edit conflict) I'm not seeing enough activity to feel comfortable. I haven't seen anything wrong with your actions, but you just don't have enough of them for me to judge well. Sorry, Sven Manguard _Talk 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm leaning towards oppose, but I'm going to vote neutral to avoid pile-on. You need a little more experience, in my opinion, before reapplying. My recommendation would be to wait at least a year before applying again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral not enough experience in admin related areas of Wikipedia for me to support. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral The candidate has the right attitude and no red flags come up on review of contribs. I feel the candidate needs more experience, which I personally do not gauge by mere edit count, but also an evaluation of the diversity of their participation in areas where admin tools are used... noticeboards, backlogs, and the various deletion-related venues. Such participation is what demonstrates an understanding of policy and can show where the user is currently limited by the lack of a mop bit o further their work in those areas. So moral support, but I recommend you withdraw the RFA for now, and try again after maybe 6 months. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moral support for a positive candidate who clearly wants to help, but who really doesn't have enough experience yet. At an RfA, you need to be able to answer questions in terms of what specific admin tools you would use, and how and when you would use them - so I'd suggest that's an area to learn more about before trying again in the future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 14 November 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.