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

Final (1/8/0); Ended 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (non-crat closure per WP:SNOW by User:Ktr101.

Ojay123 (talk · contribs) – I, Ojay123, became a Wikipedia editor around a year ago, and thought that I would contribute where I can, or if I find an article that needs some work. My main medium of editing involved using Special:Random and finding stub-class or otherwise needy articles that I would research. However, I only recently got involved more, and after using the RSS feed for recent changes, I was surprised at the huge amount of disgusting vandalism. Soon I got deeply involved in the Recent Changes Patrol, and exhausted much of my time on the wiki with Twinkle and Lupin's Anti-vandal Tool. In order to quickly revert vandalism I was granted rollback rights, and ever since most to all of my edits involved using Huggle to revert vandalism. I would like to even further enhance my efforts to guard against vandalism using administrator applications like the ability to liberally block users and contributors with high volumes of edits that aren't constructive and protecting heavily vandalized pages. Finally, I think that I can get involved with new pages by suggesting and carrying out the deletion process for unnecessary and otherwise improper pages. Ojay123 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 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 intend to delete unnecessary pages after consulting with other users and administrators, blocking editors and IP addresses notorious for vandalism, and protecting pages that have far too many bad edits. The rollback feature is one I already have obtained, but I believe that I could contribute by granting more admin hopefuls rollback to strengthen the volume of vandal fighters.

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

A: That's a difficult question, because I make a lot of minor vandalism fixes. However, my best contributions can be found on articles in my watchlist, for I like to monitor articles I've contributed greatly to. To give a general answer, I normally try to expand stubs as much as I can.

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 haven't been in any real conflicts, but my user page has been vandalized by 74.161.194.211 as seen here, and my warning on his talk page was mocked as seen here. This is a classic example of somebody who needs to be blocked at one point, and I would definitely be one to do it because my own user page has been affected.

• Links for Ojay123: Ojay123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ojay123 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ojay123 before commenting.

1. I encourage you to keep editing and try again after you have much more experience. Triplestop x3 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW. While edit count isn't the most important aspect of editing, it certainly provides a rough meter stick/ starting point in terms of ascertaining one's experience level - and from what I can see you don't have nearly enough for an admin hopeful. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW You might have a year with Wikipedia, but you don't have nearly enough experience. Nothing against you personally, but you need to get some more work under your belt before you consider RfA. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sorry, but you don't seem to have the experience required to be a sysop at this time. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes 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.

   • 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.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to 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.
   • My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain 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. (X! · talk)  · @898  ·  20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose, lack of substantial contributions leads me to believe you do not enough experience. Nakon 20:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose You've really only been contributing for the month of July, and even then you only have ~130 edits to articles. That makes it very hard to determine if you can be trusted to understand and follow our policies. I agree with everyone above that you should focus on continuing to make this site a better place then come back in a while with a stronger understanding of the underpinnings of Wikipedia. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Concerning answer to Question 3 - Whilst admins caught in colateral damage should not hesitate in blocking, I am concerned with the personification given to the IP address and a seeming willingness ot block over one edit (just my impression of your answer). Also, per WP:NOTNOW as a lack of overal expereince. M♠ssing Ace 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per above. Come back again with more experience and you'll have my support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 29 July 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.