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

Ended (1/9/3); 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs) - Self Nomination Tiptoety 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I will primarily take part if fighting vandalism, and blocking abusers of Wikipedia. In tha past i have used various tools such as Vandal Proof and Twinkle to report users to administrators but now i hope to be able to stop them in their tracks. I hope to be able to help new editors create articles and better understand wikipedia policy by a friendly one on one approach. I belive that being friendly is one of the most important aspects of wikipedia.

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

A: Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue. this was the first article i ever created and i belive i did an outstanding job, within only a few weeks the article had pictures, references (cited in the text), and enough context to give the reader a good understanding of the subject. Also all of my vandal fighting, i believe it has made wikipedia a better place.

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: The only conflicts i have had over editing recently were with vandals who were upset about the warning i had given them. There were some users that have caused me stress, I deal with them the same way i deal with everyone else, Respect. I am polite and inform them that their actions were wrong, i give them the appropriate warning, and report them if they continue, when it comes to conflicts i try to not get to involved or worked up over the situation.

• See Tiptoety's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Tiptoety: Tiptoety (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tiptoety before commenting.

• Suggest withdrawl. Politics rule 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Moral Support I don't think your ready yet but I will give my support. You might want to rack up some more mainspace edits and try again in a few more months. In the meantime you might want to try the User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom. It could help you a lot--Pheonix15 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Myriad problems. User has 2275 edits, over half of which are to talk pages, and just under four months experience on WP. Despite being part of various cleanup and anti-vandalism groups, the namespace edit count doesn't show a high level of activity. User also does not understand policy and procedure - user filed an RFCU based on what a username "possibly implied" (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Masterofpuppets792). MoP had a total of 4 vandal edits to four different pages at the time. The article the user created could be considered COI (though it was written carefully), as the user works either for or closely with the SAR group (as noted by image uploads). This user has neither the experience nor the understanding to be an admin at this point in time. He also didn't follow the instructions to file this RfA properly, and I have completed that for him. MSJapan 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please don't add nominations of users that aren't either yourself, or someone you are nominating. This user may have not been planning to request for a while. Majorly (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Seriously, did you communicate this with Tiptoety before transcluding the RfA? —AldeBaer 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

   I'm guessing that Tiptoety's edit at 6:02 indicates that MSJapan's transclusion 10 hours later is probably appropriate. An explanatory message, however, would have been a good idea. — Scientizzle 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. The candidate doesn't have enough article-building experience. Majoreditor 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose More article writing in a variety of articles are needed. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - 4 months of activity? I really appreciate that you want to serve the community, but that's a little too short. Try again in a few more months, with some work in the Wikipedia: space. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Suggest Withdrawing You're a valuable contributor. But as per the concerns raised above, and the fact that I can't see any good reason you require the admin tools, I'm going to have to oppose the RfA. You make good efforts in Vandalism Reversion, and you shouldn't be discouraged by this RfA - your efforts are appreciated. Check out some of the info at the top of this page, apply that to your activities on Wikipedia, and retry in a few months. Pursey 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Not ready yet. Insufficient breadth of experience for my tastes; please contribute more article writing and in the project space beyond WP:AIV. I see some recent deficiency in knowledge of the AfD process: malformed nom, error in transclusion(?), improper transclusion, removal of AfD header prior to close, & a questionable nom. Also, in any future RfA (not to mention everywhere else), please make an effort to improve your spelling and grammar—it makes a difference in how what you may write will be perceived. Keep up the good work, perhaps I'll support in a few months. — Scientizzle 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Not enough time here to know what an Admins job is. Politics rule 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Along with the concerns above, 60% of edits are to User Talk and definitely not enough experience with AfDs and other similar areas of Wikipedia. I don't know if this RfA will become WP:SNOW, but it's a possibility. I recommend spending some more time getting experience in several various facets of Wikipedia and applying for RfA in another couple of months. Useight 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose You show insufficient paricipation in Wiki-space, in Wiki-talk and in Mainspace. We need to be able to assess your ability in admin-related articles edits (slip of the mind), and vast numbers of edits in user-talk do not give enough indication. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral to avoid pile-on; in light of the fact that you've no mainspace edits I can see other than the one article you mention and a heap of minor reverts, this has no chance of passing, I suggest you withdraw — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral also to avoid pile-on. I would like to see some more WP and WT space experience. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral To avoid pile on also. ~ Wikihermit 21:10, 31 August 2007 (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.