Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reenem

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Reenem

[edit]

Ended 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC), 0/22/3. Early closed per WP:NOTNOW. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Reenem (talk · contribs) – Hello, Wikipedians. I am a user who has been editing since July 2008. As of this moment, I have made 7,716 live edits, and 113 deleted edits. I have created 21 articles, moved 5 articles, and have 8 uploaded images. I am extremely active on Wikipedia (Just visit my user contributions page for proof). I have been temporarily blocked for mistakes I made, but those issues have since been resolved. I always edit in good faith. I have never and will never deliberately vandalize this project. Anyway, editing Wikipedia is one of my favorite pastimes, and I think that I am useful enough to at least be considered for adminship. I originally created this account just to make a few simple edits, but I have come to love this project, and I hope that Wikipedians will trust me with this new title. It will do me proud to be selected to be an Administrator, and promise that I will prove myself worthy of this immense task. I think it will benefit both me and the community if I am allowed the honor of adminship. Reenem (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 help welcome newcomers to Wikipedia, and to help fight vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have heavily contributed to articles on world events, many of them recent, and military history articles. I have even won The Original Barnstar (See it on my talk page). Those are two fields I find fascinating.
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 have almost never engaged in disputes, and try to avoid edit-warring, but there have been some instances where me and another editor kept reverting each others edits. However, I was fairly newer at the time, and usually backed down in the end. A more recent dispute happened, when me and another editor disputed over a Korean War battle. I was the one who turned out to be wrong, so I accepted that. I know now to always ask the other editor what their point is, as I may be wrong.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A:


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose The content of your userpage is concerning to me... "Reenem rules. The rest of you suck" "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are."... those statements don't put me at ease about the attitude that you would have as an administrator. The Thing Vandalize me 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I thank you for submitting an RfA. However, I fail to see the requisite experience necessary to become an administrator. I see you only have 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, which is not enough for me to judge how well you'll respond to disputes, or even how you interact with other users. I would advise that you look into getting more experience in the maintenance-related areas if you want to be an admin. Additionally, I would like to point out that you do not need to be an admin to welcome users, nor fight vandalism. Anyone can welcome users, and anyone can fight vandalism. You may want to look into twinkle for helping revert vandalism, as that makes it much easier. Happy Editing! (X! · talk)  · @304  ·  06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per userpage. It displays all the features of someone who considers himself to be better than everyone else. Also seems to think that adminship is an honour, and that "winning the original barnstar" [paraphrasing] is something particularly special. Also I can't fathom any tasks related to newbies which would necessitate admin tools, or be made easier with access to the admin tools. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I had to block this user only a few days ago for serial failure to provide sourcing to his edits. Sorry, but that makes it a no-no at this time. I have no doubt he is otherwise a well-meaning editor, but it will take some time until I can trust him to have a reliable grasp of all the central policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close per WP:NOTNOW you're just not ready--Jac16888Talk 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose For welcoming newbies, you may want to see Wikipedia:Friendly. Before this RFA, you have 11 edits to the Wikipedia namespace- 6 of which are to a joke essay. Your userpage is either a bad joke or the height of arrogance- "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are." You may be smarter than me. You are not the smartest person on Wikipedia, I promise you. Your list of people you hate is clearly not appropriate. You were blocked last week. You need a lot more maturity before running another RfA. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per your userpage. Sole Soul (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Based on your upload history (via Special:Log/Reenem), you don't appear to understand what fair use means. That's a non-starter for an admin. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Most important reason being atrocious copyright record, notices of which you appear to ignore and wipe from your talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. WP:NOTNOW. Your contributions might be very helpful, but the attitude you display on your user page is very troublesome. Very recent block is also a no-no. Lack of participation in project areas also a non-starter. Try becoming active in RfCs, XfDs, AN/I, policy discussions, etc. An admin is expected to be a source of knowledge on all things policy, and you can't be that source if you have no policy experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose per obvious. Şłџğģő 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose From what I can see, the article work is fine. Edit count to articles is fine. New article creation is fine. Length of time is fine. This will never, ever be fine. A lack of work in administrative areas is also problematic. At this point, if welcoming and vandal-fighting is the goal, this can be readily achieved without Admin tools - WP:Friendly is a great tool for welcoming (I use it myself), and everybody on Wikipedia can fight vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I must correct you, the article work wasn't fine either. I had to indef-block him for persistently failing to grasp WP:V. Until the other day he never provided any sources for any article edit he made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review, there is a mix of positive and negative edits. Key policies are not always met and these core policies are the ones that an admin needs to uphold. Still an oppose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose as you currently do NOT have the right attitude to be an admin. To wit - "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are".   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 10:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I'm not that bothered about your userpage, although it is very childish and cast doubts on your maturity for the admin role. 17 edits in the wikipedia namespace shows that there is no way you could have gained the experience needed to appreciate what an admin does and certainly provides no means of judging your efforts. Take part in some WP:AfD disscusions. Polargeo (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose suggest candidate reads wp:userpage. Unsourced attacks, copyright violations, unsourced contributions, and a recent blocks are all reasons to oppose. Would be willing to reconsider a future application if you come back with those issues resolved and a block log that has been clean for twelve months. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Unsourced contributions. Icky! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The user's attitude, as demonstrated by his userpage and the fact that he's been blocked several times, demonstrates to me an inability, or an unwillingness to, adhere to Wikipedia's simplest guidelines. An admin should be a guide to others as to how best to behave on Wikipedia, and quite frankly, I don't see that out of the user's contributions here. FluffyPug (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. User page shows a serious attitude problem and lack of knowledge concerning our userpage and BLP policies. Extremely unqualified user.--Atlan (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose "I don't make personal attacks when editing articles, but this is my user page, and I can write whatever I want. Wikipedia says so." from his userpage. Obviously hasn't read WP:USERPAGE or WP:NPA. "People I hate" is certainly a personal attack, regardless of whether it's Osama bin laden or your teacher.  fetchcomms☛ 14:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pile-on oppose, clearly immature. Tan | 39 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Sorry, but the block is too recent for me to give you a support. Minimac94 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong oppose I normally avoid pile-ons, but the candidate has no understanding of the importance of WP:V. I blocked them for this last January after getting nowhere on their talk page, and am very concerned to see that 12 months later they are still apparently having the same issues. Admins must uphold our core policies themselves before they can even think about policing others. EyeSerenetalk 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Not to pile on, but probably falls under WP:NotNow and Snow. To Reenem, your user page as the thing points out is alarming and would be a good first step for improvement.Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I cannot support you this time round Reenem but I'll have no problem supporting a future RfA once the above issues have been addressed, with that said, I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate what you'd like to do with the tools, both things you listed under Q1 can be done without the aid of extra tools. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Same as above mostly. When you improve your attitude, and remove some of the more worse stuff on your page, and wait a year or so for all those blocks to fade away (on the way maybe aquiring even more edits), Your'e going to get a support from me. Buggie111 (talk) 14:00, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reenem&oldid=1136436310"