Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AppleJack-7

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

AppleJack-7

Final (0/9/2); ended 06:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Chaser (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

AppleJack-7 (talk · contribs) – This is my first RfA, and I hope all goes well. I have been here for about 4 years, and have been revertign vandalism and reviewing new pages and the like for a while now, and I feel that the time is right for me to submit my first RfA. AppleJack7_{Dear Princess Celestia...} 02:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination, hehe. AppleJack7_{Dear Princess Celestia...} 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 aim to take part in such ARV and ANI discussions, as well as contributing to Sock investigations.

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

A: Probably my anti-vandalism reversions. Many accounts that have been used only for vandalism I had reported to ARV as well.

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: Really, only after like a week of me joining, there was a bit of a quabble at the now deleted Computer Prank article, but other than that, no.

General comments

• Links for AppleJack-7: AppleJack-7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for AppleJack-7 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Oppose

1. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Feel free to try again after a lot more edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm sorry, but I can't support right now. You've been around for a long time, and that's great, but you've made less than 1,000 edits. Typically, successful admin candidates have that longevity and more than 1,000 (usually more than 2,000 in fact) edits. Anti-vandalism is absolutely necessary, and you're doing a great job at that, so keep that up. I would also suggest that you get a little more content work in, get a Good article or two under your belt, because some people here at RfA like seeing that kind of stuff. If this RfA fails, I'd recommend you wait six months or more (preferably more) before going for another RfA; give yourself plenty of time to improve and show the community that you'd make a great administrator. Also, I would avoid another self-nom; you should find somebody who's willing to nominate you. This page has a list of very good editors that are willing to review your contributions and nominate you if they think you're ready for adminship. I see a lot of potential in you, and while I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet, I believe you'll be a great administrator in time. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Sorry AppleJack, I cannot support your sysop request. I think that you need a lot more experience around Wikipedia as a whole. Some more useful links to check out are WP:RFAADVICE and WP:RFA Guide. They give a lot of advice that I think you could benefit from. Cheers, — -dainomite   03:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
4. NotNow Too few article space edits. Glrx (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Currently Oppose; been here a while, but not enough experience/understanding, as demonstrated for me by this diff and a couple preceding, which demonstrate either a complete misaprehension of what was happening or a lack of knowledge of policy. Snoop around a bit, learn some, gain some experience, participate in discussions, and come back here later for a likely pass. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose AppleJack-7, you seem like a nice person but you lack what I would deem to be a considerable amount of experience necessary for utilizing the tools from a position of knowledge and practical experience. A full list of my RFA standards is available and I would be more than happy to reassess your next RFA when meet them. Mkdw^talk 04:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose While I don't have a hard threshold and pretty lax on statistical requirements, I do think a candidate needs to have at least a few thousand edits including over a thousand of them as article edits. You currently have 179 article edits. There simply isn't enough information to determine how you would use the admin bit. I respect the enthusiasm, but it is too soon. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose . I appreciate your enthusiasm AppleJack-7 , but as others have stated, you do not meet the minimum of requirements generally expected by the community. Do make an effort to read all the advice pages about admin candidacy before trying again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
9. Not to pile on here, but what others have said above are good reasons to oppose this self-nomination for now. This editor has all the potentials of one day possibly being nominated by someone else for Admin ship, but with fewer then a thousand edits, an inconsistent editing history ... good luck in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As an aside, I'm not sure your user page makes sense. It states it's not cluttered with "userboxen" like a previous version--where is said previous version? Keepscases (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

   The user page has a bunch of deleted edits, the one I looked at did have a lot of userboxes :P Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Yes, I would be interested to know if you were referring to another account. If you have had an account before, you should consider cross-referencing the two before your next RfA (as it appears unlikely that this one will pass). A note of encouragement, though - you do not need to be an administrator to take part in most discussions (though there is not much "discussion" at WP:AIV). VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

   See above. Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

   Ah, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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.