Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvilWendyMan 2

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

FINAL (2/10/2); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EvilWendyMan (talk · contribs) - Hello everyone! I'm EvilWendyMan, going on my second attempt for adminship. At over 1,050 edits, I have learned from my mistakes a month ago. I have had 1 article created since then with no copyright violations: Daytona Lagoon. I will not censor Wikipedia as I stated last time. I will block vandals and warn them on their page. I also know that the term of ! before vote or any other related words means a straw poll. I am a very good leader in real life so please, vote for me! EvilWendyMan 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 will usually work in deleting pages because of copyright violations.

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

A: My best contributions are waterpark related articles because I go to waterparks nearly everyday.

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: Yes I have been in edit conflicts, but I stay cool and try to submit my data again.

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

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

---

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

1. Wikipedia isn't harmed by well-meaning but inexperienced admins. Quite the opposite. naerii 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per naerii. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is A Bad Idea. You obviously mean well and will someday be a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, no doubt. But, now, there are major issues. You seem to have no experience in policy-related discussions. The answers to the questions are short, lacking, and even imply some off-policy actions (original research, solving a dispute by reverting, etc). There is a lot of focus on treating Wikipedia as a social forum or blog, as evidenced by the secret page. You can be a great editor here, you clearly have the brains and the technical talent to be one. However, you have work to do before being ready for adminship. Tan | 39 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't believe he's implying that he solves disputes by reverting, I believe he's confusing conflicts/disputes with edit conflicts. Useight (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, yes, I believe you're right. Of course, this misunderstanding of the question doesn't help things, either. Tan | 39 16:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, unfortunately Tan has got it exactly right. You're obviously well-intentioned and can make a great contribution to Wikipedia, but I really think you need more experience of the policy side of Wikipedia and to get a better feeling for exactly what admins do and why. ~ mazca ^t | c 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose – Per above, specifically what Tan brought up. I get a WP:MYSPACE feel in your contributions, since you edit your user page and sub pages pretty often. Wikipedia is NOT a myspace. – RyRy (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   By the way, I just noticed your last RfA was less than a month ago, which makes me think your treating adminship a bit like a game (the purpose of the game is getting adminship to you). Take some time learning about Wikipedia policies, editing articles, etc. instead of editing your user space too much. I'm sure you can improve, you just need some time to do it. Maybe getting an adopter? (I noticed User:EvilWendyMan/New User and thought you need a mentor, not you being the mentor) -- RyRy (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - simply because of your inexperience. I can't tell from what you've done up until now how you will cope with the pressures and responsibilities of adminship. I think you should wait until you've got about 3000 edits and a least 5 months, with a good quantity of mainspace, AfD etc. edits, and I would consider you afresh. All the best until then though! – Toon^(talk) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Oppose Extreme lack of experience. Only three articles created that I can find and well under (my typical minimum for RfA support) 10,000 edits. I would also like to see you have at least 18 months on-wiki before I would support you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Too soon since last try, too soon altogether, obviously did not get the clear message sent last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Tan hit the nail on the head, I'm sorry to say. You only have a thousand or so edits which is generally okay, but you could use more experience. I would suggest taking up WP:ADMINCOACH if you wish to try again. All the best, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
8. Please see WP:NOTNOW and please stop thinking the end result of Wikipedia is to be an admin - which is what I read from this. It very much isn't. Your contributions are appreciated, very much so, but you really need to spend some time studying past RFA's and the candidates contributions to understand the reason for failure for RFA 1. Perhaps that will assist. Pedro :  Chat  19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Various problems with the user. Lack of experience, low knowledge of policies, very low edit summary count along with a fairly low edit count. I could go on, but these problems alone is enough for my oppose. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose — Severe lack of experience comes across from simply reading the user's talk page. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You're a great editor so far, and I would really like to support this. Unfortunately, I have to agree with what Tanthalas39 said. No doubt in my mind you'll make an excellent administrator within a year or so. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. WP:NOTNOW ... Townlake (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2008 (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.