Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NitrogenTSRH

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

FINAL (0/4/0); closed per WP:NOTNOW by EVula at 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NitrogenTSRH (talk · contribs) – I have been a wikipedia user for a few years now, and have gone through a few accounts, I know wikicode extrememly well, and have 8 websites of my own, including Datapile.org and am an editor on engadget. I am an experienced editor and have a masters segree in Sequel Server, if this helps :) NitrogenTSRH (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I made this request for nomination, and I accept it.

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 would love to be able to stop the ever growing problem with vandalism on wikipedia and clean up articles with more efficiency. I would also like to make sure that a lot of the info on wikipedia is not in violation of copyright (images, etc.)

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

A: I normally clean up pages and talk pages, and have created a few articles; but mainly, I clean up articles with improper grammar, vandalism, and general clean up to conform to the standards of wikipedia.

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 never contribute to personal attacks, but I have been under stress with other users before. I calmly explain to them the situation at hand and why I believe that a certian action was necessary. If I am denied that right, I normally just move on and find other pages that need help, or bring the previous issue to the attention of a current Wikipedia administrator.

Optional question from roux

4. Given the extremely low edit count with this account, how can you show us that you have enough experience with policy to make an effective and trustworthy admin? Please note, I am not asking you to link your previous accounts.

A:Roux, I understand your concern on this issue, and I will save you the time of linking to my other accounts, but if you look, all my edits on this account have been mostly major reconstruction of a page, such as The Outsiders (novel) which I am working on now (really really messy article). I understand wikicode extremely well and was adopted by another administrator before this, this account has been around since May, I believe. Look at my contribs, I marked any minor edits. Just give me the opportunity to prove myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NitrogenTSRH (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for NitrogenTSRH: NitrogenTSRH (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/NitrogenTSRH before commenting.

Ironholds, what does my trying to unblock someone at 1:00 in the morning for someone else using a shared IP getting THEIR account blocked have anything to do with this issue? Look at the date, I have learned from that, and I do not see why that should be an issue as to why I should not be granted adminship. NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You signalling that you thought you could physically unblock someone has a lot to do with this issue. Only admins can unblock, and if you didn't know that it says a lot about your knowledge of Wikipedia and its structure. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Roux, I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION! And I own TSRH, and I confirmed it by sending an email from nitrogentsrh@tsrh.org.ua, what do you think the TSRH in my name stands for? NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer this calmly...I did not badger you on your talk page, I asked why you thought I didn't answer your question, and that user is BANNED, he was a sock puppet from another user, check it, he may be banned, but that tag was not there. NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Roux's posts. I am not being inflammatory. I am obviously not going to win you guys over, I should just delete this request, I didn't cuss, I asked him to rethink his vote. He said I didn't answer his question, I obviously did, as there is an answer to the question on this page. NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question satisfactorily. I asked you how you would show us you understand policy. Your answer stated a 'major reconstruction' to an article (this is not 'major'), and that you understand wikicode. You didn't say anything about policy. A non-answer. //roux   22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have been around here for a few years, and have gone through a few accounts. Please disclose those accounts and provide proof that they are in fact yours, without proof that you've made more than about 130 edits, this RfA will be closed per WP:NOTNOW.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I'm afraid. this and particularly the statement show this candidate does not understand the structure of Wikipedia or the role of an administrator. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Oppose - Not enough experience, extremely low edit count, etc. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This user lacks a proper understanding of the way Wikipedia works, as illustrated by his inability to correctly look up the date that his account was created (i.e. the user's account was created in July, not May). Also, the user's "major reconstruction" of the The Outsiders (novel) was not "major" by any account. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - per non-answer to my question, addition of copyvio within the last few months, notification by Jayron that 6+ months and a lot of hard work required to become admin, assertion that user is excellent with wikicode (see userpage), general feeling that user doesn't have 20K edits under their belt. //roux   22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding: also for adding {{banned}} to a non-banned user[1], badgering my vote on my talk page[2]. And no, TSRH, you didn't really answer the question, sorry. //roux   22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Didn't need anything more beyond this, and then I more reasons when I got here. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:18, 4 December 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.