Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rappingwonders

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

Final (2/10/0); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rappingwonders (talk · contribs) - Well, I'm nominating myself. I've only joined recently, but I think I could some good things with the power of an admin. I would definitely block anyone who just keeps vandalizing random articles or images, or anyone who keeps uploading copyvio images after being warned several times. I'd also help by deleting images that have been tag with the no source tag, or the no license tag, or the orphaned fair use tag, or the no rationale tag (any of those) for 7 days. I also think that Wikipedia could use more admins. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in blocking users that just won't stop vandalizing or users that won't stop uploading copyvio images. I would also help by deleting images that are tag with one of the tags I mentioned above. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: My best contributions are probably uploading lower resolution album/single covers, or uploading images of rappers for the articles that don't already have images of them. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: No, I haven't. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Suggest withdrawal. Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral Support for being so bold as to nominate yourself for adminship. I'd like to suggest that you consider Wikipedia:Admin coaching, a great program that will set you up with another administrator who will guide you through useful practices to better yourself for your next RFA. As the others have already said, I'd suggest you enable edit summary reminders by going into your preferences and clicking on that feature. The reason that you're being asked to come back after some time has passed is because the community wants to see if you are knowledgeable about wikipedia's policies. You can demonstrate this by getting involved by reverting vandalism you see at the recent changes screen, reporting vandalism to WP:AIV, getting involved in deletion discussions at WP:XFD, tagging pages for speedy deletion at the new pages screen, contributing more via: media, article writing, fixing typos, etc. Once you are familiar with these things, and have read through WP:ADMIN, then you will definitely be ready! Icestorm815 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral Support - While I'm not down with editcountitis...you're just too new, having been here for less than a month. While I don't see any obvious red flags, this RfA is unfortunately doomed to fail. I think if you read up a bit on the policies and keep contributing positively, there's no reason you couldn't come back in a few months and try again. Gromlakh (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not enough experience yet. Maybe in a month or two with 1000-2000 more edits. Sorry.   jj137 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Appreciate the enthusiasm, don't feel discouraged if this RfA doesn't go the way you wished. Please keep contributing and come back in 6 months or so! ^Avruchtalk 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Sorry, but low edit summary usage, low amount of time here (less than a month), and very little interaction with users does not make me want to support right now. Come back in a few months and try again. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. What do you mean "low edit summary usage"? I use an edit summary, like, all the time. Rappingwonders (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "77% for major edits and 19% for minor edits." That isn't very good. Most people use high 80's to 100% for both ones. 19% is actually not good at all. Not to discourage you, just try to use more. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose I'm not sure if non-'crats can can close a RFA per WP:SNOW, but if they can, I would. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, non-'crats can close RFAs, as long as they know what they're doing, and are willing to face the wrath of Arbcom should they mess up. :) JK Icestorm815 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - This user does not show they really understand what a administrator does after reading their self-nom, i would be worried he would be to trigger happy. Overall this RfA feels rushed, and just not enough admin-related experience. Tiptoety ^talk 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - short history looks shakey, In My Ghetto and the AfD plus the various discussions on his talk page about Image:Fat-joe.jpg raise some concerns about giving him the bit. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Just not enough overall experience. Jmlk17 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose I'm afraid the above concerns show you need a greater understanding of policies and guidelines. Don't be discouraged, few noms are ready at the 1500 edit mark. Please try again in about 3000 more edits and 3 more months. Cheers Dlohcierekim 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose for above concerns. Lots of work done, that's good. But you're focused in a very small area, not sure you have explored too much around Wikipedia in general. No discussions on Deletions? Other RfAs? Achromatic (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:47, 28 January 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.