Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Afil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afil

Afil (talk · contribs)

End date:October 18, 2008 Time: 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm ShockingHawk (talk · contribs) and I'm nominating Afil (talk · contribs) for adminiship. If you see his contributions he has most of his edits in the mainspace and he creates new pages. He is very focused on his task and will persue it to the end. Please nominate him. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Thank you for the confidence. I am honored by the proposal and gladly accept. Afil (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support per nominator. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I see that he is working hard to make this place as great as the others. If he continues his hard work, he'll be the greatest admin. we might ever see. As I'm trying to work to be an administrator (and hopefully become one), I'll be pleased to work with him. -NYC43 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: User now blocked. – RyanCross (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I looked at your talkpage and I'm impressed by how many awards you one. I have never seen so much rewards wlon by someone who isn't an admin. You deserve being an administartor. NewWorld98 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

   Note: User now blocked. – RyanCross (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strong oppose only thing i can see from contribs of this user are rivers, and hundreds of them, all looking just the same, don't get me wrong, it's not something really negative (although it would be better to group them). However, nothing special to oppose, i just can't see the need for the tools for this user, sorry, maybe next time. --Dalibor Bosits (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - fails most of the WP:CFA#Other_requirements:_Familiarity_with_rules_and_with_editing critera. He has virtually no edits to categories, templates or Wikipedia pages. Although his editing is consistent, his lack of throughout knowledge of anything but Romanian Rivers on SEWP does not make him admin material. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Doesn't do anything other than create articles on rivers. Majorly ^talk 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose No QD tagging, no Wikipedia edits (except for this RFA), no VIP reports, nothing...an excellent mainspace contributor but nothing that requires admin tools. (two EC!1) alexandra (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per above and my comment below. (by the time I typed it up, there were more opposes!) Synergy 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose – Everything I'm concerned with has already been pointed out above. Fails my criteria also. Thank you for your contributions, but you still need experience in other areas. – RyanCross (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Per above; please see the page on admin policies. No prior experience is an important factor, as mistakes that may occur can often be easily avoided. Please participate in these areas some more and re-apply in the future. :) Best wishes PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose needs more interaction with policy pages and the WP/WT namespaces. fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Sorry, but I cannot support you at this time. You have virtually done no QDing of articles that need to be deleted, which shows that you have no need for the deletion tool; you have not made any or very few edits in the Wikipedia namespace, especially ViP and RFD, both of which point out that you have no need for the blocking/deletion tools; you have not given any users any warnings, which point out that you have no need for the blocking/protection tools; and you just do not have the experience necessary to complete the tasks assigned to you as an administrator. Sorry, but I have to oppose. Razorflame 03:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Regretfully. You're great at what you do, which is rivers, but I don't think there's much need for the sysop tools. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 11:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm undecided at this point. While creating river articles is nothing to brag about (even I do it sometimes), I haven't seen much content building aside from them. I also don't see a whole lot of discussion or participation with the community (ten user talk page edits before this RfA, and one WP:TALK page edit). Synergy 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The supports by NewWorld98 (talk · contribs) and NYC43 (talk · contribs) are by relatively new users. – RyanCross (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NewWorld98 (talk · contribs) is a fortnight old, NYC43 (talk · contribs) is a few hours old. However, both were created before the RfA was filed. Should we narrow down criteria to say something alone lines of votes by accounts created within a week? More on ST if you agree. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also a little confused of something that Ric said in the nomination statement. He says, "Please nominate him." You are nominating him! :-P – RyanCross (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe he wants a co-nom? Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 11:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Human error. I mean to say support not nominate. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 12:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I think we can all agree that we can close this RfA as WP:SNOW. Anybody against this? – RyanCross (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could keep it open longer but I agree. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks unlikely to succeed. fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.