Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/President-Wiki-Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Final (1/20/0); ended 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC) - WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


President-Wiki-Man (talk · contribs) – Cares a lot about his edits and community. President-Wiki-Man (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Ever since I joined Wikipedia I have dreamed of becoming an administrator. Every edit I make and ever article I publish I gain experience and it brings me closer to this moment.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been creating the articles One North End Avenue and Launchpad (instrument) along with my other major edits of course.
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 have been in very few editing conflicts and when I am rarely in one I always try to resolve it as soon as possible.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from usernamekiran
1. Hi. Have you studied/read previous requests for adminship? If yes, then how many? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Yes, I have certainly studied multiple diverse administrator requests and I have come to the realization that if I were to be accepted, I would use my position to thoroughly review, publish, and if needed, delete articles/ban users.
Optional question from FlyingAce
2. You mention in your reply to Terasail's oppose that you had a previous account. What was your previous username? –FlyingAce✈hello 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Thank you for asking! My old account name was: Dugwiki
Optional question from Alyo
3. Hi, just to be clear, you are saying all of these edits are yours? These two accounts appear to have very different editing styles and areas of expertise, so I wonder if you meant a different account?
A: Well, Dugwiki is actually my old account, I just use this one often to make page edits, I have other accounts that I have dedicated just to talk and commons edits.
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
4. What sorts of areas would you like to administrate, should you become an administrator?
Optional question from Kj_cheetham
5. Would you be able to list all accounts you currently make use of or have used before on enwiki, and state how any other current accounts are legitimate uses?
6. What is your stance on admins being open to recall?
Optional question from Vami_IV
7. Your previous account (acknowledged above) was created 16 years ago - how long have you been participating on Wikipedia?


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

  1. moral support even though there are no immediate red flags, the candidate is very inexperienced. I will be happy to support (or maybe even nominate) the candidate after a year from now with 15k edits spread in various fields. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much! I had a question: Is there anywhere where I can submit my article that I created recently where people would see it and help me make it better? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    President-Wiki-Man, that would be Articles for creation. — Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 20:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Oppose. 1,500 edits is not enough to learn everything there is about editing here. You only have seven edits in the entirety of project-space, so you've never touched WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:XFD (any of them), or WP:ANI (though perhaps that one's for the better); all of those are vital parts of administration here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But all my page edits are very useful and respectful, there is not a set requirement of an administrator, you just have to be serious about your edits. President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's way more to being an admin here than being "serious" about your edits, and what I mentioned was only the tip of the iceberg. Please withdraw this. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    President-Wiki-Man, edits counts aren't everything, but people do tend to care about them at RfA because they need something to go off for an editing track record. Some people standard's are much higher than others but essentially everyone requires more than ~1500. The last time a candidate with about twice your edit count suceeded was like more than a decade ago. If you look at recent RfAs (one had an editor who had some opposes for not having enough experience and they had 30,000+ edits) it's uh... easy to see that this will not go well, realistically. I'd encourage you to withdraw now before a ton of people show up to oppose you, save yourself the heartache (I'm sure you did this with the best of intentions), and read WP:RFAADVICE. Maybe look at applying for other permissions first as a way to get more involved and help out here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you recommend any other positions to ensure fairness through bans, page deletions, etc.? Thank you! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well if you're interested in getting involved in the deletion process, I'd suggest trying to chip in at some articles for deletion discussions to start, President-Wiki-Man. There's a very serious lack of participants. Reading policy pages like this can help if you're not familar with what's considered notable on Wikipedia. At the very least people want admins who demonstrate that they understand the deletion process very well if they are actually given the ability to delete articles. We can talk later about getting more involved with Wikipedia later if you want but I urge you to withdraw this request as soon as possible because the numerous opposes are just going to keep happening (see WP:SNOW). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much! I had a question: Is there anywhere where I can submit my article that I created recently where people would see it and help me make it better? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you want to submit articles before putting them in mainspace, you can voluntarily use the Articles for Creation process. Keep in mind that there are often relatively big backlogs there and a lot of the advice offered tends to be fairly generic. This page offers a lot of advice for making articles better. I could try to offer more specific advice if you tell me which article you're talking about [1]. You don't need to keep this RfA open to ask for my advice though, we could start a discussion on your talk page. If you don't know how to withdraw the RfA, I'm sure if you say you want to someone can actually close this for you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So there is no place where I can add an already created article and users will try to make it better? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not really, a lot of the time articles in general tend to get a lack of attention. There's a lot of extenstive backlogs around here and not everyone has the same interests. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there anyway you could personally go through the articles I have created and make them better please? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As much as I want to help you, I have to admit that if I did do that it'd probably take me quite awhile. Maybe someone else would be able to? I'm a volunteer like everyone else here and already have a huge to-do list of my own. I will say that I accidently linked the wrong page earlier when you asked for how to write better articles. What you're actually looking for is likely this: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. This appears as if the user wants to be an admin and hasn't thought through what benefit they can/will bring. Their articles aren't well developed which is somewhat expected when you are to be a reviewer of such content and the fact that they ony have 2 edits in WP space (Excluding the RfA) is just unacceptable for an admin candidate, who would need to navigate these areas. Terasail[✉️] 19:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is definitely fair, my other massive account was accidently deleted when I got a new computer a few years back and I have been trying to recover ever since. I can 100% agree that I did not write much about the community benefiting from my edits but I think the goal of every administrator whether hundreds of edits or thousands of edits. I promise I will be fair, truthful, honest, and just if I earn this wonderful position. President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @President-Wiki-Man: Do you remember what account (username) you then had? CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 19:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My account name was: Dugwiki President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dugwiki has considerably more edits (~15,000 in a healthy spread between articlespace and wikispace), although stopped editing a long time ago and is still unlikely to pass RfA as mentioned by the others. Wikipedia norms have changed a lot since 2009. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. Sorry, President-Wiki-Man, but VersaceSpace is quite right to bring up your lack of participation in project space and other areas relevant to administration. I can tell that you're an enthusiastic contributor, but I don't think you're ready for the tools just yet, especially since you haven't justified why you feel the need to have them. WindTempos (talkcontribs) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you recommend any other positions to ensure fairness through bans, page deletions, etc.? Thank you! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @President-Wiki-Man: It really depends on which areas you wish to focus on. A lot of candidates come into RfA, intending to do certain tasks if granted adminship. If, for example, you want to work on counter-vandalism (which fits in with your talk about bans - by which I assume you're referring to blocks), head over to WP:CVUA. If you want experience with the deletion process, try participating in WP:AFD discussions. For new page review, read through WP:NPP, although this one requires a lot of experience to do effectively.
    Learning the ropes in these areas will take quite some time, but if you're serious about adminship, it'll definitely be worth it in the long run. Make sure to read through any guidance before jumping in head on, though!
    As a side note, you have my utmost respect for jumping into RfA, especially as a self-nom, since it's a notoriously brutal process that I wouldn't want to submit myself to. WindTempos (talkcontribs) 19:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much! I had a question: Is there anywhere where I can submit my article that I created recently where people would see it and help me make it better? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Yeah, sorry but I have to oppose. I normally like to see candidates who have at least done some of the grunt work like NPP, AfC, or some of the Wikiprojects. Content creation is important as well, it's not as important to me but the edit count is way too low and the lack of activity is a concern. Come back after you've put in the edits and maintainer tasks I would be more inclined to support. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 19:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much! I had a question: Is there anywhere where I can submit my article that I created recently where people would see it and help me make it better? President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Not enough experience overall, and almost no experience in any quasi-administrative areas of the encyclopedia. The candidate has not explained where and how they intend to use the administrative tools. Stating Ever since I joined Wikipedia I have dreamed of becoming an administrator indicates that the candidate sees being able administrator as a status symbol. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose: I really appreciate the enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia and the willingness to be an admin, but I don't think you're ready yet. Part of what I look for in a candidate is good communication, and I'm not seeing any substantive discussions that you've had with other users to demonstrate that. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose very WP:NOTYET--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 19:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. I'm sorry, but WP:NOTYET. Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 19:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Addition since my orginal longer message was getting edit conflicted out-of-the-wazoo: I'm sure you have good intentions, but you don't have enough demonstrated experience to have my faith. — Clyde State your case (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 19:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. Your answer to Q1 also implies you do not know the difference between bans and blocks, which mean different things. I suggest applying for the new page reviewer permission, which can help you gain more experience. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Not ready yet NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 19:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose. I concur it is far too soon. You haven't said what specific purposes you want the tools for. Remember that administrators have no more authority than any other editor. I'm not certain it's something to dream about-it's hard work. There are smaller steps you can take such as NPP. I highly suggest that you withdraw this. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will never give up! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not "giving up", it's waiting for the right time. This is not going to succeed. I also find your answer to #3 insufficient. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose It is too soon, and not yet to become an admin at this time. Sarrail (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose kudos for chutzpah, though. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Not enough experience for me to be able to support, maybe in a couple of years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Needs more experience. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose as lacking sufficient experience. Self-nomination fails to demonstrate a need for the tools, and the editor appears to misunderstand what being an admin involves. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. WP:SNOW WP:NOTNOW Andre🚐 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose. No need to pile on nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talkcontribs) 20:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Sorry dude, but I see no evidence of need for the extra buttons, no indication of knowledge of how to use them, and no reason why the community should trust you with them. You need to participate, and show competence, in the areas admins work in before thinking about doing this again. Best wishes. [edit conflict] Additionally, now seeing your responses in the comments below, I am concerned about your maturity level, your username, and your participation on the 'pedia even as a basic contributor. - CorbieVreccan 20:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose Appreciate your recent vigor in editing but you're just not ready for admin privileges. If you edit for two years at the pace you have this last month, we can absolutely reconsider and I would love to see what you've accomplished. Best of luck in the future! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]
  • President-Wiki-Man, thanks for offering your services. With 1500 edits to Wikipedia, and only seven to Wikipedia space, I'm afraid you don't have the experience to be an effective admin. May I suggest you withdraw this request and read carefully the various advice pages at the top of WP:RFA (administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship)? Also, the community has typically not taken kindly to editors who are desperate to become admins; we'd much prefer that you show you are committed to contributing to the encyclopedia for its own sake first. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd like to echo Vanamonde's kind words, and thank President-Wiki-Man for volunteering to serve. As this RfA continues, I hope all who participate here remember to be gracious, refrain from biting, and – if necessary – let our friend here down gently. I look forward to the bright editing career in their future, should they choose to pursue it. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I totally agree with Vanamonde93, and theleekycauldron. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much for your encouraging words! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not going to jump on and add another oppose, so just a quick comment from me - Number of edits aren't everything, sure - but quality of edits is. Consider working on articles to bring it to WP:GA status, for example - or even writing a substantial new article! I really value admins who have experience in ... you know, editing the encyclopaedia, rather than just the nitty gritty work behind the scenes (that's important too, but peeps gotta remember why we are here!) Turini2 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I totally agree! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also a recommendation - I would change your username to something without 'President' in it. I don't think you're pretending to be the President of Wikipedia, but an unambiguous username is always best. (There is guidance here - Wikipedia:MISLEADNAME) Turini2 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @President-Wiki-Man: I'll say it again, please withdraw. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No! President-Wiki-Man (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Admins need to know how to read the room, and gauge consensus. Just saying. - CorbieVreccan 20:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:SNOW covers this. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given the candidate's various comments asking about where they can get more involved in maintenance and quality control work, I would recommend checking out WP:TASK, which provides an accessible overview of the myriad maintenance tasks that need doing as well as the relative skill level associated with each of them. signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.