Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tdrss

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

tdrss

(1/1/2); withdrawn early by candidate. Closed by Juliancolton (talk · contribs).

Nomination

tdrss (talk · contribs) – I would like to be an admin to graduate to the next level of support for Wikipedia. I have been a user for three years and a few months, and I believe my additions have helped strengthen the areas in which I contribute. One of my more lasting contributions (Air Force squadron/wing template) have been accepted by a number of pages and other users. I strive to provide good reference sources for all of my edits, to provide the user an avenue for further information. In the few edit conflicts I've had, I bolstered my contributions with "hard" facts or sources, not conjecture. TDRSS (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 usually stick with what I know best - military history, United States Air Force units, military space systems.

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

A: I believe my best contribution so far has been the "standard" template for Air Force units (i.e. mission, history, locations, equipment, see also, references headers and style of writing). It worked wonders when I had my own web page devoted to the USAF; after my pages were copied and added to Wikipedia, I decided to use that template to increase the aestetics of the already existing USAF pages. Information is easy to find, and easy to reference.

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: With editing conflicts, I attempt to find a reference or source for the information being argued over. If I cannot find any, then I have to compromise with the other author about the written information and see if it (as worded) adds or detracts from the page. I make my final edits based on that.

On areas where I am clearly at fault (i.e. disambiguation of pages that don't need it), I defer to the changes made, realizing that I screwed up and someone else was courageous enough to set me straight!

General comments

• Links for tdrss: Tdrss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for tdrss can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong moral support — it looks like you've been quietly working away for some time now in relative peace & quiet and doing a good job at it. That being said, I don't see any participation in areas that would allow you to gain experience in adminly activites: such as AIV, deletion debates, dispute resolution, etc. I would urge you to consider exactly why you are asking for the tools. Are you running into problems editing in your desired areas and being prevented from accomplishing your goals because of a lack of admin tools? If so, it might be a good idea to outline those situations. If not, you might do best just to continue "as you were" and not take on the extra headaches that come with being an admin. Keep in mind that adminship is not a "graduation"; admins are just editors who have a few extra buttons to press. Not all content contributors need to be admins. –xeno^talk 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I know you want to help the project as much as you can, but your experience in admin-related areas, such as the Wikipedia namespace, which includes AFD, ANI, and this very page, is non-existent. Here at RfA, the community looks for candidates who have had experience in a variety of fields on Wikipedia, so that they know the candidates can be trusted with the administrative tools. Also, your total edit count is on the very low end of what even the most lenient !voters look for. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and look into helping out at AFD, ANI, and at certain WikiProjects, in addition to continuing the good article work you're doing. If you do that while learning more about all our policies and guidelines for a few months, I'll support you in a second run for adminship. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Per Timmeh and xeno no need to oppose.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral. There is not much experience at all in any area that admins work in. I suggest spending the next few months participating in those areas (already mentioned by others), as well as reviewing Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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.