Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tdxiang 2

Add links
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.

Tdxiang[edit]

Final (11/26/8) ended 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tdxiang (talk · contribs) He had made contributions and have involved in the narrators team.Has expanded Singapore articles and taken photos about Singapore.Fixes redirects and makes disambiguations.
Nicklew 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept, though I know I might fail...Accept... Tan DX 07:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to withdraw.No confidence in this bid for adminship.

No,I return.Tan DX 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Tan DX 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support of course, he has the right character and attitude to be an excellent admin, I've seen enough to convince me so and believe this will benefit wikipedia. :D --Vsion 10:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I had a similar number of edits when I received adminship. As for the number of user space edits, that is not a bad thing - it demonstrates this user engages in meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians, which should be promoted, not frowned upon. - Mark 10:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, he has enough interaction with the community despite the low number of article talk edits, and the article and project space edits are lower than userpage ones. He will be a good addition to the admin family. --Terence Ong 10:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I can see no reason not to trust him. Waggers 10:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Nicklew 10:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A fellow Singaporean vote. Moreover, unlikely to abuse admin tools and is a responsible editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He has shown no reason not to trust him, and has been around long enough to know what he is doing. I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools or use them in the wrong way. I wish he used more edit summaries though. It looks like you won't get accepted this time, but good luck in the future! --Cymsdale 21:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. A credible user, and gains the trust of many. Even though many oppose for his mistakes, I feel that he should be forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes, and forgive them if possible, especially minor ones. But by and large, his edits and work are credible and we should not exclude the efforts he has put in for wikipedia. Mr Tan 12:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Joe I 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Mjal 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, Ding Xiang, I just don't think you're ready yet. For anyone else interested, I can't find the link to his first RFA. Has more edits to User space than to mainspace or Project space! That is a serious problem. NSLE (T+C) at 09:47 UTC (2006-02-28)
  2. Oppose. I'd like to see more of a contribution to the article space first. This is an encyclopedia after all. A more diverse amount of project space would be of benefit too. Also, please don't forgot about edit summaries as a lot of people really like to see a high percentage used and they are of great benefit to RC Patrol. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. His total edits is too few (currently <1,000 edits). Furthermore, he has more userspace edits than mainspace edits. --*drew 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: Just one week ago, the user left Wikipedia [1] citing his school grades as the reason. Now, one week later, he's back and wanting to be an admin? I'm not comfortable with that. Also, in the answer to the first question, the user indicates they want to help out with copyright problems. I don't think the user understands copyright issues sufficiently to do this. I note a lack of source for Image:Sgsciencecentreevening.JPG and Image:SRajaratnam smiling.jpg, both of which he uploaded. Additionally, he created a userbox in his own userspace that used a fair use image outside of the main article space [2] which is against policy (I've removed the image now). Also, Image:BSheares.jpg contains partial source information, but is most likely a copyright violation as it is taken from a copyrighted website. In answer to the question #1, user says they want to help out with closing VfDs (it's AfD). Yet, user has just five edits to any AfD pages in their time here. I think more time and experience is needed for this user, and a better understanding of copyright issues. --Durin 14:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for now per Standards. Essexmutant 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per standards, like Essexmutant. --ZsinjTalk 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, way too short on edits, and edit summary usage is poor also. Sorry. Stifle 16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose too few edits. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, not enough edits. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose would like to see more process involvement contributions first. If increases, may go for support in 1-2 months. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose Per above DaGizzaChat © 06:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, sadly. Tdxiang is a nice guy, but he needs more experience before becoming an admin. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, not yet. --kingboyk 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, per Durin. Jonathunder 18:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Considerable failures to have edit summaries for edits may result in leaving no reason when deleting pages.--Jusjih 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose Keep at it, though. You'll make an admin in the future. haz (user talk)e 19:47, 2 March 2006
  18. Oppose as per Durin and Tdxiang's apparent indecision about this RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Too few edits TigerShark 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too few edits Prodego talk 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Durin raises some concerns, plus a lack of overall experience. Raven4x4x 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - image sourcing problems. An admin should know better than to cite vague sources. It's one of the easiest policies on wikipedia. The JPS 13:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong oppose an edit count lower than 1k. I'm WTFing. Computerjoe 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose needs more experience. --Ugur Basak 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose edit count is WAY too low. CFIF (talk to me) 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak oppose. Certainly better than the first RfA, but still not yet there. Answers to questions are rather short and a little vague. Keep practicing. JIP | Talk 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. TDX is a really friendly and helpful editor, I'd love to support, but the number of edits is a little low, I can't really oppose either...Banez 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too early, will support in future. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per the others, but leaning to oppose due to low number of article edits. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Try again later. pschemp | talk 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, would like to see more namespace edits, also edit summary usage a bit low. VegaDark 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maybe later --Jaranda wat's sup 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, as per VegaDark. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Answers to questions, esp. #4, turn me off this candidate I'm afraid. Potential's there but it isn't time. Rob Church (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A.I would like to help in Copyright Problems and conclude Vfds.Cleanups are also no problem.Categorization and even merging articles...I love...even blocking vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.I am pleased with the fact I have helped narrate Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A.So far, I had no problems with others.

But if I were to encouter problems with vandals, I will first probe them (politely),but then if they continue to vandalise, blocking is neccesary.

Any more questions?Feel free to post them!

Q from NSLE - this question is more to do with a situation you could find yourself in, I want to know what you would do. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What do you do? NSLE (T+C) at 10:46 UTC (2006-02-28)

A.I'll block his sockpuppets.As for the guy, he shall be referred to Arbcom.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tdxiang_2&oldid=1089730440"