Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floaterfluss 2

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

Floaterfluss

(1/11/2); Closed early per WP:SNOW - Alison ❤ 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floaterfluss (talk · contribs) - I'm Floaterfluss, and I've decided to nominate myself for adminship so that I may better benefit Wikipedia, and weed out those stupid vanity pages and watch recent changes and New Pages like a hawk (which I already do). I have been here since November 4, 2006, and in this time have racked up many helpful edits, reverted literally hundreds of cases of vandalism, and weeded through the "What Links Here" page of quite a few redirect pages to fix those links (as I recently did with marijuana to cannabis (drug).

Note that I nominated myself before, back in January 2007, but then I only had 600 edits and two months' experience. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, obviously. :D

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly using admin rollback to better fight vandalism, as well as blocking repeat vandals. I will also inspect all new pages, and delete those that are pure nonsense.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The contributions that I have made that I'm most proud of are the articles that I've started, which include:


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: None recently, but a long time ago, when I was still a newbie (literally two days after I signed up), I made a personal attack to an editor on Talk:Nirvana (disambiguation), because I didn't know that NPOV applied to talk pages. However, that was very long ago, and I have done nothing of that sort since.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Floaterfluss before commenting.

Discussion

  • Candidate - please withdraw. Floaterfluss, you work here is valued and gratefully received. However you are simply not ready to demonstrate and prove (through contributions) to the community that you have the trust that is normally required for the granting of administrator tools. Please do not be discouraged and I look forward to a future RfA when the opposers concerns are addressed. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support per self-nom. -- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What????? @pple complain 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is saying he supports himself for adminship. -- John Reaves 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Floaterfluss, but you can't support yourself in your own RfA. The fact that you've submitted this RfA is evidence enough of your self-support. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Don't have any reason to oppose. Acalamari 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose You are doing a good job, but I cannot support at this time. Your response to question 1 is insufficient, if you want rollback functions, please install Mozilla Firefox and WP:TW, that is all you need. Also you have very few contributions to WP:XFD, please try to participate more on WP:XFD especially WP:AFD to gain experience about WP:PG. Good luck. Carlosguitar 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have both Firefox and Twinkle, but from what I've heard, admin rollback makes things much easier. -- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You heard wrong... Admin rollback is only (very) marginally faster, doesn't allow you to explain your actions in the edit summary, and doesn't automatically open the talk page so — assuming you intend to post a warning/explanation of your rollback, actually works out significantly slower — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I'd heard, admin rollback was faster than Twinkle... guess whoever said that was wrong. Well, I'll use my adminship to delete nonsense pages and block repeat vandals then. -- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about admin rollback vs. Twinkle (I use IE, so it doesn't work), but admin rollback is faster than the normal undo function. Useight 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose You give deletion as one of your main reasons for wanting the tools, but you have participated in four XfDs in the last 12 months, one of which was this. You have only two talk edits since June (other than article tagging & reversions), which doesn't give me much confidence you'll discuss things you don't like the look of before deleting them. I'm also put off by "I will also inspect all new pages, and delete those that are pure nonsense" - aside from the most obvious attack pages & copyvios, I don't think it's appropriate for a single admin to act as judge-jury-executioner (your "nonsense" could be my "good faith contribution by editor who does not have English as a first language"), especially someone with virtually no experience in deletion discussions. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not enough experience in XFDs (only 36 edits in the Wikipedia namespace). I'd recommend participating in more Articles for Deletion to get a good handle on the process. You're a good editor, but I want to see more activity in admin-like areas before granting the mop. Useight 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I found a near 100% lack of references in the articles you've created, ideally it should be 100% the other way. I think you need to learn that WP isn't just writing what you know, it's writing what you can demonstrate. Also, not a big deal but I don't think it's customary to !vote for yourself in a self-nom. Ronnotel 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, 2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel#References seems plentiful to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT, Floaterfluss's only contribution was to create a stub - and he's putting it forth as one of his best accomplishments? The article is well-referenced, but not because of Floaterfluss, I believe. Nevertheless, I may be hyperbolic with my statement of 'near 100%' and am willing to be convinced. Ronnotel 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose- sorry but 1700 edits isn't sufficient. This is what happens to countless other editors, come back when you've got lots of edits and are well referenced or add to Wikipedia in a useful way. Sorry. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1700 edits is a fine number; it's what SirFozzie had when he ran for adminship (and passed). Acalamari 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. The candidate isn't yet ready. Majoreditor 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per question #1. M.(er) 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose not enough project space edits. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Question #1. Also, just needs more experience. Jmlk17 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Sorry, not enough experience. -jj137 Talk • Contribs 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I'm sorry, you just need more time. Dfrg.msc 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I would have been willing to support based on the substantial edits the nom has made. However, I am concerned the nom does not have sufficient understanding of deletion and blocking related policies. While it is true the user did make substantial edis that would offset the low edit count, did not source some articles. Iridescent make a valid point in his oppose. Also, in the previous RfA, nom was advised to seek an editor review before submitting another RfA. I renew that advice. I would recommend more experience in such areas as WP:AFD, checking for, reverting, and reporting vandalism, as well as checking new pages to see if they meet criteria for speedy deletion. After another 2000 to 3000 edits, the nom might consider getting an Editor review before seeking another RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, since this nomination doesn't look like it'll succeed, but here's some friendly advice if you're interested in deleting those vanity pages: Get acquainted with Special:Newpages and with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Then, keep an eye out for new pages that are either non-notable bios, attack pages, spam, and complete nonsense. When you find a page that meets the speedy deletion criteria, tag it and warn the creator appropriately. It'll make admins' jobs much easier. You don't need to be an admin to recognize that a new page is... well, what's a nicer way to say "crap"? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:20, 26 September 2007 (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.