Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emesee

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

Emesee

FINAL (1/7/2); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 09:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emesee (talk · contribs) - I've been a Custodian at Wikiversity since April or May; please see Wikiversity:User:Remi. Overall, I have been a rather copious editor there, definitely to a greater degree than Wikipedia. It would probably be a better representation of my capacity for being trusted.

I always try my best to be bold, be civil, act in good faith, and follow policies and guidelines. --Emesee 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors."[1]

I meet the first requirement, and I would like to see if I meet the second.

I am under the impression anonymous page creations will be enabled soon. I am optimistic this will not be problematic. I also feel that anonymous page creation is for the betterment of the encyclopedia in general since it increases openness. I want to do everything in my power so that it succeeds and it seems to me that having an extra administrator around could increase the chances of that success.

When it comes to actual abilities related to "administrator", in the past I have attempt to be conservative and judicious in my actions in relation to the general sense of what seems acceptable levels of boldness to the community. I would continue to do so.

Thank you for taking the time to review my request. --Emesee 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: Viewing deleted articles and checking to see if those deletions are for the betterment and Wikipedia and Wikimedia's missions and visions. Also I may possibly delete blatant vandalism or spam depending on the need.

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

A: I particularly like how I turn links that should be lower case into upper case [2]. I like how I tweaked the editable version of the mainpage [3]. I am rather fond of my rather wide variety of edits in general.

Although I have not done it copious amounts, I think some of the work on casing I've partaken in is among my best edits because in general I think that it improves the consistency of Wikipedia in a way that is important, and I feel particularly satisfied about it.

I like my edits to the editable main page because I think my contributions there were rather worthwhile.

I like my wide variety of edits in general because I have tried to make a positive difference at Wikipedia in the best way I am able and I find the mission and vision of The Wikimedia Foundation extremely worthwhile. Therefore, I feel when I edit Wikipedia in good fatih that I positively contributing the missions and goals of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and I feel good about that.

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: Yes. I've dealt with them by generally trying to let the other party have their way or else by reaching a compromise. I will deal with it in the same way in the future, by doing my best to be civil, be bold, and acting in good faith whilst either picking my battles or else trying to reach a consensual compromise.

General comments

See Emesee's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Emesee: Emesee (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - I'm sure you won't be surprised by this one in light of my repeated run-ins with your multiple accounts. Your (undeclared) alter ego Remi0o (talk · contribs) probably has the highest deleted-contribution to valid-contribution ratio of any non-vandal account I've ever seen, your current account has a total of 175 mainspace edits, and both accounts have a very long and inglorious history of creating spurious one-member categories which have created a ridiculous amount of unnecessary admin work for everyone who has to clean up after you. — iridescent 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough experience. Only 380 edits on Wikipedia isn't enough for me, regardless of your edits on Wikiversity. It's been a long time since an editor with fewer than 2000 edits passed an RFA. And edit summary usage isn't the best, and that's important so other editors can easily see what you've done and/or your motive. Useight 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. You have less than 500 edits. I would like to advise you to withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Regardless of your edits on Wikiversity, we don't hand out mops to just anyone. I also recommend that you withdraw and come back once you have at least 2000 edits. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient experience. Unaddressed concerns raised by multiple commentors already. Formatting problems in nomination statement raise questions about editing ability. Lack of variety in experience. Answers are vague. Doczilla 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Very little experience. Per above, there are way to many concerns to show support. recommend withdrawal at this point. Tiptoety 06:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per irisdescent. The creation of single-page categories are not helpful, and are exhaustive to clean up. As of this time, I cannot trust you with the tools. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral to avoid pile-on. I suggest nom withdraw this request. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to avoid pile-on: as someone who's spent some time cleaning up your single-member category creations, I cannot support. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:13, 6 November 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.