Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Upaltez

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

WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Upaltez

Upaltez (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 07:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

Oppose

• Oppose. User account is only about a month old and user has made very few edits. Quite a few of the messages on his talk page are from other users pointing out issues with his changes. Those changes may have been done in good faith, but they show that he either doesn't understand our practices and procedures or has chosen not to follow them. Examples are:

• Nominating a page at RfD because it wasn't written in English (the QD process has an option specifically for that).
• Reverting another editor's warning message to an IP editor and marking it as vandalism when it was not.

Looking at the few changes where he wrote text instead of using templates, it seems his English is not very good. An example of this is the text on his talk page. It's important that admins speak/write very good English so that our readers will understand.

Because of all this, I oppose this request. I believe it would take quite some time before this user would be ready to be an admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. At the time of this writing the user has made less than 500 edits in this Wikipedia. From my memory, user has also not been active very long. For this reason it is not surprising that this user is not yet familiar with our procedures here. I therefore do not see this user get admin status at this time. --Eptalon (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appears to have little self-perception as to his actions, has not learnt our procedures, and has (correctly) been refused rollback facility. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Macdonald-ross, and candidate also seems to have major issues with communication, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the English language. Chenzw  Talk  11:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest snow close from a bureaucrat. No chance of this passing based on what everyone else has already said. Only (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Hate to pile on, but most of your contributions don't have an edit summary. //nepaxt 14:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry if you feel like we are judging you, but we are not. We are simply stating that someone who is fairly unexperienced and inactive should not be an admin (trust me, I found out the hard way). Krett12 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I am extremely sorry if you are finding this unpleasant, and am grateful that you are offering your services as an administrator. Upalteez has made 165 edits, at the time of writing, and only began editing 5 days ago. I believe this user is likely to be highly productive here in the long term, especially after he or she has gained more experience: vandalism, for example, is a persistent problem here. However, I would recommend this user keep editing, gain more experience and not run for adminship until he or she is thoroughly experienced. With regret, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.-Grind24 (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• just stop it! Am very fluent In English! Check my latest user page article! As the Swahili men said 'Usidharau kitabu kwa jalada lake' or in English 'Do not judge a book by its cover'. I hate people who judge others and they barely know them. This is not a rude command but I am fed up by how you people treat others without even knowing them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upaltez (talk • contribs)
  • The whole point of the RFA process is to judge the candidate. --Druddigon (talk | changes) 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We are not judging you by your cover. In fact, that would be impossible: to judge someone by their cover means to judge them by the way they look, and we don't know what you look like.

If you think any of us is being unfair, please be specific about where. As far as I can tell, the comments here are only about things people see in your edits. Don't feel bad about it, though. You have been here only about a month and it takes time to learn how this Wikipedia works. I don't think we've ever had an admin approved who had been here sych a short time. As for your English, it's good enough that we understand you very well, and that's important. However, your grammar needs to be better. (If you would like someone to tell you specifically where it could be better, feel free to ask.) You also need to understand and follow our practices and procedures; for example, use edit summaries and sign your posts. Take some time to get more familiar with things here. Let people get to know you so that they would feel comfortable trusting you with additional rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is not judging at all, it is evaluating. There is a difference. You have 159 edits, have not created any articles and have been here just over a month. The tools entrusted to an administrator are capable of destroying the wiki. Members of the community do not hand these over to just anyone who asks for them. It is a position of trust that must be earned. The best thing to do is if you feel this is not going well is to request your name be withdrawn at this time. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Rus793 is correct, a lot of trust is required for the use of these tools, and you haven't been around long enough to have earned that trust. It doesn't mean we don't trust you, or that we think you will delete the main page or something, all it means is that we don't feel you are ready to use these tools. Look here. Even the Twinkle tool you use now has to be earned with the autoconfirmed status. If you wait a few months and don't show any signs of errors, in about half a year you might have a shot at admin. Krett12 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else, please answer your email--it's important. Krett12 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think you need to refresh yourself on what vandalism means before you run for administrator again. This, for example is not vandalism. It is a user adding additional information to the article. //nepaxt 20:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe I'll give it another shot after six months time and I promise to gain your trust within the lengthy period. Thank you very much. Am not really sure because am doing my National exams on November next year and I I'll be away for a long time. Well I'll create time to gain your trust. Thank you Lovren 19:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. I understand Vandalism is the removal or additional of irrelevant content on articles Lovren 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC) .

Not exactly. I think you need to read over the welcome message to familiarize yourself what vandalism is, especially this page to see what vandalism is. //nepaxt 20:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I should say that this user was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia one week ago: see here. Sorry if this is awkward to bring up. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't apologize, this is very pertinent information. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree--I forgot to globalauth this user and that's very important. Krett12 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2015 (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.