Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Susan Walton

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

Final (0/4/1); Ended 05:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Susan Walton (talk · contribs) - Susan is a great and smart wikipedia who has many many wonderful contributions. She may not have as many edits as some of the other wikipedia users, but the edits she has made are top quality. Susan really deserves this because her live and soul is wikipedia and her intelligence is top quality and her adminship would raise the level of wikipedia. She is a good person and would NEVER abuse the power of adminship. PLEASE make SUSAN WALTON an admin!!! Cowboy Rocco 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --Susan Walton 02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A:

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

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:

Additional question from xaosflux

4. What is your relation to the nominator, if any?

A:

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose you haven't answered the standard questions on this RfA. You have fewer than 250 edits in total, almost all of which are to your user page or that of your nominator. You haven't participated in any of the areas of the project that would demonstrate a knowledge of our policies, which administrators are expected to display. I would strongly recommend you withdraw this request as it is very likely it will be strongly opposed. I am happy to give you some hints about how you could become a better candidate for adminship, but for now you are not close to being ready. Sorry, Gwernol 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: RFA was transcluded by an IP. – Chacor 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I saw that. It was likely the user herself though: according to her user page she often forgets to sign in. Gwernol 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose No where near enough experience with any administrative proceedures, almost half of your entire ~200 edits are in the User space. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose You haven't answered any questions, and most of your edits are in the User space. You don't have enough experience or mainspace edits. — Wenli 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - Lack of experience. You didn't even answer the questions--$UIT 05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Sorry, but you don't seem to show any commitment at all towards being an admin; that, plus low experience (250 edits is quite small) reveals that you probably aren't as familiar with policy as you should be. I would oppose, but that will most likely be taken care of by many other editors, so I'll just stay neutral. Again, sorry. -- P.B. Pilhet 03:01, 15 April 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.