- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Vin09
Final (2/10/0); ended 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. Regards So Why 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nomination
Vin09 ( talk · contribs) – A self nomination for adminship. Vin09 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'll support wiki by fighting against vandalism, encouraging new editors and guiding them with wiki rules. Participating and providing inputs in discussions for sorting out deadlock situations.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have contributed to wiki since 2011 and still doing the same. I've mostly worked on areas related to Geography, settlements mostly towns and villages, improved them with good references and shaped them into good condition which are less watched by users. Other areas of contributions are transport, census, sports, most of the Indian cities lists related towns and cities urban local bodies were shaped. I've created more than 250+ articles related Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as well other Indian pages. I'll continue to do the same and improve more pages.
- 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: It happened in the earlier days of editing when I was new to wiki. Later, I've learnt on how to deal with edit warring situations with other users by going through the wiki rules. I've developed many skills of editing, interacting and convincing other users and in different situations. Everyday is a learning day for me.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from QianCheng
- 4. In WP:RFPP, consider you saw the following requests, what would you do? Why?
- An user requested indefinite semi-protection for an article which was heavily vandalized by an IP user.
- A: In this case, I'd go for semi protection, to stop them from damaging the article. If this happens more frequently only I'd prefer indefinite.
- An user requested temporary semi-protection for 6 days of a country's next presidency election.
- A: Only if there is noticable vandalism in last couple of days, I'd prefer to protect it.
- An user requested extended confirmed protection of a BLP article which there are multiple similar users blanking section and adding unreferenced content.
- A:I'd go for pending changes protection.
Discussion
RfAs for this user:
- Links for Vin09: Vin09 ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Vin09 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support - Upon examination, I see a hardworking article editor who is here to help improve the encyclopedia, and is very likely to be a net positive with the tools. That is good enough for me. Tazerdadog ( talk) 08:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Clearly here to help build the encyclopaedia. Sure, he may not yet have demonstrated a need for the tools, but I also don't see why we shouldn't give them to him if he asks for them, since he is almost certainly going to use them legitimately. Double sharp ( talk) 09:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Although Vin is a very busy and hardworking article editor, barely 1% of his edits are in Wikipedia space. And most of this 1% are requests for page protection or copy editing project pages. I see no, or barely any, activity in "admin-related" areas like AFD, SPI, UAA, CSD tagging, etc. I'm not comfortable giving a mop to somebody who hasn't been more involved in these areas. Sorry.
Yintan 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Only admins can protect pages, so requests for page protection are "activity in admin related areas". The question we should ask ourselves is not whether there is a need for the tools, clearly there is. Instead we should be asking whether those requests for page protection are sufficiently correct that we think this candidate should be given the tools to protect articles.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 09:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the comments below Vin just confused his OCRP with an RFA, which, in my opinion, exactly proves my point. Yintan 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Only admins can protect pages, so requests for page protection are "activity in admin related areas". The question we should ask ourselves is not whether there is a need for the tools, clearly there is. Instead we should be asking whether those requests for page protection are sufficiently correct that we think this candidate should be given the tools to protect articles.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 09:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, I am not convinced by Vin09's English language proficiency (due to his use of "wiki" to refer to Wikipedia above and the grammar error "but I didn't find older nomination link" below), and I am not satisfied by his answer to the first question; specifically, I am not sure he is adequately familiar with how policies and guidelines are made, based on his use of the term "wiki rules". I usually try to be lenient with RfA !votes, but a thing to consider is that I do not think he would adequately convey his reasoning for admin actions - even if said actions are correct, someone could dispute them. Another thing to consider is that, for those who wish to focus on vandalism cleanup (an important task), they should have substantial reports to WP:AIV. Not all disruptive edits to Wikipedia are vandalism, and an accurate record at AIV demonstrates knowledge of that distinction. This recent AIV report does not suggest that. WP:ANI is the correct place to report disruptive editing that is not also outright (blatant) vandalism. Additionally, the discussion below shows that Vin09 has trouble understanding the RfA process itself.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry, but along with the things the other two opposes have brought up, I've noticed a few other things that put me off supporting. For starters, it took the user four edits to get this properly transcluded onto the RfA page, indicating that they didn't use the preview option at all. The RfA is also numbered incorrectly, at "2", instead of 1, and this is because the user got ORCP confused with RfA (which isn't good). The closing date is also incorrect, though that may have been an error not by Vin. Sorry, but this has been too much of a mess for me to support. I wish you the best, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for offering to help with admin tasks, but I'm not sure you are ready yet. Looking through your most recent requests for page protection three out of five were declined, so I think you need to re read the protection policy. I have no problem supporting someone for adminship if their main admin activity is likely to be protecting pages, but I expect that by the time they are ready for adminship they will be making requests for page protection that are closer to policy than that. Also though the last person you reported to AIV has been blocked, they were blocked for edit warring not the vandalism that you described their edits as. Can I suggest that you review our blocking policy? Happy to reconsider if you run again later this year. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The errors with transcluding this RfA and the practically non-existent nomination statement raises enough concern for me to oppose. If nothing else, adminship requires a minimum level of competence which appears to be lacking at this time.-- John Cline ( talk) 10:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I also looked over the last few trips to RFPP, since that seems to be the area you would most likely use the tools. For a start, there is insufficient actual activity to suggest it is a predominant area of interest: only four this year. And of those, one should probably have gone straight to AIV, and one was declined, because only one disruptive edit had beed made. There too you argued that 'Earlier the page was protected'- but that had been six months previously, so hardly indicative of long-term disruption. One is left with the impression that, had you access to the tools, you would have protected pages unnecessarilly. And I think it's fair to say that unncessary page protection is as- if not even more- disruptive to the encyclopaedia than a lack of protection. I am, therefore, unable to support your candidacy at this time. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The errors in transcluding this RfA and the concerns that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has raised worries me a lot. That, coupled with a slight lack of experience makes me unable to support your nomination at this time. Please try again in a year or so. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 10:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. - The Bounder ( talk) 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose in addition to lack of a stated need for the mop (as I mentioned in my previous Neutral !vote) I'm afraid the issues pointed out by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and the fudging of the technicalities of setting up this RFA have pushed me to oppose. Making typos happens to everyone and as long as one cleans up it's not a problem. However, the messy start of this RFA is an indication of poor technical proficiency, which combined with admin tools can lead to really bad messes. The unfortunate part of my oppose is that I am all too aware of the value of having admins with specific skills and experience of dealing with problems in topics related to South Asia. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to pile-on oppose, but this editor has an unsatisfactory command of the English language, has not demonstrated need for the tools, and has almost no experience in admin areas (save for a few token RFPPs). The wording "convincing other users" in A3 also may suggest he has a clear intent to "win" every argument here. Maybe in a year or two's time I'll support, but not now. 65 HC A7 11:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
Provisionally neutral Neither the nomination nor the answer to Question 1 demonstrates any actual need for the mop. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Unfortunately changing to Oppose. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)- I agree. And would actually take that further and say all three answers are rather lightweight: 'sorting out' situations, 'improve more pages,' 'going through the wiki rules' are rather too non-specific to gauge how or when the toolset would actually be used on a daily basis. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
General comments
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 doesn't exist, so why is this at the 2nd page? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yo
Anarchyte, I wondered that too :D but their name is Vin09 2 so the '2' isn't the second RfA, just part of the name. If you get me! —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That would clear it all up,
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but their username is "
Vin09", I'm not seeing any "2" anywhere. You sure about that?
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err.. clearly I didn't get it myself then! I was obviously distracted by the fact that that's a redlink. You're dead right, this must be a second nomination. Curious. —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment : Yes it's a second nomination, but I didn't find older nomination link. As far I remember I've asked once for adminship and didn't get it long back.--
Vin09
(talk) 08:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- When was this? Do you remember the year? I don't understand why a first RFA wouldn't show up and I can't find anything about it in your user contributions. System hiccup? Yintan 08:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- RfA pages are occasionally (but rarely) deleted if they are so badly transcluded as to be unusable- an example- I think; could it be something like that? —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 does not appear to have been deleted.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Boing! said Zebedee; it appears to be a slight confusion between ORCP and the RfA process, that's all. Although I still don't understand why the system thinks there's a previous RfA, but-! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) Do a quick search at the user's archives and contributions, doesn't seems he created anything related to adminship before except this old OCRP. QianCheng 虔诚 09:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 does not appear to have been deleted.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment : Yes it's a second nomination, but I didn't find older nomination link. As far I remember I've asked once for adminship and didn't get it long back.--
Vin09
(talk) 08:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err.. clearly I didn't get it myself then! I was obviously distracted by the fact that that's a redlink. You're dead right, this must be a second nomination. Curious. —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That would clear it all up,
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but their username is "
Vin09", I'm not seeing any "2" anywhere. You sure about that?
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yo
Anarchyte, I wondered that too :D but their name is Vin09 2 so the '2' isn't the second RfA, just part of the name. If you get me! —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes this was the link:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_1#Vin09, I confused for RFA.--
Vin09
(talk) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The first RFA page didn't seem any deletion log at all, it should move to first page and the second page should mark as G6: Housekeeping deletion. SA 13 Bro ( talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Vin, but if you confuse an OCRP with an RFA you're not ready to be an admin yet. Yintan 09:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also, the timer should be re-set (can it even be?)- They have lost three days! It was only 'live' this morning, so now it's due to end in four days time. A transclusion problem, it seems. Also (re. the discussion above) a 2 was removed from the title with the same edit. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
After the feedback from all the editors, I may not deserve the adminship for now, but will try it future after getting those skills which are required for it. I take positively all support, oppose and neutral comments. I withdraw from this RfA, as I may be taking your valuable editing time.-- Vin09 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2017 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Vin09
Final (2/10/0); ended 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. Regards So Why 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nomination
Vin09 ( talk · contribs) – A self nomination for adminship. Vin09 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'll support wiki by fighting against vandalism, encouraging new editors and guiding them with wiki rules. Participating and providing inputs in discussions for sorting out deadlock situations.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have contributed to wiki since 2011 and still doing the same. I've mostly worked on areas related to Geography, settlements mostly towns and villages, improved them with good references and shaped them into good condition which are less watched by users. Other areas of contributions are transport, census, sports, most of the Indian cities lists related towns and cities urban local bodies were shaped. I've created more than 250+ articles related Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as well other Indian pages. I'll continue to do the same and improve more pages.
- 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: It happened in the earlier days of editing when I was new to wiki. Later, I've learnt on how to deal with edit warring situations with other users by going through the wiki rules. I've developed many skills of editing, interacting and convincing other users and in different situations. Everyday is a learning day for me.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from QianCheng
- 4. In WP:RFPP, consider you saw the following requests, what would you do? Why?
- An user requested indefinite semi-protection for an article which was heavily vandalized by an IP user.
- A: In this case, I'd go for semi protection, to stop them from damaging the article. If this happens more frequently only I'd prefer indefinite.
- An user requested temporary semi-protection for 6 days of a country's next presidency election.
- A: Only if there is noticable vandalism in last couple of days, I'd prefer to protect it.
- An user requested extended confirmed protection of a BLP article which there are multiple similar users blanking section and adding unreferenced content.
- A:I'd go for pending changes protection.
Discussion
RfAs for this user:
- Links for Vin09: Vin09 ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Vin09 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support - Upon examination, I see a hardworking article editor who is here to help improve the encyclopedia, and is very likely to be a net positive with the tools. That is good enough for me. Tazerdadog ( talk) 08:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Clearly here to help build the encyclopaedia. Sure, he may not yet have demonstrated a need for the tools, but I also don't see why we shouldn't give them to him if he asks for them, since he is almost certainly going to use them legitimately. Double sharp ( talk) 09:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Although Vin is a very busy and hardworking article editor, barely 1% of his edits are in Wikipedia space. And most of this 1% are requests for page protection or copy editing project pages. I see no, or barely any, activity in "admin-related" areas like AFD, SPI, UAA, CSD tagging, etc. I'm not comfortable giving a mop to somebody who hasn't been more involved in these areas. Sorry.
Yintan 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Only admins can protect pages, so requests for page protection are "activity in admin related areas". The question we should ask ourselves is not whether there is a need for the tools, clearly there is. Instead we should be asking whether those requests for page protection are sufficiently correct that we think this candidate should be given the tools to protect articles.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 09:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the comments below Vin just confused his OCRP with an RFA, which, in my opinion, exactly proves my point. Yintan 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Only admins can protect pages, so requests for page protection are "activity in admin related areas". The question we should ask ourselves is not whether there is a need for the tools, clearly there is. Instead we should be asking whether those requests for page protection are sufficiently correct that we think this candidate should be given the tools to protect articles.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 09:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, I am not convinced by Vin09's English language proficiency (due to his use of "wiki" to refer to Wikipedia above and the grammar error "but I didn't find older nomination link" below), and I am not satisfied by his answer to the first question; specifically, I am not sure he is adequately familiar with how policies and guidelines are made, based on his use of the term "wiki rules". I usually try to be lenient with RfA !votes, but a thing to consider is that I do not think he would adequately convey his reasoning for admin actions - even if said actions are correct, someone could dispute them. Another thing to consider is that, for those who wish to focus on vandalism cleanup (an important task), they should have substantial reports to WP:AIV. Not all disruptive edits to Wikipedia are vandalism, and an accurate record at AIV demonstrates knowledge of that distinction. This recent AIV report does not suggest that. WP:ANI is the correct place to report disruptive editing that is not also outright (blatant) vandalism. Additionally, the discussion below shows that Vin09 has trouble understanding the RfA process itself.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry, but along with the things the other two opposes have brought up, I've noticed a few other things that put me off supporting. For starters, it took the user four edits to get this properly transcluded onto the RfA page, indicating that they didn't use the preview option at all. The RfA is also numbered incorrectly, at "2", instead of 1, and this is because the user got ORCP confused with RfA (which isn't good). The closing date is also incorrect, though that may have been an error not by Vin. Sorry, but this has been too much of a mess for me to support. I wish you the best, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for offering to help with admin tasks, but I'm not sure you are ready yet. Looking through your most recent requests for page protection three out of five were declined, so I think you need to re read the protection policy. I have no problem supporting someone for adminship if their main admin activity is likely to be protecting pages, but I expect that by the time they are ready for adminship they will be making requests for page protection that are closer to policy than that. Also though the last person you reported to AIV has been blocked, they were blocked for edit warring not the vandalism that you described their edits as. Can I suggest that you review our blocking policy? Happy to reconsider if you run again later this year. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The errors with transcluding this RfA and the practically non-existent nomination statement raises enough concern for me to oppose. If nothing else, adminship requires a minimum level of competence which appears to be lacking at this time.-- John Cline ( talk) 10:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I also looked over the last few trips to RFPP, since that seems to be the area you would most likely use the tools. For a start, there is insufficient actual activity to suggest it is a predominant area of interest: only four this year. And of those, one should probably have gone straight to AIV, and one was declined, because only one disruptive edit had beed made. There too you argued that 'Earlier the page was protected'- but that had been six months previously, so hardly indicative of long-term disruption. One is left with the impression that, had you access to the tools, you would have protected pages unnecessarilly. And I think it's fair to say that unncessary page protection is as- if not even more- disruptive to the encyclopaedia than a lack of protection. I am, therefore, unable to support your candidacy at this time. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The errors in transcluding this RfA and the concerns that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has raised worries me a lot. That, coupled with a slight lack of experience makes me unable to support your nomination at this time. Please try again in a year or so. Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 10:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. - The Bounder ( talk) 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose in addition to lack of a stated need for the mop (as I mentioned in my previous Neutral !vote) I'm afraid the issues pointed out by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and the fudging of the technicalities of setting up this RFA have pushed me to oppose. Making typos happens to everyone and as long as one cleans up it's not a problem. However, the messy start of this RFA is an indication of poor technical proficiency, which combined with admin tools can lead to really bad messes. The unfortunate part of my oppose is that I am all too aware of the value of having admins with specific skills and experience of dealing with problems in topics related to South Asia. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to pile-on oppose, but this editor has an unsatisfactory command of the English language, has not demonstrated need for the tools, and has almost no experience in admin areas (save for a few token RFPPs). The wording "convincing other users" in A3 also may suggest he has a clear intent to "win" every argument here. Maybe in a year or two's time I'll support, but not now. 65 HC A7 11:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
Provisionally neutral Neither the nomination nor the answer to Question 1 demonstrates any actual need for the mop. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Unfortunately changing to Oppose. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)- I agree. And would actually take that further and say all three answers are rather lightweight: 'sorting out' situations, 'improve more pages,' 'going through the wiki rules' are rather too non-specific to gauge how or when the toolset would actually be used on a daily basis. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
General comments
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 doesn't exist, so why is this at the 2nd page? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yo
Anarchyte, I wondered that too :D but their name is Vin09 2 so the '2' isn't the second RfA, just part of the name. If you get me! —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That would clear it all up,
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but their username is "
Vin09", I'm not seeing any "2" anywhere. You sure about that?
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err.. clearly I didn't get it myself then! I was obviously distracted by the fact that that's a redlink. You're dead right, this must be a second nomination. Curious. —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment : Yes it's a second nomination, but I didn't find older nomination link. As far I remember I've asked once for adminship and didn't get it long back.--
Vin09
(talk) 08:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- When was this? Do you remember the year? I don't understand why a first RFA wouldn't show up and I can't find anything about it in your user contributions. System hiccup? Yintan 08:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- RfA pages are occasionally (but rarely) deleted if they are so badly transcluded as to be unusable- an example- I think; could it be something like that? —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 does not appear to have been deleted.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Boing! said Zebedee; it appears to be a slight confusion between ORCP and the RfA process, that's all. Although I still don't understand why the system thinks there's a previous RfA, but-! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) Do a quick search at the user's archives and contributions, doesn't seems he created anything related to adminship before except this old OCRP. QianCheng 虔诚 09:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vin09 does not appear to have been deleted.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment : Yes it's a second nomination, but I didn't find older nomination link. As far I remember I've asked once for adminship and didn't get it long back.--
Vin09
(talk) 08:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err.. clearly I didn't get it myself then! I was obviously distracted by the fact that that's a redlink. You're dead right, this must be a second nomination. Curious. —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That would clear it all up,
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, but their username is "
Vin09", I'm not seeing any "2" anywhere. You sure about that?
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yo
Anarchyte, I wondered that too :D but their name is Vin09 2 so the '2' isn't the second RfA, just part of the name. If you get me! —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes this was the link:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_1#Vin09, I confused for RFA.--
Vin09
(talk) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The first RFA page didn't seem any deletion log at all, it should move to first page and the second page should mark as G6: Housekeeping deletion. SA 13 Bro ( talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Vin, but if you confuse an OCRP with an RFA you're not ready to be an admin yet. Yintan 09:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also, the timer should be re-set (can it even be?)- They have lost three days! It was only 'live' this morning, so now it's due to end in four days time. A transclusion problem, it seems. Also (re. the discussion above) a 2 was removed from the title with the same edit. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
After the feedback from all the editors, I may not deserve the adminship for now, but will try it future after getting those skills which are required for it. I take positively all support, oppose and neutral comments. I withdraw from this RfA, as I may be taking your valuable editing time.-- Vin09 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2017 (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.