Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rickyc123

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

Final (3/13/4); ended 13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW Kostas20142 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyc123 (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Rickyc123 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 intend to improve and stop vandalism on pages relating to MMA and the UFC.

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

A: I believe that my best contributions to Wikipedia are my creation of the UFC 217, UFC 218 and the UFC 219 articles which are set to garner around 1.5 million pageviews each.

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: I have been accused in the past of creating articles for UFC Fighters too early or before they are notable however I have successfully contested these by showing how the articles I have created fall under the criteria needed for notable fighters.

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.

• Links for Rickyc123: Rickyc123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rickyc123 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

1. Moral Support This RfA will almost certainly not be successful, but I don't just want to pile-on oppose. Wait a year or so, and you'll probably be ready. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral Support WP:NOTNOW per edit count. try again next year. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral Support I am sure you will win with a great margin, at your next RfA! I am sure to support in your next RfA as well. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Only AfD contribution is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhian Brewster (2nd nomination), where they seem to have the minority view. Sorry, I'll only give candidates a free pass on AfD if they have a strong track record of some exceptional and rare skill (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2). Also, half the articles you have created have been deleted, which is a major red flag. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. You have made fewer than 1000 edits to Wikipedia, so you don't have the relevant level of experience. Please read WP:NOTNOW, where you'll find that adminship is not for new users. — sparklism ^hey! 12:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. WP:NOTNOW - You've got some pretty good work under your belt, especially for someone who's only been at it for a few months. Keep er goin and I'm sure you'll make a fine admin one day. GMG^talk 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Your mainspace contributions are largely limited to only one or two topic areas. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Didn't complete the nomination; WP:NOTNOW. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Does not meet my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW; adminship is not for new users. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Not even a full year of editing experience, almost half of the pages created have been deleted, not enough experience in multiple fields, and can't even fill out a self-nom form right. WP:SNOW may apply here, if not definitely WP:NOTNOW. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose No experience, no motivation beyond a narrow subject. Hell, no. Fbergo (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per everyone else. Flipyap 13:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose for how you did the nomination part. You also said you would stop vandalism if you were an admin, but I haven't seen significant counter-vandalism work on you. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Sorry, but I simply don't see the experience necessary to be an admin. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. NOTNOW Does not meet my criteria. I appreciate the candidates good faith offer to serve but they are simply not qualified right now. Please don't get discouraged. You need some time and experience. Consider coming back in a year or two. In the meantime I strongly encourage you to withdraw your self nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral support should really be in this section. It bodes well that the candidate transcluded the template correctly, as far as I can tell, and is enthusiastic about a certain topic area. However, that particular topic area is one that's plagued with complicated POV wars, which would absolutely not benefit from having an inexperienced administrator getting into things. It would be a good idea for the candidate to participate constructively in MMA and UFC articles to learn the ropes, and develop beneficial skills which will be an asset to dispute resolution in other areas, and perhaps re-apply in a year or so. Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral support - try again next year - this RFA, I imagine, will not be successful per WP:NOTNOW. You've been here < 1 year and many of your articles aren't up to scratch, I'm afraid. I do think that you are keen and have the right temperament, so hopefully we'll see you here in the future - another year should be enough, I reckon. Note: Due to a suggestion by Ivanvector, I've moved this from Support to Neutral. Patient Zero^talk 12:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support per Ivanvector. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moral support - I won't Oppose on this, but WP:NotNow for sure. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is (currently) no nomination statement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In RfAs like this, there is a fine line between spelling out the most obvious reasons why this is a WP:NOTNOW against beating up the candidate so they don't feel like contributing any more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone NOTNOW this as a courtesy to the candidate? I would, but I don't feel it appropriate while my RfA is the other one up. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2017 (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.