Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acebrock

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Acebrock[edit]

Final (5/25/7) ended 04:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn early by bureaucrat. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acebrock (talk · contribs) – I am a fairly experiencd wikipedian (about 600 edits that aren't from marking pages with speedy delete tags, and about 1200 tops with those) and 4 months. My primary reason for wanting adminship is to mainly speedy delete pages under WP:CSD and block people who repeatedly make attack pages. If people stop creating pages or more than a minute (I'm pretty fast) I can check anonymous edits and revert any vandalism coming from bad eggs. Also (and this is a personality flaw on my part I'm sure) I want to see how many times my userpage gets vandalized. Acebrock 03:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination, blah,blah,blah...get on with it already.

Support

  1. moral Support, reccomendation of withdrawing. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, of course™! --Rory096 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support of course Lou franklin 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support Brave to be nominating himself now! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defense, he's actually been on Wikipedia longer than certain other people who have been nommed for adminship lately (*coughtawkercough*) have. --Rory096 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support StabiloBoss 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I didn't quite feel from your answers to the questions below that I could fully trust you with the extra buttons. Also, poor edit summary use and poor RFA formatting (you didn't even sign your self-nom with ~~~~, and placed your RFA at the bottom of the main page rather than at the top). NSLE (T+C) at 04:07 UTC (2006-04-06)
  2. Oppose, sorry not quite yet. I think you're doing a great job with marking pages for deletion under CSD, but I'd like to see more mainspace edits and interaction with the community before adminship. Thx. -- Samir (the scope) 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose- inexperienced, rather terse answers to questions appear to indicate that he hasn't participated in writing articles?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Among other issues, he has only about 700 edits with slightly over 300 to mainspace. Most of the edits do not look very impressive. The answers to the questions below are insuficient. The self-nomination justification is insuficient, the "blah, blah, blah... get on with it" indicates a lack of appreciation for the importance and seriousness of being an admin. JoshuaZ 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, too few edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Just a bit too soon. Keep up the great vandal fighting, remember to use edit summarys (yep, they're really that important) and take a bit more time to learn your way around Wikipedia policies. Look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by poor edit summary? A couple unsigned comments and mistaken situations? I say laugh, learn from it, and move on with my life. Primarily deleting pages under WP:CSD is my idea of wikiwork with extra buttons, plus I won't have to argue with vandals over a single tag, instead I'll get to argue with them over a single page and other admins can do other things. Also check my edits on April 1 when things got real ugly in the sandbox. As for all the mistakes I made, I'm only human, and this is a wiki, mistakes can be corrected, and I rarely make mistakes with speedy delete tags (or was never messaged for an improper one.--Acebrock 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    That's true, but edit summaries are important, and the evidence below shows that for 87% of major edits, you've not used them... and you've only made 7 minor edits in your whole time as a Wikipedian. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. A little too new. Come back in a few months with more experience and we'll see what happens. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose not experienced enough. Also, lack of edit summaries! Computerjoe's talk 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose due to lack of experience. Silensor 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, too new, try again in a few months time. --Terence Ong 08:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, still to green--Looper5920 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per above, but try again in some time Snailwalker | talk 11:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Please use edit summary box. Covington 12:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Nothing personal, but just a tad more experience might go a long way. _-M o P-_ 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for being too new and low edit summary usage for major edits.--Jusjih 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose your answer to question 3. Sorry! The ed17 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (talk) [reply]
  18. Oppose - I don't think you have enough experience yet. Also, if you have 1200 edits of marking articles with the Speedy tag (if I understood your self-nom statement correctly), I don't understand why the "deleted edits" shows only 232. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand of the statement, the candidate is saying that in total, their normal edits + their deleted edits = 1200. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Edit count. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose lack of experience. Eivindt@c 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose No images, inexperience. --Masssiveego 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I must enquire, Massiveego; how does the fact that he hasn't uploaded any images make him inexperienced? _-M o P-_ 00:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, not enough project contributions. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Sounds like this user would want adminship as a trophy. Moe ε 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak, but firmOppose Total edits (at this time) is only 707, poor answers to the questions, has very few user talk edits, and seems to be rushing to get sysoped. Don't take this personally, you can try again in a few months, and have 800+ more edits, then I may put a "strong support" on your next RfA ;) Funnybunny 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose. Only 700 edits in 3 months, weak answers to questions, and not enough edits in the project space. When you have more experience, I just might vote support on your next RfA. Royboycrashfan 04:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. First edit! I'd like to know a little bit more about what you plan to do with admin before I change my vote. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan to do exactly as I say, My recent history is pretty much only the speedy delete tags. I don't overstep my borders much. Also I'm only human and I can make mistakes, and, since this is a wiki, misakes can be corrected. (more edit conflicts perhaps?)(too many more negative comments and I stop checking this for a while, this is depressing, and I say specific targets of my past instead of massive generalizations)--Acebrock 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I don't have a problem with low edit counts, but I can't see that Acebrock is reliable and knowledgeable so that he might use the tools correctly. This isn't a 'no' vote, it's an invitation for him to demonstrate his ability. - Richardcavell 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, too little experience on Wikipedia to become an admin yet. Keep practicing and reapply in a month or two. JIP | Talk 06:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, no need to further pile on the oppose votes, but.. A lot of the votes above state that you need more experience, and I hope you'll understand in what way those comments are meant. Even if you had (correctly) speedy tagged over 3000 articles, I'd still feel very uncomfortable in handing you the admin mop. It's no problem if you decide to specialise as a Wikipedian: if you happen to have fun with new pages patrol and you have a sufficient grasp on policy to decide about which pages need to go, then it would be a great help to Wikipedia if you had a delete button. However, I believe you need some experience in more areas to get that sufficient grasp on policy and the way things work around here. If you don't know how it is to create page and work on expanding it, it is hard to understand how it might feel for a new editor to see his very recently created page deleted without any explanation whatsoever. Also, if you've never done any recent changes patrolling, looking for vandalism, or if you've never had to find a specific addition in the history of an article, you won't understand the value of edit summaries. Giving someone without any experiences like these a delete and block button is creating the perfect conditions for some very frustrated well meaning but clueless newbies. So in my opinion, it's not just more experience that you need, but more experience in different areas. --JoanneB 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, the user seems reliable, however I would prefer waiting with this nomination for 2-3 months and then I would fully support him. Acebrock, you still have my moral support. --Tone 12:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, come back in a couple months. Get some more main space editing experience under your belt, and I will support next time around.--Adam (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Don't want to contribute to a pile on; don't want to support this user at present. Rob Church (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 13% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 7 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Acebrock's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • User actually has only about 200 deleted edits and 700 undeleted edits. --Rory096 08:39, 6 April 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Speedy deleting pages and reverting vandalism mostly, other matters as they come up
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Marking pages with speedy deletions always made me happy, though a little bored, because I felt I was doing a lot to help the encyclopedia,
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had a few short conflicts with people who did not want their page deleted but these usually resolved themselves in short order, usually with the page getting deleted by an admin.


The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Acebrock&oldid=1089732772"