Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joan53

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.

Joan53[edit]

Final (2/13/4) ended 03:17, May 8, 2006, 10:37p.m. (UTC)

Joan53 (talk · contribs) – Maryland grandmother, former history teacher (was selfnom 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination. Joan53

Support

  1. Moral Support - suggest withdrawing, for there is no history of any one with this low an edit count passing. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Sympathy Support The irony of it all! You have been here for more than one year BUT have only about 12 edits! Try again in about 3 months with at least 2000 edits under your belt. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - way too new, don't get discouraged but a few months and a lot more interaction with the community are needed -- Tawker 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose too soon, not enough experience --rogerd 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose not because of bad qualities, but because there's not enough evidence yet to judge one way or the other. Tyrenius 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry, no moral support here; I suggest withdrawing and coming back in a few months when you have a few thousand edits racked up. _-M o P-_ 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, too new. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - way too premature. Sorry. Metamagician3000 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose—and, I hope the editor takes this in the spirit intended. First, 30 edits (and, if there's anything with which I'm not afflicted, it's editcountitis) as I type this, and four of them are here—there's no history by which to analyze whether you'll be the best admin Wiki has ever known, the worst, or somewhere in between. Second, it doesn't help matters that you've failed 'til now to answer the questions below—again, it's impossible to gauge who you are and want to be at Wiki. Third, there's not even a reason given as to why you'd like the tools. Give it time, show us that adminship is something you'll administer in good faith, and I'll be right there to support you. RadioKirk talk to me 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, only 12 edits and no userpage?? Try again in future. I really suggest you withdraw. --Terence Ong 06:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Bureaucrat please WP:SNOWBALL this. This demonstrates a lack of WP:NPOV. This is not appropriate. - Richardcavell 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Lack of experience. utcursch | talk 08:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Too new. Zaxem 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Don't take this the wrong way, but you are too new to be accepted by the community as an administrator. Looking at your talk page, it is apparent someone said to you "You don't have the power to lock a page". Is that what this is about? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 10:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is, Deskana. She threatened to lock a page, and was told that she cannot. I believe that the RfA is motivated mainly by the desire to protect the Maryland page from editing by WillC. Have a look at this to see why. Rather than deserving admin status, she could use a lesson on achieving consensus. - Richardcavell 11:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'd like to add on to the suggestion for a withdrawal. So early on in your wiki experience you will only get moral supports and opposition for being too new. Do try again in about three months. NSLE (T+C) at 03:53 UTC (2006-05-1)
  2. Please withdraw! It's not worth going through this, because no one will vote for you. Not a reflection on you or the edits that you have made, but simply because you're way too new. --—Mets501talk 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Really, you're too new for us to know you. What you wrote in your self-nom suggests that you don't know what is required of a Wikipedia sysop yet. Kimchi.sg 06:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. The "Questions for the candidate" haven't been answered. I will decide my vote depending on the answers to those questions if they are answered. DarthVader 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See Joan53's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • This is the sort of candidate for whom the proposed low-edit-count template would be appropriate. (See discussion page). - Richardcavell 08:15, 1 May 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:
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
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:
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/Joan53&oldid=1142575257"