Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipediarules2221

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

Wikipediarules2221

Voice your opinion (1/10/0); Scheduled to end 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediarules2221 (talk · contribs) - Excellent contributor, if I do say so myself ;). I began contributing to Wikipedia in June of 2006 and have really enjoyed my time spent on here. I have really loved fighting the good fight (aka vandal fighting) and making various changes to innumerable articles with the sole intention of making this site a better place for research, and; a favorite of mine, satisfying one's curiosity. Now, I feel that my time could be much better spent with the Mop. Wikipediarules2221 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated myself ;). Wikipediarules2221 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Oh, where do I begin? I think that vandal fighting is extremely important duty, not to mention that vandals have been particularly numerous of late. Furthermore, I would help with closing XfD's, I know that I have been absent from XfD for a little, but that is one of my true joys. I really feel that I could really ease the burden of some overworked admins by spending long hours trying to clear the backlogs. XfD's and Vandal Fighting would be the chores that I feel I could help the most with.

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

A: I feel that my Vandal Fighting has been extremely productive. Everyday, more and more users it seems, find vandalizing the hard work of others who volunteered hours of their time to create a site that can be used by others for research or their great love for learning. I cannot count on my hands the number of times I have visited a site on Wikipedia recently only to find it half empty, or replaced with the word "poop." Vandal fighting is so important to Wikipedia, and I take great pride in the work I have done. Also, I think that welcoming new users is a significant task that needs more emphasis placed on it. I have welcomed many users, and encouraged many anons to create an account because I feel that kindness has the power to encourage users to spend more time contributing to Wikipedia.

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: No, not really. Vandals in general have caused me stressed, but I deal with that by giving them a warning.

General comments

• See Wikipediarules2221's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Wikipediarules2221 has 100% edit summary usage based on last 150 major and minor edits. There is no listing of the user's edits on the talk page. This should be added. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the edits on the talk page because the nominator did not. Just thought I would let people know about this. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support, though I see no chance of this one passing now. I suggest you withdraw (per WP:SNOW) and try again one month later. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If you're that familiar with policy you should realise that there's no need to add a "neutral" for yourself. If vandalism fighting gives you stress, you shouldn't really be an admin. Sorry, firm oppose. – Chacor 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I cannot even explain that neutral vote...It was an accident, I guess. I must have hit something. Sorry about that. Wikipediarules2221 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Sorry, but you've been nearly inactive for the last 3 months or so. I suggest that you get back in the swing of things and then try again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Too new, this rewrite is worriesome which violates almost non notablity every writing policy in wikipedia and shows a very poor misunderstanding of WP:NPOV Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   In fairness I should mention that was one of his earliest edits, about 7 months ago. Didn't most of us make mistakes early on? —Dgies^t c 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose, per above. If you'd like to be an administrator, edits such as the last one will be held against you. So I suggest that you abandon this username and start afresh. When you choose a user name, you're free to choose a jolly one, such as "[something that you like] rules" (as opposed to "sucks"). But you'd be well advised to avoid a username that could be read, or misread, as implying that you are the deliverer of Wikipedia anything, let alone of Wikipedia rules. I'm willing to believe that your username was chosen with the best of intentions, but it can be reasonably interpreted as officious and arrogant. -- Hoary 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   It is possible to change your user name without creating a new account. I don't know how it is done, but it can be done. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflicted) I'm not too fond of this comment. Saying that he should abandon this username just because it says "Wikipedia..." just seems a bit too drastic. He can just get a name change (WP:CHU). It's that easy. Saying "Wikipedia rules" is arrogant? :( Nishkid64 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose - For someone who claims an interest in XfD, your contrib history shows your involvement there is largely limited to two days last October and two days last November. For a vandalism fighter, you have a good track record of warning vandals, but very little posting to WP:AIV which suggests you either lack interest in blocking vandals, and/or are not sufficiently experienced with the blocking criteria. I don't really see a need for the tools. —Dgies^t c 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - the edit that you made, that Jaranda has referred to, contains extensive slabs of text along with 'contributed by Jockbio.com'. That seems to violate what wikipedia is all about. - Richardcavell 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, I made one poor edit in my days as a n00b...that is it? One edit? Wow, excuse me for being human. I made a mistake, I was unfamiliar with policy and I probably just thought that the editor was deleting huge blocks of text. I guess reverting one edit makes me a pathetic candidate for the mop....? Wikipediarules2221 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose You don't seem familiar enough with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, despite your history. John Reaves (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Extremely weak answers to questions, and per John Reaves. I don't trust you with the tools at this time, simply. Daniel.Bryant 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Sorry, but as Dgies demonstrated, your experience with XfD is extremely limited. Plus, your answers to the questions were rather unimpressive. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose not on XfD but w/ respect to a few other concerns -- Tawker 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.