Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ContagiousTruth

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.

ContagiousTruth[edit]

(nominee signs as Clint)

Final (3/17/4) ended 20:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

ContagiousTruth (talk · contribs) – Self-Nomination. I have been with Wikipedia as a registered member for a relatively short time, but have been lurking and performing minor edits for much longer. Seeing as how useful a tool this site can be for finding information if properly maintained, I'd definitely like to help out. The people in charge are doing a great job, but seeing as how this site gets bigger every day, I know y'all will be needing more manpower in the near future.Clint 11:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I accept my own nomination

User has requested his nomination to be withdrawn per discussion on my talk page. Mike (T C) 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral Support Based on the comments on other users, you will most likely fail in your RFA. The reason I am giving you some support is to give you some encouragement. If you try again in about 3 months with at least 2.000 edits, you might become an admin. In the mean time don't lose hope and keep contributing to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support Keep up the good work, and you'll become an admin eventually. --Go for it! 14:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I am not going to oppose since you have the right qualities, however you need some more time. Post a msg on my talk page in 3 months and I'll nom you. You should also do some janorital tasks in the meantime, like Recent Changes patrol and new page patrol. Unsure how to do it? Leave me a note and ill be happy to help! Mike (T C) 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, but the experience is an issue here. The edit count stops at 167, and those edits would need to be truly extraordinary if they are to provide sufficient experience. Also, participation on deletion related pages like AFD, TFD and CFD is wanting, the same for policy discussions. Try again after you have contributed a while longer, there is still a lot to learn here I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Certainly not. -ZeroTalk 12:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not nearly enough experience, sorry. Of those 167 edits, 36 are to your userpage, leaving 131 other edits, 10 or so of which to talk pages. This is not enough for others to tell how you interact with others, how you would handle conflicts with other editors, etc. You don't need to be an admin to help vandals 'ruin' it, as an editor there's quite a lot you can do and I haven't seen any of that in your contributions. Furthermore, please start using edit summaries while editing! --JoanneB 12:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, but definitely no. I'm not even going to bother adding my questions. You have too much inexperience for me to trust you with the extra buttons. If you keep up good editing, get balanced edits, and use edit summaries consistently, and come back in four months, I'd be glad to support. NSLE (T+C) at 12:26 UTC (2006-03-08)
  5. Nowhere near required experience, name space edit count, edit summaries... Lots of things are missing in this nominee right now. Staxringold 12:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opppose. As per above. Also, I'd like to see a higher use of edit summaries. I suggest withdrawing and trying again sometime in the future. Please don't let all of the oppose votes discourage you though. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards to get an idea of what voters are looking for in an administrator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Self-nom should really only happen if you truly feel you've been overlooked for a long time and have an impressive history of great edits and contributions. The list of admins with sub-250 edits at time of nomination is extremely short. Nice to see ambition but a long, long way to go. Deizio 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose and suggest the nominee withdraw this. Keep building the encyclopedia, using a descriptive summary for every edit, and in half a year or so consider doing this. Jonathunder 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose no way. KI 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Amoral oppose It must be frustrating to you to see this string of opposes when you really haven't done anything wrong except vollunteer to take on more responsibilities. However, I think you'll find that if you keep up your strong level of contributions then other uses will be willing to support you sooner than you think. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Its mean to pile on, but this will make sure Contagious Truth will understand the qualities needed for an admin are much greater than what he first anticipated. I recommend a withdrawal as well DaGizzaChat © 19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Object – per common sense. --Off! 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Far too soon, and far too few edits to genuinely encyclopaedic topics. CT, please withdraw, nobody wants to see you humiliated. And please please get stuck into the stuff that relies on treeware to document! Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Needs more experience contributing in most areas of the project. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I'd give it some time kid. --Rob from NY 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for all the reasons above. --BWD (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for now, as per above. sorry. --kingboyk 05:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per above --Ugur Basak 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)/s> [reply]

Marking out. Nomination has already been admonished. -ZeroTalk 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose . Thank you for trying, you are just too new. pschemp | talk 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is withdrawn. Please desist furthur voting. -ZeroTalk 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Don't get discouraged Neutral It doesn't seem like this RFA will pass, but don't let that get you down. Keep up your editing, tred into different areas of Wikipedia, and in 3-4 months I'm sure this will go much better :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More "supportive" neutral. I second what Lightdarkness is saying. It's great that you want to be more involved. Get more experience under your belt and try again in a few months. :) --Fang Aili 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Later. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, as per lightdarkness and Fang Aili. Get more experience, and then try again. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 2% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 103 major and 1 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See ContagiousTruth's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. I would particularly like to help out with regards to stopping vandalism and with preventing people from ruining Wikipedia. As a moderator for the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Official Forums, I know how annoying fake information/news, vandalism, trolls, etc. can be, and I'd like to help prevent that here too. I figure the tools I'd probably be using most would be the quick revert, hiding vandalism, and enforcing arbitration.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The contributions I'm particularly proud of would be the expansion of Strake Jesuit College Preparatory and University of St. Thomas (Texas). While those articles were not written by me, I have helped expand them from minor stub articles into full fledged articles that truly give information about the schools (which I attended).
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 only point of conflict I've had was with the Mortal Kombat: Unchained page. I originally posted it when I found out that no one had made an article for the game, and it was immediately put up for deletion because the MK WikiProject hadn't heard of the game. They pointed out that they had no proof of the game (I had probably acted prematurely in that I didn't finish the article before posting it), so I showed them the proof and added the links from IGN, etc. into the article itself. I ended up joining the WikiProject as well.


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/ContagiousTruth&oldid=1142576768"