Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acetic Acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doh. Withdrawing nomination, I didn't realize he hasn't been here even two months. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acetic Acid

Vote here (5/5/2) ending 02:29 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Acetic Acid (talk • contribs) - Acetic Acid has been awarded exceptional newcomer awards and several barnstars. He is a very friendly and funny guy. I'm sure most of you recognize him as he can be found in the mainnamespace, wikipedia namespace, he interacts with other users a lot (7 Archives, not too shabby.), and many other reasons. I believe he has proved himself responsible, and an asset to the Wikipedian community. And for those with Edit Countitus, he has over 2,000 edits, which is the amount Essjay and I had when we won our RfA's --Redwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm honored that Redwolf24 would nominate me, but I'm afraid I don't meet my own standards. :) Thank you to all who voted. I'll try again at the end of October. Acetic'^Acid 20:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Support

1. 1337ness!!! Redwolf24 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme lesbian support --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
3. Despite the dispute we had on my RfB, or perhaps because of it, I feel I can confidently support Acetic Acid. Good luck. Andre (talk) 02:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. My watchlist tells me he's very in the community and policy related pages. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Hmm thought you were one. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. While he is a notable candidate, he has only been here since July 23. That, according to the standards that others have been judged on, is much, much too short. Secondly, only about 200 edits in article namespace; his edits count is high mainly because he welcomes others; no sysop powers are needed for that. All in all, he still needs about a month more experience.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   July 23 is over a month ago ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   Ive heard it through the grapevine that the standard is atleast 3 months :). To oppose others, but support him on that ground would be unfair

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   Most people I know make exceptions for people they personally know. And now I am gonna stop disrupting this RfA ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Ambi 03:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
3. A good dude, but not enough article edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
4. A month and a half isn't enough experience even if you have ten thousand edits. —Cryptic (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose, like the others said, not enough experience. Acetic Acid, please answer the candidate questions below. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for four reasons: 1. Not enough time. 2. I remember when he first came here, on RFA, and made some rather hostile comments toward others being nominated (eg ThomasK), considering his complete lack of experience at the time. He had the ripe smell of a sockpuppet. 3. Not nearly enough article contributions, either. This is an encyclopedia foremost. Can Acetic Acid live up to his requirements as he laid out to Jtkiefer:

   "You just haven't been here long enough to get the full Wiki experience. Your answers to the questions below prove that you are not quite ready. You haven't been in any major conflicts. I believe it is important to experience them at some point so we can see how you handle it. You also said most of your edits were minor. That sells my vote right away. Take the plunge and write a few articles. I'm sure you would do an amazing job."

   Oh, and 4. I've vowed never to vote Oppose, so I'm stuck with Neutral. It is up to others to decide if my comments merit consideration, and to vote accordingly. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:30

   Please note that he didn't nominate himself, I nominated him, and without his permission, he has yet to even accept the nom. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   I concur with Brian

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

2. Neutral. Too soon, too soon. Everything else says "yes", but not yet. If this fails, try again after October 23, and things will be different. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please 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.