Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/80-MAN

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.

[edit] 80-MAN

remove by bureaucrat with (1/12/1) ending 04:30 December 19, 2005 (UTC)

80-MAN (talk • contribs) –Self Nomination. I've been around for almost a year and a half (July 4, 2004 to be more precise). I do something on Wikipedia every day, or every other day, even if it's just reverting vandalism or spelling. A majority of the work that I have done is related to music or musicians, but also some other articles that I have some sort of interest to. I've made major contributions to many articles, started a few from scratch. I mainly want to be an administrator to make rolling back vandalism easier. 80-MAN 04:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination with all my heart! --80-MAN 04:30, December 12, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Apparently well-intentioned. --Anglius 20:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Very few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Not to sound editcountitis-stricken but this user has only 368 edits per Interiot's new tool. There is a total lack of edit summaries. Has only 1 Wikipedia namespace edit apart from editing on this RFA (which took him 10 tries to get right).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not an editcount person generally, but there is a lower limit lurking somewhere in the back of my head as an unformed notion, and 400 edits is below it. Strongly suggest nomination withdrawl to candidate; edit more (perhaps by becoming active in copyediting and maintenance), and make a new request in six months. Xoloz 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, talk page has only three comments (it went almost a full year without any comments), almost nonexistent use of edit summaries, 368 edits in a year and a half is too little. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Sorry, no. Too little, not good enough yet. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now. On the right track. Doesn't warn vandals. ESkog | ^Talk 15:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose fro above reasons. Low edit counts and not enough edit summaires. Olorin28 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose for above reasons. --Merovingian 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose.Far too low an edit count, not enough edit summary usage, only four comments now on talk page. Please wait, get around Wikipedia more and then try again in a few more months.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I'm not one for piling on, but your lack of edit summaries is close to disturbing - when fighting vandalism this is not helpful to anyone who may also be watching. Lack of warning vandals is not good either if you're tracking vandalism, so I cannot say I'm surprised by your answer to Q1 ("so far I have not come across many individuals who are determined enough to authorize blocking"). Lack of Wikipedia space edits does not neccessarily mean anything, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 11:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Has never used a User Talk, not even their own. xaosflux ^T/_C 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now; needs more time and experience first. Hall Monitor 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Seems like a fine editor, but not nearly enough edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Should be more involved/interested in general running of Wikipedia if he's interested in being an admin. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments I am aware of my lack of providing edit summaries in the past. The reason for this was because I was unaware of its importance, and how vital it is. As of recently, however, I have been much more strict about edit summaries and their role in Wikipedia. (80-MAN) 05:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Dealing with vandalism over Wikipedia is something I wish to do more often, and the rollback feature would help me expand patrolling past my watchlist. I would assume helping with correcting or deleting 'no source' images, working on requested moves, and going through the speedy deletion category. I would most likely place temporary blocks on vandal IPs, although so far I have not come across many individuals who are determined enough to authorize blocking.

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

A. Yes, I'm very pleased with many of the articles that I have contributed and created. These are some of the articles that I have created from scratch, The Used, Smile Empty Soul, Bert McCracken, Quinn Allman, Jeph Howard, Branden Steineckert, George Ouzounian. I am very pleased with the fact that I have started them, and many helpful people came and edited more information to these articles. Because of this, these articles are what they are today.

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 have not had any form of conflict with any user in my days of using wikipedia. Nobody so far has given me any stress, problems etc. If I was to experience stress, I would take care of it by discussing with the person in a reasonable manner. Lashing out at somebody would definitely not help out the situation at hand.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.