Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Admiral Roo

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

[edit] Admiral Roo

Vote here (1/12/3) ending 12:19 September 16, 2005 (UTC) Admiral Roo (talk • contribs) - Your nomination/description of the user --Admiral Roo 12:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. No good reason to oppose. --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose- 1000 edits overall, less than 500 to article namespace. In my opinion, not yet experienced enough to be an administrator. Sorry. --Scimitar ^parley 14:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Good start, but more experience is needed. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Maybe later. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose until you format the description properly. Andre (talk) 19:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Admiral Roo made a comment in the AfD for Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina that leads me to question his understanding of the AfD process, a key aspect of Wikipedia for any administrator to fully understand. Specifically, he wrote "For keeping, we have 27. For deleating, we have 32. Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed." This seems to imply that he thought a simple majority vote constitutes consensus to delete. Please note that this vote is not based on any feelings I might have about that Afd - I have voted to support many admin candidates who have cast AfD/VfD votes against me (including at least one who I voted for shortly after he had voted to delete in this very same AfD). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Couldn't manage to set up his self-nom correctly, a bad sign for someone who would like to be an admin. A bit more experience in the "Ways of the Wiki" is required. Fawcett5 21:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose Lack of edit summaries. Also, use the preview button a bit more often. Oleg Alexandrov 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose—shows inexperience in that he hasnt set up his nomination conventionally, nor has he accepted his own nomination. Also, the "one sentence" answers to the questions doesn't show that much thought was put into them. A good editor nevertheless.

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

9. Oppose, You're off to a good start, but you only have 1000 edits, and a quarter of those are at User pages. I am close to support, but you need more edits, and next time, give better answers to the questions, and format your request properly. -GregAsche (talk) 00:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose;'. Notice how he says he would ban or block users? Admins should know that we can't unilatterly ban someone. We need ArbCom or Jimbo... An admin should at least know the meaning of 'ban' in my opinion... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
11. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose. A good editor and contributor, but a bit too little experience. Also agree with BD2412, Journalist and Redwolf24. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Good user. I see no reason to oppose. My general test is if ($potentialgain - $potentialharm => 0) then support, else oppose. However, I don't think Admiral Roo would do any harm; I am sure of his good faith. However, I am not convinced he could technically handle the tools, given the problems he seems to have had nominating himself. For next time, a better self-description would help. [[smoddy]] 19:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

   Meh, you don't think it's easier to use our tools then use RFA? :P Anyway, I kinda doubt many people will support without a description of yourself, and you should probably remove that line where your supposed to accept the nomination. --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

   [1] Point taken. [[smoddy]] 20:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Please come back when you have closer to 2000 edits and some experience in a few admin type jobs (reverting vandals, WP:AFD, patroling WP:NP etc...) then there will be no problem at all. Martin 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Trustworthy but inexperienced editor. Expand your work in article space and take on some admin-like duties (WP:AFD, new page patrol, for example) and I'll gladly support in a few months. I have no doubt you'll make a good admin, you just need more time. :-) android79 01:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Admiral Roo has just over 1000 edits, but under 400 distinct pages edited. He/She does not seem to use the Minor change, or Show preview options. I have nothing againt Roo, I just want to see him/her do what a good editor, let alone sysop, would do (better edit summaries, etc.). Sorry Roo. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• It seems that I am a few months away from getting admin status, and it seems mostly due to my lack of technical expertees to wikipedia. I have taken all of your comments to try to improve myself in the future, starting now. Thank you all. Perhaps next time I will be ready.  :) --Admiral Roo 03:42, September 10, 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A Banning or blocking of users who continuously spam or otherwise vandalize current event pages.

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

A Veterinary Technology. Because I want to become a Vet Tech.

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 As far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, no, I have not.