Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adriaan 1

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

[edit] Adriaan_1

(0/10/0) Ended 21:58

Adriaan_1 (talk • contribs) – A South African interested in creating articles relating to South Africa and improving those already in existence. Scotteh 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.

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 like to improve and create articles relating to South Africa.

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

A: Not really, I'm pleased with all in the same way.

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 created an article about a band and it was deleted. There was some slight misunderstandings but the result was that the article was deleted.

[edit] Comments

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

1. Answers indicate no need for tools, userpage blatantly advertises RFA? – Chacor 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I never knew I was not allowed to. I shall remove it then. --Scotteh 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Make this STRONG OPPOSE. I don't usually bold my "!votes" nowadays, but accusations of racism, as per below, no-no. WP:NPA, WP:CIV. – Chacor 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   So in cases of racism should I just shut up and eat the white man's rudeness in stead of politely indicating that he could remove his race bias? --Scotteh 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose Sorry, you seem like a find editor, but you have fewer than 600 edits to Wikipedia which means there just isn't enough evidence available to support you. You can create and improve articles related to any subject without the admin tools - your nomination and answers to the standard questions should explain why you want them. Come back when you've got a few thousand more edits and have contributed to activities such as recent changes patrol and articles for deletion debates. Good luck, Gwernol 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Also comments like this one are inappropriate for any user, let alone an admin. Gwernol 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Why is it inappropriate? This is starting to sound racist. Are you biased because I live in Africa? --Scotteh 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Its is deeply incivil, and I find the accusation of racism to be misplaced and not the conduct I would expect of an admin; I had no idea where you lived until you just told me. I have changed my opinion to STRONG oppose based on this candidate's lack of good faith. Gwernol 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Please, assume good faith. As an administrator, you will be quite pressed in several situations (in example, when deleting an article about a forum that is not notable but many new users think it is, when you need to mediate between others, etc). In those situations, even if offended, you need to stay cool, and judge what is better for Wikipedia, and not for you. Even if the article is (I haven't seen it), you need to be civil, neutral and helpful. -- ReyBrujo 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Please come back after you meet over half our required standards and have a firm grasp of what Wikipedia:Administrators do around here. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   <flabbergasted>[1]</flabbergasted> --  Netsnipe  ►  18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per above - no reason this user needs the tools, under 1000 edits, no clear devotion to the project, mention of above comments, etc. Michael 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Gwernol and Mike. --Guinnog 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose and speedily close per Chacor and rest of above. Doesn't currently fit any of the administrator standards, and violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. No offense, but you don't need to be an administrator or have the tools to edit articles related to South Africa. You can do it now. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   You really don't need to climb onto the civil wagon too. I wasn't being uncivil, I only defended myself against people who were using their racist bias between the lines. But obviously you all appear to oppose the adminship of Africans. --Scotteh 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per everything said above. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Civility concerns raised by his comment to Netsnipe here, lack of experience and no demonstrated need for the tools. Suggest withdrawal. TigerShark 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose & Recommendation of withdrawal. Merely from the diffs provided by the previous opposers, this user does not seem to be able to act with maturiry in tense situations. That alone is a reason to oppose granting of administrative tools. Plus, there is very little experience in the Wikipedia space, and use of edit summaries is too low. To add to that, he shows no need for such tools. I'm sorry to have to say all this, Adriaan_1, but it shows that you are definitely not admin material. Please consider withdrawal. Picaroon9288•talk 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Personal attack. But no-one would say anything. Why? Because it's against me. --Scotteh 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

• See Adriaan_1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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.