Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I-2-d2

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

[edit] I-2-d2

(Final 0/9/1) ended 11:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I-2-d2 (talk • contribs) – Self nomination, I've been around long enough and think it couldn't hurt to give me a few new tools to play with--I-2-d2 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, slef-nom after all--I-2-d2 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Malformed RfA, less than 500 edits, seems to be nominating themselves to be a part of a "new generation of administrators" [1] which isn't mentioned in the nomination, suggesting deceptiveness. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 08:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose RFA not following the format. User is too new in a sense of experence. 17 main space edits???? --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose per above. Too nclew.Voice-of-All 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits, especially Mainspace edits. Try again when your edit count rises. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong appose 17 mainsapce edits? This user obviously hasn't read any other RfAs before... Viridae^Talk 09:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
6. I don't want you to make the mistake I made when I was younger. You HAVE the potential, my friend, but your editcount is too low. Try again next time. You still have opportunities. Besides, to make it to the sysop list, please answer the questions allocated. That way we can see your capability. Get yourself aquainted to the community. Familiarise yourself. Then, fortify your heart and give it your best shot at adminship.--Tdxiang 09:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose and recommend withdrawal. Normally editors have edit counts into four digits before requesting adminship. Plenty to work on, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Far too little experience to warrant the use of admin tools. This person needs to become more involved with Wikipedia and projects in order to show that the status of admin is justified.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - Sorry but the admin tools are not to play with. Indeed, there's no consistency in your contributions; you've taken long breaks away from Wikipedia and then come now self-nominating yourself?! -- Szvest 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Neutral

1. Neutral (Don't Pile On Neutral) You have very low edit count for a user who was a member since August 2005. Sorry about that. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See I-2-d2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit counts from User:Interiot/Tool2:

Username        I-2-d2
Total edits     229
Distinct pages edited   86
Average edits/page      2.663
First edit      12:52, 16 August 2005
        
(main)  17
Talk    22
User    13
User talk       137
Wikipedia       38
Wikipedia talk  2

Really, A Wikipedian is one who contributes to the mainspace. Like me, you have more talkpage edits than article edits. Improve on that area. I hope to see you again.--Tdxiang 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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:

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:

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.