Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JakeDHS07

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

[edit] JakeDHS07

Final(0/14/1) Ended 20:58, July 18, 2006

JakeDHS07 (talk • contribs) – Very Trustworthy & Well Liked JakeDHS07 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose, doesn't know what he's doing. --CharlotteWebb 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. About 80 edits in three months, not even in the ballpark. Fan-1967 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose this is the user's second attempt to create this RfA today and its still malformed. With under 100 edits there is no way to judge this user's suitability for the admin tools. Please consider withdrawal. Thanks, Gwernol 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   I've updated my comment from Oppose to Strong Oppose based on the fact that JakeDHS07 took a barnstar from my userpage and added to his own. When asked about this he admitted [1] it was put there with the purpose of falsely advancing his prospects in this RfA. He then removed my comment about this from his talk page [2]. I consider these dishonest actions to be completely unworthy of a potential admin and a slap in the face to Wikipedia and the RfA process. Gwernol 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose, as what Gwernol said above --Alex9891 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   Now strong oppose, on seeing the description of the user - there is no way to tell this through fewer than 100 edits. --Alex9891 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Sorry, but there is no way you are ready. When it is time the responsibility will come to you rather than you having to go to it. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too soon. 1ne 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - even setting aside the number of edits, his last edit before today (7/18) was on June 12, more than 5 weeks ago. That's not admin material. Gwernol is right. Please consider withdrawal. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, very few edits in User talk: namespace, no edits in the Talk: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, and most of the edits in Wikipedia: namespace are to this RFA. It's impossible to tell what kind of admin someone would be without reviewing their contributions in those areas. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose per Gwernol. I suggest immediate withdrawal. Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose. Recent actions by user demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, if not outright contempt for the RfA process. Dancter 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose without prejudice - As far as I'm concerned, you're far too new here. Please spend a little time, perhaps edit some more articles and make yourself mroe familiar with our policies and guidelines. I'm not saying that you'll never be an admin, but it's kind of hard to support when I haven't even heard of you. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose. To new. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose for all above. Not to be offensive to Jake, but this RfA is startlingly similar to this one, but it is better formed. Fredil Yupigo 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, please come back when you have more experience. Naconkantari 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I suggest withdrawing from this RfA. If you have any questions on how to become more involved in Wikipedia, please contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Also, if you want some more experienced advice, perhaps sign up for admin coaching. This program will set you up with a mentor of sorts who is currently an administrator on Wikipedia. He/She will be happy and eager to help you exlpore new areas of Wikipedia. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I copied this RfA just as the directions stated. If there is a error I would surely like to be alerted.As far as the edits go I try to make sure the information I add is completely beneficial and necessary before I add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JakeDHS07 (talk • contribs) .

You didn't sign your acceptance, and you didn't replace the "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" text with your statement about why you should be an admin. As for edit count: the admin tools give users a reasonable amount of power, particularly to delete articles and block users from editing. A badly-intentioned user who misued these tools could wreak havoc on Wikipedia. So we want to make sure that users who get the admin tools know what they're doing and will react well under the stress of being an admin. Its impossible to judge that about you after only 80 edits. If you had, say, 2500 edits there would be enough of a record to understand your contributions to Wikipedia and your reaction to stressful situations. That's the reason for the oppose votes above. Gwernol 18:56, 18 July 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: I can delete malicous or offensive articles and help keep wikipedia up to date and accurate.

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

A: I am pleased with my work on the King Of The Ring article I made some adjustments when it returned to SmackDown in 2006

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 never had any issues but if I did have one I would leave a message on the users talk page.

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.