Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/POLLUX

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

I Withdrew my RfA

--Josh, user:POLLUX 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I Thank Those Who Expressed Their Opinions

[edit] POLLUX

Final (0/5/0) ended 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POLLUX (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) –

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this nomination, --Josh, user:POLLUX 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC):

Support

Oppose

::Strong Oppose Malformed RfA, seems more like spam, then an adminship candidate--152.163.100.66 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Anons are not allowed to participate in the process. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when?--152.163.100.66 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They're allowed to participate, but only by commenting, not voting. --Tango 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(Damn, ;) editconflict) Anon users are not allowed to express their supports or opposes, although you can add your comments if you like. You can read the top of the page carefully, if you'd like to know more. Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can express whatever I want to, I assume what you're trying to say is "anon votes don't count" which is obvious--152.163.100.66 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've crossed out the original vote. Alphachimp ^talk 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well don't do that again--152.163.100.66 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, malformed RfA, and though I don't suffer fromeditcountitis, 124 is way too less for me. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   On that topic, do think someone could get around to deleting Template:POLLUX?--152.163.100.66 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose While your edits appear to be good, there are too few to accurately judge if you'll make a good admin. I suggest you come back after a few months of active editing. --Tango 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. while I don't want to attack your contributions, I feel that your answers to the standard questions don't really show a good understanding of what you could do as an administrator. I am also very confused by this malformed nomination. I would encourage you to continue contributing as an editor. Alphachimp ^talk 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Very few edits (less than 500 by a quick precursory look), and much fewer article space edits. Also, malformed RFA--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you all for the note of constuctivness in your oppositions . . . how is my RfA malformed though? --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well, for starters, you listed it at the now deleted Template:POLLUX, for some reason--152.163.100.66 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   However, I fixed that . . . anything else? --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Strong oppose far too new, too few WP edits, no nom, broken signature, questions didn't satisfy me greatly either, causing format problems to the oppose section of the RfA.--Andeh 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're objecting to my signature? --Josh, user:POLLUX 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• POLLUX's edit count using Interiot's tool

Username   POLLUX
Total edits     133
Distinct pages edited   25
Average edits/page      5.320
First edit      14:53, 10 April 2006
        
(main)  24
Talk    5
User    40
User talk       43
Template        1
Wikipedia       20

Added at 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.

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: Most likely, my ongoing goal would be to fairly review all candidates for speedy deletion to make sure all actions are necessary and in accordance with Wikpedia policy.

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

A: I am currently working on an article about my elementary school, P.S. 193, that I am steadily improving the content and its ability to be verified easily.

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: Insofar, I have not had any editing disputes at all, nor do I feel that anyone has caused me undue stress at all, because with the way Wikipedia is run, these problems don't run rampant. Part of every Wikipedian's goal should be to keep the natural order, such as peaceful editing, in balance at all times.

Thank you!

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.