Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bread

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

[edit] The Bread

Final (2/5/6) Ended 22:35, 2006-11-7 (UTC)

The Bread (talk • contribs) – Hey, hey. I've been a member at Wikipedia since Febuary, I think. I am a prominent member of WP:BLA, and a member of the Good article Wiiproject, and I recently joined WP:FILM and WP:RU. Other than those Wikiprojects, I spend most of my time at the Metal Gear related pages. As for Wikipedia related stuff I am a regular contributor here at WP:RFA, and I do my best to participate in as many WP:XFD's as I can. While my edit count is sorta low for a prospective admin 2100approx (I don't even pass my onw criteria).. It will greatly increase as I participate in Admin related tasks. My reasons for nominating myself is that I believe that we need more admins who will simply listen to the Noobs and ordinary users. Is it time for The Bread?

Have at it

†he Bread 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Hell yes †he Bread 03:19, 7 November 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Namely (Mainly?) WP:XFD stuff, i will focus mainly on WP:TFD as I always seems to have a sizeable backlog, but also WP:AFD ect. Also I'd like to do mak sure that WP:3RR is enforced more often, I frequently have encounters involving 4 or 5 reverts at the Metal Gear pages and not being an admin, I can't do anything about.

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

A: Mainly my work on getting Rocky to GA standard in recent weeks and also my contributions for Wikiproject Blackadder in creating (most of the) forth series of Blackadder articles and the first series of Blackadder articles as it allowed us to complete our first goal as well as assisting in some "guideline" related stuff

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: Copied from editor review Ha ha ha, This is a good question. I admit that I have been in more than one discussion that got a bit out of hand, It was over the picture of Solid Snake on the Solid Snake page, I wanted Old Snake and pretty stubbornly refused to use another picture thanscripts of that arguement can be found here and here. My second one was at List of recurring Metal Gear characters over whether Gray Fox should have his own article, this was a curiopus one, despite have an overwhelming majority in favour of Gray Fox being a standalone the opposing user refused to listen to our well thought out and organised (initially) arguement using various WP guidelines and insited we listen to his own interpretation of WP:FICT and in the end went running to the CVG project to find someone else who agreed with him. I claim to have one that arguement despite the opposing user ignoring us and merging Gray Fox into a list. Recently I had an arguement over a user removing an anon's comments form the talk Solid Snake page, I took the high road and sought a thrid party to resolve the dispute wich resulted in the anon's comments staying. All three of my arguments were with the same user A Man In Black (talk • contribs)

Optional question from Dar-Ape (talk · contribs):

Besides XFDs, the main reason you said you are interested in adminship is: "My reasons for nominating myself is that I believe that we need more admins who will simply listen to the Noobs and ordinary users." Could you provide diffs of new users and regular users you have encountered who you think might have been ignored by other admins, but whom you reached out too? Thanks, Dar-Ape 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A: Hey, thanks for the question, I'll have the diffs soon, but, before I get round to it, I see quite alot of new user's questions being ignored, or not answered for a long time, which is what I based my statement on.

General comments

• See The Bread's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

The Bread's editcount summary stats as of 05:35, November 7th 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Note: I'm having Eyesight trouble so please inform me if I missread your questions)

Discussion

Support

1. Of course I support! I have a suggestion though: please watch the way you talk, as it may appear insulting to others, even if it isn't to you. For example, don't call newbies noobs, as many people consider it insulting.--¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm going to go against the flow and Support here - The Bread may not be amazingly active for 9 months, but he is definitely familiar with the wiki, he has 34 edits to Wikipedia:Good article candidates and 7 to WT:RFA, enough for me to have noticed him. My only thing is that you have very few edits, but I believe you've been here long enough to "get" how stuff works. ST47Talk 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You say you're having eyesight trouble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was also your reason for pulling out of the ArbCom nomination race early on. If you thought this would hinder you for the AC, why would you not think that of adminship? I'm not willing to support further based on my criteria. – Chacor 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hi, Bread. Thanks for submitting your RfA. Off to a good start, but I would like to see more experience in general and XfD in particular. I counted ~60 deletion related edits in your last 2000 edits as opposed to ~150 edits to your user page. Hopefully your health problems won't interfer too much. Also, you might want to check for typo's in your nom statement and throughout your RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

   Further comment(Thanks, (aeropagitica) for finding those standards.) I really disagree with Standard 3. One can disagree with someone else and sort through the disagreement without dirt, blood, or fur flying. I think this bears out my impression of contentiousness. You might want to tone that down. The last thing we need is an admin who is spoiling for a fight. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Candidate admits in his opening statement that he would not pass his own adminship criteria. While I personally feel that 2100 edits is sufficient for an admin candidate, putting yourself up for adminship when you don't meet your own criteria is simply hypocritical - and I cannot support a hypocritical adminship nomination. Singopo 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry, but I have to oppose per the above concerns, mainly the fact that you feel you would not pass your own adminship criteria. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per The Halo. Michael 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose Its election day, so I thought I'd come down to the RfA. I have no problems with the fact that you don't meet your own criteria, (I didn't meet my own before my RfA, nor about anyone else's) but certain specific edit counts bother me. (7 to RfA, but 150 to user page?) Steveo2 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Lack of experience (mostly one topic) and Answer 1 bothers me. Are you aware of WP:AN3? Crum375 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. You're a good editor, but your answers don't really convince me. I'm open to persuasion, though. :) riana_dzasta 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral - bothered by inablity to properly upload images[1] --T-rex 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per the other T rex, also some of the images you have uploaded don't have any rationale for being fair use. Answers are a bit unconvincing. T Rex | talk 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral to quote your own criteria: "This is the only one that must be fulfilled Over 3000 edits". Perhaps you can use some of the 800 edit-difference between your ideal and the reality to contribute to XfD discussions and vandalfighting. (aeropagitica) 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Like editor above, I really find it difficult to support a nominee who doesn't meet their own support criteria. It suggests that you do not give others the same benefit that you afford youself, which does not seem becoming of an admin. If you could explain your reasoning for this apparent paradox, then i could be convinced. Rockpocket 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I've come across your edits and you're clearly a good editor, so I will not oppose your RfA. However, I don't think that you have the required edit count, as described above. 0L1 Talk Contribs 19:17 7/11/2006 (UTC)

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.