Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/klingoncowboy4

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

[edit] klingoncowboy4

Ended 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

klingoncowboy4 (talk • contribs) – Klingoncowboy4 has used contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. He can be traced to editing at least 40 different pages and has participated in VFDs. Respectful, he has not gotten into and fights. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Klingoncowboy4 hereby accept this self-nomination for adminship.

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 anticipate mostly doing deletion work though other sysop work wouldn't go unexpected.

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

A: The contribution that I am most proud of would be the images I have added to the year articles.

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: Although I have not gotten into an edit war I have had a few articles that I have created deleted due to notability issues. I wouldn't say that these have caused me stress and even though I disagree with these deletion decisions I respect them. When I run into these conflicts in the future I will still oppose them in AFD but respect the decision should it come to delete.

Comments

• See klingoncowboy4's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Current tally: (1/11/1)

Support

1. Weak support. Good editing, but it seems you need to do some more if you want to have a successful RFA. Mostly Rainy 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, currently under 700 edits[1], though they appear to be a great editor, I fear the user doesn't have enough experience to be an admin just yet and would suggest withdrawing their RfA. Andeh 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, without digging deeper than the user's talkpage, it is clear klingoncowboy4 doesn't understand Wikipedia's image policy very well, even though he lists his image contribs as something he's proud of. Also, there are a mere 56 WP space edits, and they are nearly all to things related to afd or userboxes. That, along with a miniscule amount of talkpage contribs, doesn't show very much involvement with communitry. Not to mention the fact the he doesn't seem to understand the rfa process at all: first, it is not made clear enough that this is a selfnom; second, the questions weren't answered before this rfa was posted. I'm really sorry that I have to pile on the criticism, but it is all valid and relevant. Picaroon9288|ta co 03:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose too few contributions for me to make a valid judgement about your suitability. Of your 700 edits I count over 160 (more than 20%) are to your userpage. It took you several attempts to get this RfA right, and your answers to the standard questions are weak and non-specific - perhaps quoting a few diffs to illustrate would be good. I know its a long time ago but only a relatively small number edits back you created the bizarre Wikipedia_Members_whose_relatives_have_known_Lenin article. I'm not able to support you right now. Sorry, Gwernol 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, needs more contributions and experience, especially on talkpages and the Wikipedia main space. Also, very low usage of edit summaries (around 31% for major edits).--TBCTaLk?!? 03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Withdraw This RFA has no way of succeeding. Very few edits and self nomination is suicidal over here. --Ageo020 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

   Note three of our last 17 successful RfA candidates have been self-noms, so while a nominator is a good idea its not esential. Gwernol 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Medium-Weak Oppose, Sorry, not enough activity, also not enough information about why this person should become a sysop. try to up your activity, come back in a few months. sorry -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose, nothing egregious to make me want to say that this candidate should not be an administrator, but simply too few contributions at this point. No prejudice to renomination in the future, and best of luck until then. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, not enough experience and low edit count. Try again in future. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. A good editor who needs some more time and experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose, under 300 mainspace edits. Lack of experience anyhow. Even his mainspace edits are very, very far from Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. this article he created or this vote he casted against his own article. A lot of his edits are unimportant [2] ; moreover, he sometimes make over 5 continuous edits in the same article, so his factual edit count should be even lower. Aran|heru|nar 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - the nomination hasn't been written well, the question answers are short and rushed and the edit count is very low. Sorry. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 12:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral tending to oppose. 699 edits is far too few to suggest that you have enough experience to be an admin on WP. I suggest that you go for an editor review and get involved in Wikiprojects for a while. Come back again in ~3000 edits/four months' time. I also suggest that this RfA is closed early to avoid the pile-on above.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:39, 31 August 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.