Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] ^demon

Final (0/10/2) ended 13:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

^demon (talk · contribs) – Chad has been a member of the English Wikipedia for a while now, and has over 250 edits, across a variety of topics. Recently, he has become quite active around AfD, CSD, and CVU. He has tried to be fair, and has backed off several deletion requests when his arguments were proven wrong (failure of WP:MUSIC mostly). ^demon 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw my nomination. I appreciate the positive feedback, and perhaps I will try again in a few months. Thanks again. -^demon 13:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I, of course, support myself in this self-nomination for Adminship. -^demon 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Removed, per Linuxbeak. -^demon 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose 250 edit?! See the unofficial standards for adminship. I'm sure you'll be great one day, but more experience is needed. Xoloz 17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I'm sorry; you're obviously well meaning, and you have had an account for several months now. However, you have only recently started heavily editing, and as of this vote you only had around 80 mainspace edits. I'm not one for editcounting, but you have not been active enough to be able to make informed administrator decisions. Come back when you have some more editing and community experience. Also, as a sidenote: self-noms do not get a "nominators vote". Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for now. From what we have to work with, you seem competent and all that. But the reason for wanting some level of edit count is so that we have a large sample of your work. Come back in a few months and I'd be happy to support. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Slightly editcountitis, and my only brush with the user was a premature CSD (in my opinion) on an article by an experienced editor [1]. --Syrthiss 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Opppose for now, more experience is needed for consideration. Hall Monitor 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Far far far too early to tell candidate's fitness. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. While good-intentioned, this has very little likelihood of passing. Further pile-oners will be shot on site. I urge ^demon to withdraw this nom. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not being a pile-on, as freedback to the candidate should always be helpful. It appears that you do not have enough experience across the areas of wikipedia to be ready yet (e.g. categories, templates, projects). A good way to get more experience would be to join a WikiProject to work on something. xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose highly suggest candidate withdraws. freestylefrappe 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose ^demon is an ok user but try reappling in about 2-3 months. Try to get you edit count up and keep on making good contributions and I will support one day. — Moe ε 16:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Fails to meet my minimal standards for adminship (1000 edits, 3 months on Wikipedia), but otherwise seems OK. I will perhaps support him if he gets more active and reapplies in January or February. — JIP | Talk 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Not yet, sorry. Try again in a few months, when you've got at least thousand edits; good work up to now, though. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I urge ^demon to withdraw this nom. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I second the request. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask the candidate to use edit summary more often (that is probably not necessary when voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but is necessary when editing articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Everyone was once new, including me. I encourage ^demon to edit, contribute, and talk more – I am sure very shortly, the wish of ^demon to be an administrator shall be fulfilled. --Bhadani 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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. As I am already highly active around AfD and CSD, I would like to help clean up the deletion process, and make it as painless as possible, trying to be fair to all parties concerned. While it is a duty of the Arbitration Committee, I feel that I can also lend an impartial voice in many debates, helping to stop edit wars and POV forks, before they get out of hand. This ties in with my work at CVU, which I believe to be vital to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandals are something that I have no tolerance for, and should be dealt with as such.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I cannot say that I've contributed significant content to any article, as my writing style is rather informal, and I am nowhere nearly as knowledgable about subjects as their primary authors. However, I do keep a special eye on Ctrl+Alt+Del and Ikonboard. I also wish to become more involved in the Chesterfield, Va article, as well as do some work on My school's article.
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. Yes. I feel that a major one I was involved in was the naming convention of L'Arc~en~Ciel. It had been improperly named with hyphens rather than with the tilde. The band uses the tilde, and as such, the naming should've reflected that. A heated debate was carried out on the article's talk page. Eventually, a consensus was reached to use the tilde, even though one user still disagreed quite heatedly. I've also dealt with a vandalism of my user page. This user had been making vandalizations all day, so his username was reported to WP:CVU.


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.