Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam1213/old

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.

Please read what I have said below before voting and just saying not enough edits

Support

Oppose

  1. I will be delisting this nomination. Its good faith, but you're just too new. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This user only has around 150 edits, despite making first edit in May 2005. He also did not show a command of Wikipedia editing in creating this self-nomination. The answers to the questions do not show a grasp of policy or basic Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe, if you continue for another six to eight months with good, Wikipedia editing, we can revisit this nomination. Until then, I cannot approve this nomination. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as above. Many of the small number of edits were to own user page to boot. Fawcett5 00:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Lack of edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov 00:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. You are joking right? You don't meet a single one of my standards. --Maru (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. While this user has been around since May 25, he has only been truly active on Wikipedia for about three days. It is much too soon for the community to make an informed decision on Adam1213's trustworthiness. --Allen3 talk 02:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: this really shouldn't have proceeded.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The user claims having removed lots of vandalism while in fact, a good part of the removals wasn't vandalism at all. - Introvert talk 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. In addition to leaving notes that he removed vandalism, he is leaving behind new original vandalism in the same edit! At least on some. Strange case this Jekell and Hyde. Stbalbach 05:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

You cant rate a user on how many edits they make entirerly. I have removed lots of vandalism quickly. Try prove me worse than a user that has been on wikipedia a long time. There edits will be greater. But does this mean that if I was an admin and they were an admin they would do a better job? I really dont think so at all, they will contributed to a lot of articles, I will do the same but also remove a lot of vandalism.

Think of the huge ammount of things that I will acomplish for wikipedia not what I already have.

I have found admins with below 1200 edits

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I will remove vandalism very fast. I will speak about ideas to change certaint things about the GUI and if aproved changed them
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Yes all of them but mainly the ones where I removed vandalism in not to long.
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 have seen this, I think that on the talk page the reasons to add or delete something need to be stated this alone can even fix this problem. But an admin might need to help them get in to negotiating

I have an idea on making it faster to find people vandalising. There needs to be a search function for in artciles and a list of pages with commonly used vandalsit's words (boring, is the king, is shit)

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.