Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AdamRetchless.09

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] AdamRetchless; (6/4/1), vote ends 00:29, 5 April 2004

Hello. I would like admin status so that I can quickly revert vandalism. I've been doing that more and more recently and it is becoming a pain. I'm sure you know how to see my work, so I won't comment on it. I dislike conflict and would rather walk-away from a minor dispute rather than enter an edit war. I also am generally annoyed by locked pages, so I won't lock them lightly (but I won't unlock them without reason either). I've witnessed a couple edit wars recently (Fascism and DNA), so I have a feel for how those things go. After many years of internet arguing, I think I've learned how to (almost) completely avoid getting agitated over arguments or trolling. I also feel that I am good at finding answers to my questions about Wikipedia and I accept criticism from fellow Wikipedians. Finally, as I understand admin'n, this is not a commitment to constantly be involved. Just so you know, I am likely to disappear for months at a time and then reappear and do a barrage of editing for a few months. I hope to have many years of contributions ahead of me, so a few months isn't a big deal. AdamRetchless 00:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Should I notify my co-authors that I am seeking admin status?

Clarification: I asked about my co-authors only because they are the most familiar with my style of interaction on Wikipedia. I understand that sysop powers such as protecting should be used to keep Wikipedia working, not make an article "right". AdamRetchless 21:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Not a huge contributor, but knows what he's doing and has demonstrated impartiality and calmness in POV disputes. Mkweise 07:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. - Woodrow 12:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. LUDRAMAN | T 16:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Meelar 01:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Adam seems to know what he's doing; the fact that he's been with the project for 1-2 years is a plus--Plato 23:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Moncrief 09:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. You seem like a good guy, and I like what you said in your nomination. Please renominate yourself (or remind me to nominate you) when you get to 1000 edits or so. 437 just isn't enough for me. moink 00:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. All users should have the ability to revert quickly. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 00:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Err... there is a "rollback" button for admins that facilitates their reverting duties. ugen64 23:47, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with moink and have issues with any request for adminship directed solely at article you edit on. (Else, why the reference to "co-authors" that you are seeking admin status?) - Texture 15:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not enough edits -- Graham :) | Talk 21:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. From his edits, he seems like a solid and cautious contributor that can be trusted not to abuse his power. He also seems a little too new. I'd prefer to wait for a renomination in a few weeks before I support. Isomorphic 03:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)