Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceres3

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.

Contents

[edit] Ceres3

Closed per WP:SNOW by Melsaran (talk)
(0/9/2); Ended 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceres3 (talk · contribs) - I have been reverting vandalism for a long time, and I know that I don't need to be an admin to do it. However, I have come accross many times when I give a warning after, and I cannot block them. Also, I have many pages to delete and many other admin-required tasks to do. Of course I can nominate these, but Normally it would make more sense to have it FAST. Coastergeekperson04 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocking, deleting, etc. as well as other tasks that I have come across.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions are my reverting ones, like one person changed "Wales is a European..." to "Wales is a shit" and I think that revert was my best.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only stressful edits are when I come accross edit conflicts, I can't seem to save my edit, because of someone else... Also, When I use MWT I hate that "Example has reverted first, be mindful and give him or her a barnstar"

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ceres3 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Candidate - It would be best if you withdrew per WP:SNOW. Do not be discouraged, and pleasev take note of the valued discussion below. Your valued contributions so far are much appreciated. Pedro |  Chat  20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Sorry, but no - at this time, I don't feel comfortable supporting you. For one, your answer to the first question indicates only a vague understanding of adminship. Secondly, you have only 600 edits (not to editcount), and thirdly you have less and than 100 edits to the project space and you have more edits to your userspace than to even the mainspace. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. After reviewing this editor's contributions, I didn't find anything that stuck out as terrible mistakes or evidence of possible mop abuse, however, I don't believe this editor has enough experience yet. The last 100 or so edits were all reverts using WP:MWT. Not to lean too heavily on editcountitis, it will be extraordinarily difficult to pass an RFA with only 646 edits. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more edits in the mainspace, because, after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Useight 06:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I don't believe you are ready to become an administrator right now. Regards, Sebi (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please try to avoid sounding bitey. More constructively, I'd like to add my recommendation that the candidate read over and familiarize himself with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, which can be found here. Good luck in the future. Useight 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Are you asking me to read the policies, etc, or are you asking the candidate? And I've reworded my statement. Sebi (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, sorry, the way that was worded was kind of ambiguous. I was recommending that the candidate read over the policies. I have changed my wording above for clarification. Useight 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. No at the moment. This user has potential, but doesn't have any background regarding admin areas in the project space. --Hirohisat Kiwi 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Your counter-vandalism efforts are appreciated but I can't really see a great need for you to have admin tools. I'd suggest withdrawing your RfA and trying again after building up some more experience in a wider range of areas here :) Keep up the good work. Pursey 09:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'll also note, don't be frustrated by other people getting in and reverting first. It happens. It just means Wikipedia have a lot of people that work hard to keep it clean and usable. Yourself included! :) Pursey 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose per above comments and that fake new messages thing - it's a bit irresponsible-- Phoenix 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. NHRHS2010 Talk 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. If your best contribution is a silly revert and the biggest conflict you've ever been in is an edit conflict, then you're not ready for adminship. Also, your user page design is clearly based on Wikihermit's and Jimbo's, and, by not attributing it to them, you are violating the GFDL. Admins are supposed to have knowledge of copyright laws. Please withdraw this RfA and start actually contributing to the mainspace (check out WP:RA) and participating at XFDs and other admin-related areas and try again in the future. For now, oppose. --Boricuaeddie 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose Low edit count, lack of experience, and I dont think it's time for you yet! Suggest withdrawl before WP:SNOW. Politics rule 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Normally in such a situation, I would go with a moral support, but the fake new messages bar spoils that for me. Please consider getting rid of, it's really annoying. —AldeBaer 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral The editor is a good vandal fighter but participation in admin related Wikipedia space pages is allmost non-existent. -Icewedge 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Please don't be discouraged. Nothing wrong with you. It's just that Wikipedia adminship has a bunch of requirements, that's all. One thing, though: I think it's less confusing if your signature and your username are both the same. --Coppertwig 16:14, 1 September 2007 (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.