Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Footballfan190

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

[edit] Footballfan190

Closed as unccessful by Keegan. Keegan^talk 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I want to take part in making Wikipedia a good website

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: animals, because I look for information ALOT of the time I am on the internet.

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: No, but if I run into it, the users will get 2 warnings and then a block.

[edit] General comments

• Links for Footballfan190: Footballfan190 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Footballfan190 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

1. Strong oppose for vandalism and WP:BLP issues such as this, this incivility, and two examples of vandalism (here and here) within two hours of his RFA starting. This user is closer to an indefinite block than adminiship. Metros (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Alright, first of all, I'm going to ask you to please withdraw. Perhaps you do not understand what Wikipedia is looking for in a good admin - see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Wikipedia looks for people that are well established here and that have been making constructive contributions for a good amount of time. Your answers to the questions are also not very informative or specific. I suggest you continue editing and read up on Wikipedia policies so that you can edit constructively and not attack other editors. In maybe a year, if you shape up and start making constructive edits and establish yourself here as a good editor, you can request adminship again. Timmeh^contribs 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Please withdraw. I am in strong belief that you do not take RFAs seriously, given that your answers were nothing short of comical. For one, if a user has vandalized, you give them the appropriate range of warnings per individual case (i.e. four warning templates followed by a block, or on a per-case basis), not a "two-block" deal. Second, your incivility and vandalism is disheartening for someone who wants to be an administrator, and who would have a great chance of abusing that power if so granted based upon prior edits. Please begin taking Wikipedia more seriously. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Metros AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

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.