Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foundby

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

[edit] Foundby

(0/15/1); Ended 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Yes.--Foundby 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

--Foundby 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

I am pleased with everything because I am a Wikiholic.--Foundby 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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:

I never brought this up. Forget about the past, you can't change it. But since it has been brought up here goes: --Foundby 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per this and the surrounding conflict. Agathoclea 09:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters I gave User:Pethr this:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Apparantly you have none Foundby 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--Foundby 16:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After that the conflict escalated. --Foundby 16:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding with Adolf Hitler

• Look, I really didn't want to discourage you from editing, even less so offend you in any way. You are of course welcomed to edit whatever you want but especialy on established articles it's better to discuss radical changes on talk page or improving upon work that has been already done. It is also necessary to follow certain rules included in WP:Manual of style and other guidelines (you'll find many more links on MoS page). I hope you understand and wish you luck.--Pethr 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Please take the criticism mildly and consider it an advice on what things you are not supposed to do here. Thank you.--Pethr 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Thank you very much!:) Really unexpected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was so excited about the barnstar that I forgot to sign.:-D Thank you once more.--Pethr 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry for another message, but friend asked me whether your barnstar comment means [Apparantly you have none...] "barnstar" or "humor". So how did you mean that?:)--Pethr 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to fix up the grammar and sentence structure of your text before adding it to Adolf Hitler. Nobody can have "the whole article to work on" for 24 hours when it's such a high-traffic page. I suggest you work on your text in a text editor on your own computer, and only add it when you've got it grammatical (and after checking carefully that you don't revert any improvements to it that may have happened in the meantime). At any rate, don't revert me again or I'm afraid I'll have to block you from editing for violating the WP:3RR rule. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Could you explain on the talk page why you keep changing the text to bullet-point form. This is contrary to established style. Paul B 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's comments repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Pethr 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was my last edit. read the edit history of talk page. sigh! --Foundby 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read your edit summary. However, it doesn't justify that you repeatedly removed other user' comments despite beeing politely said not to do so at least two times. Please try to understand this. I really thought we had resolved this yesterday. Thank you.--Pethr 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since I couldnt edit the main page cuase you reverted it, it is my right to remove inflamatory comments regarding me on the talk page. --Foundby 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no "inflamatory comments", other users have said you so already too.

And no, I'm not "purposely trying to start a scuffle, so it will look good when [I] apply for adminship." You really don't realize that you did something you were not supposed to do and repeated it many times on article and its talk page as well? If other users really wanted to pursue you and didn't look at your contributions, you'd be banned from editing by now. I think that we are all trying to resolve this dispute as peacefully as possible. Please try to understand. Thank you.--Pethr 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And then you can say I resolved it peacfully in the request of adminship, so I must become Admin? --Foundby 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thing we better end this conversation now. I strongly recommend you read and reread No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Thank you.--Pethr 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Foundby&site=en.wikipedia.org

Total Edit Count 652. --Foundby 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Definitely not for very obvious lack of understanding of RFA and wiki process. – Chacor 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand the wiki process. --Foundby 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   If it is so obvious my lack of understanding of RFA please do tell. I am in the blue. --Foundby 15:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose for lack of experience and no need for tools. Suggest withdrawal. -- Gogo Dodo 07:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   I refuse to concede defeat. --Foundby 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   I need the tools unless there is another admin willing to do all work and make it to 0, the above back log. --Foundby 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose lack of experience, Response to #1 shows lack of understanding of role of admin. SkierRMH 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why is there a lack of understanding. Please do tell. Because I am refusing to concede defeat. --Foundby 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Not enough experience and demonstrated Wiki knowledge, which would be required for Admin tools to be granted. •CHILLDOUBT• 08:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose the other admins will finish the tasks mentioned in my answer to question #1? Most admins don't do anything other than blocking users. I need the tools unless there is another admin willing to do all work and make it to 0, the above back log. --Foundby 15:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose for your lack of understanding about what makes a FA and your attitude in this RFA. And everything above --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   If it is so obvious my lack of understanding of RFA please do tell. I am in the blue. --Foundby 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per this and the surrounding conflict. Agathoclea 09:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   See answer to the question of #3. --Foundby 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Automatic Oppose. Did you copy from another page, the answer to no.1? The other two questions are also lacking. Also, after reading the Featured article candidate page that you contributed in, it is clear that you need more experience in that, and 585 edits is not enough (I expect at least 1500), but feel free to come back when you've got more experience. Insanephantom (Editor Review) 09:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes I did to show what the Admins jobs are, and what they are not doing. Most of the admins just block users, that's it. --Foundby 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose clearly a potentially dedicated user. Perhpas you'd prefer to start out by helping with the many non-administrative maintenance tasks to gain more experience first. --Robdurbar 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose To say that his answers are lacking would be quite the understatement. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Opposefor strong misunderstanding of process (especially RfA); you need to do your homework and read up on the history before making a request liek this. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    If it is so obvious my lack of understanding of RFA please do tell. I am in the blue. --Foundby 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose and suggest witdrawal. You haven't been here long enough and don't have enough edits. Plus your answers aren't good. Keep workign on it and maybe in 6 months you'll be ready for this. --Wizardman 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    I refuse to concede defeat. --Foundby 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose consider withdrawing.. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    I refuse to concede defeat. --Foundby 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose Normally, I wouldn't even bother piling on to an RfA that's this lopsided, but since the user says he "refuse[s] to concede defeat", I guess I'll add my two cents. Wikipedia is a consensus-based project. An obstinate refusal to consider opposing points of view is not productive, and certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind in this particular forum. I'm sure you can make good contributions here; hang out for a while as a regular editor and see how the process works. Maybe re-apply for adminship after a while. But for now, seriously, please withdraw. Coemgenus 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    P.S. Why is the numbering all messed up on this page? Is this a new format, or just an aberration? Coemgenus 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose per lack of experience and a malformed RfA application. You need a lot more experience in every aspect of Wikipedia - articles, user Talk pages, policy and process to name but a few. Work hard and come back in a year. (aeropagitica) 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    No I want the tools now. --Foundby 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose, what a ridiculous answer to #1. -- Renesis (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral if only in the hope that you might listen to someone who doesn't oppose. Please withdraw and spend some time familiarising yourself with the way Wikipedia works. No-one wants an RfA with masses of criticism and opposes. Most of us are lovely people. Please don't make us vote oppose en masse. If you stand again in six months, please drop a line on my talk page and let me know. --Dweller 15:58, 10 January 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.