Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetman16 2

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

[edit] Hornetman16

Final (0/8/0); Closed at 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[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: Maintianing the paramiter and policies of Wikipedia. This place is in need of as many Admins as possible to keep vandalism down!

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

A: Template:Infobox championship & Philippians 4:13. They were both desparetly (I'm not the best speller) needed. The championship infobox had been suggested before but wasn't brought into reality till I took action.As for Philippians 4:13, John 3:16 (one of my fav. verses), had an artice cause it was well quoted like 4:13. But 4;13 didn't get an article till I took action and now it's in the middle of becoming full article like John 3:16!!

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: Yes, I dealt with it by relizing I'm only 16 and I may not know as much as they do. So, I take a break and cool down and when I've cooled down, I come back and talk like the MATURE TEENAGER I am!

[edit] General comments

• Links for USERNAME: Hornetman16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hornetman16 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• Hornetman, this isn't a good idea - having an RfA so soon after you've been in a controversial dispute and after your recent blocks is bound to fail. You need to keep your head down for a while, be civil and try to become more familiar with our policies. At the moment your contributions suggest that while you're eager (which is a good thing), you lack the right temperament for adminship. I suggest you abandon this nom and postpone seeking adminship for some time while you gain the respect and trust of the community. WjBscribe 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just me a honest chance is all I'm asking for...If I abuse just take them away and I'll go back to normal just please give me a chance...you won't be sorry!-- Hornetman16 05:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I uderstand the hothead I've been...I'm sorry and trying to prove I not evil but it's hard to do that when ya'll put me down the way you are. Is so much to give a chance. Give me a test for adminship. I do anything but wait months or even year. all I want is a chance!-- Hornetman16 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to !vote here, but I'd urge you to heed what the others here are saying. To be an admin, you have to demonstrate that you follow policy. I also suggest you look at a number of the recent successful RFAs to look at how the candidates answer questions. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • To start with, you might want to reconsider your supposed interview with the local press. Corvus cornix 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No. You have to prove to us that you actually deserve a chance. Adminship is no big deal, but we do not give the bit indiscriminately either. —Kurykh 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Very strong oppose, due to user's recent conduct at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007_June 23#Image:NRT6 2001.jpg, and the userpage fiasco, and the edit warring with Deskana to keep a fair use image on his userpage. Sean William @ 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. I rarely oppose RfAs, but this one - please, Hornetman, I really think you need a better handle on policy before even thinking about an RfA. At least another 6 months. Riana (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Strongest oppose possible. Per this discussion, Hornetman is more interested in going to court to force Wikipedia to conform to his demands, than he is in finding consensus. He should have been blocked for the legal threats, not promoted to admin. Although he originally signed up quite a while back, he also does not have enough time here for strong experience as to what Wikipedia is all about. And Philippians 4:13 is still a stub, this is the edit he's most proud of? Corvus cornix 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible oppose - I rarely oppose RfAs either, but your behaviour to-date has been problematic, to say the least. Your conversation on Commons yesterday showed an severe lack of knowledge of policy, esp. around copyrights. Furthermore, your treatment of User:BaRiMzI only two hours ago almost had you blocked for revert-warring and incivility. It's on your talk page right now. So far, you've behaved like a total hothead, screaming and demanding that you are right and "by God's will", you'll get what you want. This is not what being an admin is about - Alison ☺ 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. Sorry, but your edits are inconsistent (according to This), and I think you should take more time looking over the policies as Riana said. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Very strong oppose - I have taken a look at your talk page, and see that you have several miscounts on fair use pictures. There seemed to be a fuss going on, and sorry to say this but you don't seem to have a civil mind when dealing with these things. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 05:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Absolutely not. "Mature teenager"? Recent actions speak otherwise. My user talk page still has some of the evidence against that in plain view. Whining about how an image should be deleted with no rational rationale whatsoever, and could only be calmed down by an appeal to his religion. I was almost about to block this user indefinitely in exasperation if I didn't step away and go to sleep during the image incident. Temperament and ability to be an admin are blatantly absent at the current time. And if these damning statements sound very forceful, Hornetman, imagine what I was contending with during your fit. —Kurykh 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Corvus cornix. While you have your personal opinions about the picture, we need to make decisions based on Wikipedia policy and on reasoned discussion, not on personal feelings and vague threats of getting on the news. Personally, I don't think the picture really does much for the article about the bike ride, especially since there are other pictures that illustrate the article. (And how do those guys ride naked without getting saddle sores?) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Per the recent IFD discussion.--Chaser - T 05:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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.