Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jet

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] Jet

FINAL (1/11/0); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jet (talk · contribs) - I'm have been editing Wikipedia for one year. I requested to be an admin two times. I have been adopted by User:Dev920 in April 2007. I changed my username from Jet123 to Jet in August 2007. I know Wikipedia rules. I have never been blocked because I don't violate Wikipedia rules. I don't vandalized Wikipedia pages. I will not blocked users often and will assist other users and admins. I will not abuse my admin tools. Please make me an admin. Thank you. Jet (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. Jet (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (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 will take part in deleting requested deletion pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are fixing grammar and spelling.
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, I have never had been in conflicts with other users.

[edit] Questions from — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ

1. Could you please explain what exactly you would do with the admin tools further?
2. Why should I support you to become an administrator? I'm sorry to say this, but your extremely short and vague answers have not convinced me yet.
3. What are the differences between the three types of deletion processes?
4. Why do you wish to become an administrator on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Would you mind expanding on your answers a bit? I appreciate the enthusiasm, but more fleshed-out responses to the questions might help commenters in their evaluation of your potential as an administrator. --jonny-mt 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. I'm sure you're a great editor, but perhaps now is not the best time to become an admin. I suggest you withdraw, and follow advice given by the pile-on opposers below. Majorly (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. No. Various reasons, not least of which is my concern that this user just doesn't have enough experience. Also, they have very unappealing answers. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Your statement, answer to questions, comments about "steps to be an admin", the comment on your talk page from your adopter and your low monthly contribs gives the impression that you lack the experience and understanding of Wikipedia and administrators to become an admin. Please get more experience on Wikipedia, and not just as a "step to becoming an admin" but because you love this project and love contributing here. Sarah 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Your answers are very short, too short to even consider supporting your adminship, and you don't seem very enthusiastic about it. I'm sorry, but they're just simply too vague. I see you only have 1,912 total edits, and you aren't using your edit summary 100%, which is is another concern. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I am opposing due to the fact that your answers are way too short. I would expect that a candiate requesting for adminship would write more longer, detailed responses showing exactly what they will use the tools for. You haven't convinced me enough. I will be happy to change to support if you can elaborate more on your responses. JayJ47 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, sorry, but not at this time. Your answers are a little too short for me, and your lack of any solid recent contributions is a little worrying. You definitely seem to have the right attitude, so with the right work in the future I would be happy to support you. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
  6. Oppose – I m sorry Jet but in reading your talk page, even you mentor does not believe you are ready yet. If he/she cannot support you, I feel it is a little unrealistic to expect a majority of the community to express a support opinion, I believe with some more experience you would be a welcome addition. However, at this time no. Shoessss |  Chat  12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Virtually no contribs in 8 months, with a Wikibreak sign on the user page. A huge number of deleted pages, nearly all of which are in the user's space. I would recommend 3000 or so more edits in admin related areas and article building before trying again. I would recommend paying more attention to mentor's instructions. Could not find link to talk archives, so had trouble reviewing talk pages. The low level of activity is worrisome in that policy and views on consensus evolve over time and user simply has not been keeping up with the rest of the community. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    PS I know it's not against the rules to blank one's talk archives. However, I believe an admin needs to communicate clearly and as transparently as possible. Blanking the talk page archives made it harder to review them and harder to evaluate your ability to communicate and conflict resolve.Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Lack of contributions and experience. Try again in a few months with much more experience and I will support. NHRHS2010 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Total lack of answers. For any chance of support, I recommend you substantially expand them. Sorry. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Lack of answers to questions, overall this feels like a rushed RfA. Maybe get someone to nominate you next time and spend more time answering questions, along with gaining more overall experience. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose even if he does give better answers. I'm just not impressed by the candidate's overall contribution record. He has just less than 2,000 edits, and a lot of those are "cheap edits" such as welcoming new users, that don't require much thought. I see no commitment whatsoever to building content, and no history of discussions in XFDs and such. I suggest withdrawal. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (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.