Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Purplefeltangel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Purplefeltangel
Final (1/10/2) ending 06:40 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I have known this gentleman for quite some time and I am convinced he shall make a significant contribution to Wikipedia as an administrator. Any review of his recent record should convince you of the same. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination Not Accepted.
Support
- Strong support Just look at her sterling record, folksRainbowwarrior1977 06:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- No. —Cryptic (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry 466 edits [1] is no where near enuf. Highly recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination, as it's sure to fail, and only can serve as a distraction to the nominee (and anyone else visiting this page). Note: Nominator only has 19 edits[2]--way too soon to be nominating users here (also doesn't even know where to leave messages[3])(also seems to have trouble determining gender--"gentleman" v. "her"). Niteowlneils 07:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- As per Cryptic, I have to oppose this nomination. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Our edit counter stops at 466, and considering that one of the edits is vandalism, there is no way that I can support this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose edit count is much too small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Cannot trust him now because he has only 466 edits. I'll vote for you if you edit more and become more familiar with wikipedia--Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm sorry, but I see quite a few questionable-at-best edits in the contribution history which lead me to strongly suspect that the user has a very poor knowledge of policy (I would consider letting the edit that Cryptic pointing out slide if it were the only questionable edit, but it seems to only be the worst example.) Not so much the edit count, though. If re-nominated later, I will consider supporting. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose vandalism is never funny. Especially not when you do it right before an RfA. There's also this helpful contribution, and this hidden away in an HTML comment, which I have just reverted. I wonder about the seriousness of this nomination, to be honest, given the nominator's 48 hour exisntence and the nominees behvaiour. -Splash 17:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I am the nominee and I have never met this person before. I have no idea who he is and why he's referring to me as a "gentleman." I think this was not a good-faith nomination. And Cryptic is absolutely right; I have vandalized a page, so why should I be an admin? ♥purplefeltangel 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. I'm not entirely sure this is a good-faith nomination; the candidate wasn't even told she was being nominated. I'll wait until she has a chance to answer the questions before I vote. --Scimitar parley 17:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Scimitar, though 466 edits is below my threshold to support. Jonathunder 17:13, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
Comments
- 466, with one vandalism--Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- As this user is not going to pass by any chance (and perhaps even doesn't know about the vote) I /strongly/ recommend to remove it from voting. Pavel Vozenilek 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since the user wasn't notified about the vote until today (by me), I recommend she be given a chance to answer the questions. I, for one, am curious as to whether this was even a good faith nomination. At the very least, it will help show Purplefeltangel Wikipedian standards for admins, as well as the community view of even humorous vandalism. As it does no harm for it to stay the seven days, I would suggest letting the vote run its course. If the bureaucrats disagree, I cede the argument to their judgement. --Scimitar parley 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd really like it if the nomination was removed. I'm well aware of Wikipedia policies; to tell you the truth the reason I vandalized the HBP page was because I was bored on the day it came out. Considering that, I see no reason why this should stay. ♥purplefeltangel 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since the user wasn't notified about the vote until today (by me), I recommend she be given a chance to answer the questions. I, for one, am curious as to whether this was even a good faith nomination. At the very least, it will help show Purplefeltangel Wikipedian standards for admins, as well as the community view of even humorous vandalism. As it does no harm for it to stay the seven days, I would suggest letting the vote run its course. If the bureaucrats disagree, I cede the argument to their judgement. --Scimitar parley 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
- A.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A.
