Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qrc2006

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.

[edit] Qrc2006

Final (1/13/0) Ended Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:10:37 (UTC)

Qrc2006 (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Qrc2006 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept the nomination Qrc2006 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC):

I LOVE WIKIPEDIA its like my obession passtime hobby and yeah i tell everyone about it i take pictures and upload them and yeah, im totally sorry for going to peoples talk pages and asking them to vote for me, i so didnt know that was out of bounds, hmm mayble ill add it to the intro to nominations for admins so no one does the same mistake i did, hahaha cuz i found out its a sure way to get lots of OPPOSES!!!!

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? any which i could be helpful with, alltho i would try and find one/some that im intereste withd Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and 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?
Im very pleased with my edits to Richmond, California since the page was dismal and full of ebonical rhetoric and unsourced statements before i dove into it, i learned how to make boxes for a weather chart, a rainfall chart, a city councilmembers chart, i took some pictures with my camera, i googles lots of stuff, added lots of statistics and patrol it a lot since its regularly vandalised, just today someone switched the vice mayor with a councilmember saying that that councilmember was the new vice mayor, while the city's website says otherwise, while another user added for the 4th time an unacceptable pic of a tract house, but its an album cover so it cant be used on the page (butt.jpg) i belive, what else i learned to copyedit without adding info, then adding the info and it made me write articles about some neighborhoods in the city, and then someone made a box for it and it encouraged me to write an article about every neighborhood in the city and put them in the city box, then i added parks and schools and shopping centers malls trunk roads politcal organizations it all just kinda came together i also like the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline article i made and the one for the band Los Abandoned i also did campus bay, richmond, california MacDonald 80 Shopping Center Irma A. Anderson Parchester Village Richmond Annex WestCat Gitanas Richmond City Council (Richmond, California and the disambiguation page between that and the Richmond, BC one and i also wrote every article but one on the [ [ Category:Children's books with LGBT themes ] ] King & King is my best, every single one, except heather has two momies!:
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?
yes i have, but they all got resolved (eventually) and i have often been stressed out, usually because i was confused and ignorant or how to do whatever i wanted to do, or i was wrong haha, a few times there was offense like with symantics, someone insisted on refering to gay people as homosexuals and i got offeneded and when he called me one again, i used some cuss words, but that only invalidated my arguements since the cuss words were all he saw, using wikipedia has taught me how to dialogue if anything and not argue, but why not just find out and to reach amicable agreements whenever possible. in the future i will continue to learn and probably make some mistakes, but not as many since i am more experianced with this medium and id like to help make this project even better
Comments
Username        Qrc2006
Total edits     3239
Distinct pages edited   1183
Average edits/page      2.738
First edit      09:05, 4 April 2006
        
(main)  2643
Talk    173
User    31
User talk       110
Image   75
Template        111
Category        9
Category talk   9
Wikipedia       74
Wikipedia talk  2
Portal  2

Support

  1. Support

--Komunysta 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I have actually followed this user's progress over time, and I think he is quite sincere in his efforts to improve himself and in actually helping Wikipedia improve. Although I do see that he is still in the learning process, my gut feeling is that this is someone trying hard to contribute and I don't mind giving him that opportunity. We should not become so elitist here that we close the door to people because they are not 100% immersed in the wikipedia conventions. I fully support his efforts and will certainly continue tracking his progress and ensuring he continue to learn the ways of wiki. :) Good luck to all.

Comments - He is fully welcome to keep contributing. By necessity, the administrator "pool" must be elitist. Once he has learned the "ways of the wiki", as you put it, then people here might consider him seriously. The necessity of this, is that an administrator can do a huge amount of damage to the community if he is as childish as the diffs below seem to indicate. --Storkk 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Malformed RfA, not transcluded on the main RfA page (at time of writing), and spamming random users asking them to vote. Despite having over 3000 edits, for those reasons, I must oppose. — FireFox (talk) 16:51, 07 September 2006
  2. Oppose. I also question the seriousness of this RfA. --ElKevbo 16:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose - user is seems unfamiliar with WP conventions, policies and guidelines. --Storkk 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I also strongly disagree with spamming my talk page in order to gain votes. --Storkk 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - user personally attacked me in an edit summary. When I spoke to him about it on his talk page, he responded with confusing, unapologetic and rude reply. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC
  5. Oppose - User isn't familiar with our policies. --Alex (talk here) 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also hasn't filled out this RFA properly, and this comment on a talk page --Alex (talk here) 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - If he can't fill out the form I'm not about to trust him with the tools. --StuffOfInterest 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per these 3 edits. Everything about that diff is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, and we need administrators to maintain some level of maturity as representatives of the community. alphaChimp(talk) 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Another edit characterizes homosexuals as "fags" [1]. Whether or not this is in jest, it's deeply innapropriate to express such sentiment within this community. alphaChimp(talk) 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose and suggest withdrawal or early closure. No demonstrated need for the tools or knowledge of how they would be used or even what they are. This doesn't mean the candidate shouldn't remain with the project as an editor if he has contributions to make, but I suggest that he withdraw the RfA at this time. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose. Malformed RFA. Doesn't even meet my "low" standards for a support. Likely to need WP:SNOW. -- RM 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I expect a high level of professionalism from admins, even in the details. The details, even in this RfA, including his bolding of answers, terrible grammar and punctuation as well as the cavalier attitude seriously turns me off. Akradecki 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Well, the reasons are clear here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible before it piles up. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong oppose diffs provided above (by Alex & Alphachimp for example) show manifest unfitness for adminship. Pete.Hurd 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per diffs above. --Kbdank71 19:03, 7 September 2006 (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.