Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach

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] SoaP

Voice your opinion! (0/20/1) Ending 22:33, 2006-08-10

Son of a Peach (talk · contribs) – Hi. This is me, Son of a Peach. I'm self-nomming. I just wanted to see if I had what it took to be an admin. Seems like I need 3k edits...doesn't seem that hard. Anyway, please tell me what I need to be adminned (if I can't be adminned already). Thanks, SoaP 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Downlow

  • Edit Count: ?
  • Time Around: ?
  • Edit Summaries: Atch...
  • Mistakes: Some
  • E-mail: Yes
  • Userpage: ...
  • Any edit warring/blocks?: One block by Cyde.
  • FA participation?: What is FA?


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I doth accepteth! SoaP 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Comments
To clear something up: I don't usually use edit summaries because when I do most of my edits, they are on newly created articles. If I want to cover all new additions before any more come out, I don't have time to leave an edit summary. Wither that, or I'm forces to leave it very short, sometimes only having time to slap the keyboard. SoaP
 Somebody please fill in my edits
Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I cannot support a candidate with less than 250 edits. Suggest withdrawl and reapplication later. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per my block, lmao. --Cyde Weys 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per a sloppily written RfA, particularly this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - too new. Please give it some time. GeorgeMoney (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose OK, it appears you are using this RfA in order to recieve some advice. If I were you, I'd get 1000 mainspace edits, join a few wikiprojects, participate in xfDs, and most importantly, show wikipedia you are civil, process-savvy, and dedicated. Your recent block for trolling doesn't really help the situation. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, and FA is a featured article. Try and get one under your belt before applying again. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Opppose lack of experience/incivility (according to admin Cyde Weys. Strongly suggest withdrawal of RfA.--Andeh 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose and speedy de-list please. Themindset 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Fewer than 500 edits and less than one month experience is not enough. Michael 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose this user has been blocked twice in the last 6 weeks for disruption and trolling, has a consistent history of inappropriate edit summary usage (e.g. [1]) and has recently been making personal attacks. Plus low edit-count, malformed RfA etc. as already listed. Nowhere near ready to be an admin. Gwernol 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I originally removed the nomination due to the greatly malformed nomination, and previous blocks for disruption. I apologize if that was wrong, but this seems to be a forgone conclusion. Perhaps you should try Wikipedia:Editor review, as someone else suggested. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Candidate is on the verge of an indef block for disruptive behavior. Even assuming good faith, his continued refusal to use coherent edit summaries does not do his reputation any good. --InShaneee 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Needs more quality experience and less of this and this. --Kbdank71 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I like immature humor as much as the next guy, but really...Put your sense of humor to better use instead of vandalizing, and I'll be happy to support. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. The Biggest RFA Oppose...EVER! For being a newbie who has been blocked twice for trolling (although I don't mean to bite him). Please speedy withdraw this nom ASAP. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Here, here!! :) Dlohcierekim 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Most comments on his talk page are regarding his poor behavior. Aren't I Obscure? 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Withdrawl suggested. G.He 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose all of the above. --Masssiveego 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per all above. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Suggest withdrawl —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-10 20:36Z
  20. Strong oppose way too new. Also, your behavior does not manifest qualities necessary for an administrator. Wikipediarules2221 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Try reading other RfA's and Editor review for advice on how to achieve admin status. Best of luck in the future, AdamBiswanger1 16:49, 10 August 2006 (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.