Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel

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] The Haunted Angel

Final (0/4/1) Ended 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) – I wish to nominate myself for Adminship; I have been editing Wikipedia since March earlier this year. Not the longest time, I know, but my seriousness in editing this site cannot be disputed. I have done my very best for editing Wikipedia in the almost-year I have been here, and as time has gone on my edits have become more in-depth, serious and frequent. I have been on RC patrol for a while now, and that combined with my watching of many other pages has prompted me to nominate myself for Adminship to help cut down vandalism. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I choose to withdraw. All the points that have been made are valid, and I appreciate all imput made by those below. Advice taken by all those who commented :D The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self nomination.


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: One of the biggest things that prompted me to nominate myself is dealing with certain people who wish to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I am usually on RC patrol anyway, but that coupled with frequent visits to WP:AIV would truly put Admin powers to good use. In short, I the largest chore I will be indulging in will be dealing with vandals. Too often people revert vandalism without warning the vandal, and too often are the vandals that are being reported are being forwarded to AIV, and the time in which to wait until they are dealt with is great. For that reason, I look forward to spending all time on Wikipedia that I'm not editing hanging around AIV, dealing with any incidents as soon as they crop up.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I tend to hang around the Mortal Kombat articles more then any others, and so some of my biggest contributions are there. Some particularly large edits I have done can be seen here, here, and a total re-organization of the Cradle of Filth talk page so that relevant discussions can be found at the relevant archives. Apart from this, other edits I am proud of are generally looking after many items on my Watchlist, and spending literally hours at a time on RC patrol.
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: The closest thing I have come to an edit conflict was when myself and another user, I believe it was an anon IP, were in disagreement of the canon-status of the game Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks. Fellow MK contributor EVula warned the user and was prepared to take further action due to his Admin status, and the situation was avoided pretty quickly. Now the majority of discussions about the canon status of the game are found on the article's talk page. As for users that have caused me stress.... well a quick look at my talk page and the second archive with reveal a user who was not happy that I mentioned to him that blanking the Da Vinci Code article because it "contains Sin" was unacceptable, and now a rather long discussion has gone into how Wikipedia should be a Christian-only website.... fortunately I think that discussion has just about ended. Appropriate action was taken, IP's were warned and one user was banned, and fortunately it appears to have come to an end :)
General comments

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Very concerned with the lack of civility. Whilst being attacked by an anonymous IP, (check the lengthy discussion here) he did not come across as calm and polite, which is what I'd expect in an admin. He has a rather obvious hate of Christianity: "Ugh, it's over zealous Christians like you that are ruining the world". On his current talk page, he retaliates to the anonymous user by saying "Also, quite frankly I think anyone who pledges their life to a being who there is no proof to support it's existance is indeed a nutcase". Whilst the IPs were trolling on both occasions, that kind of attitude is far too recent to be ignored. That aside, his edit summary usage is rather poor as well. Try again in a couple of months. --Majorly (Talk) 18:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above, in addition to a slightly malformed RfA. Haste is bad. -Amarkov blahedits 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — I'm unwilling to support this user at present, his talk page and his archive within seconds of opening them show civility issues and disregard for policies which are to recent for me, for example:

    Ugh, it's over zealous Christians like you that are ruining the world
    — User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 2

    Jesus Christ, I thought that this was over.... aparrently not. Hmm, should we feed the trolls and get a very entertaining response, or just leave them to kick up dirt? Well I've been feeding them for a while, and laughing my socks off, so I think I shall leave them this time. Lmao.
    — User talk:The Haunted Angel

    The user does also not make enough use of edit summaries for my liking, he also seems to be under the impression that {{blatantvandal}} is cruise control for warnings with him handing them out for to editors that don't actually appear to be vandalising.[1][2] He seems to lack knowledge of our image policies as well for example this which was uploaded on the 15th, deleted on the 23rd for no licensing, and another example of lack of image policy knowledge here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Taking up a mocking tone towards other religeons is not something that can be tolerated in an admin. Examples include "I knew you would ignore everything I said and just start preaching like a mad man" and "You have no answer, and I pity you for being so decieved... then again, most people simply allow themselves to be, because they are afraid of how alone and insignificant they are in the universe, and so they look for some imaginary powerful being to seek comfort under. When one thinks about it, it is incredibly childish, and to an extent, pathetic.". Sorry, you need to be neutral and calm to people with opposing beleifs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral to avoid pile on. For all reasons above, I don't think you'd make a good admin. I suggest withdrawal and looking through policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--Wafulz 18:09, 26 November 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.