Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/4836.03

Add links
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.

4836.03[edit]

(2/20/4) ended 10:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

4836.03 (talk · contribs) I, Bling-chav, hereby nominate 4836.03 to become a Wikipedia administrator. This user has been very good to me by nicely welcoming me on my talk page.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bling-chav (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, Its not about how many edits you have but what you have and can accomplish! [[User:Mjal 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Not enough editing experience. Perhaps later. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Under 200 edit counts, no answers to questions. Ifnord 14:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Rarely adds a signature to his comments left on talk pages (for example, his most recent edit to a user talk page [1], other examples at [2], [3], [4]). This demonstrates a lack of familiarity with common practice and convention on Wikipedia. We don't have a lot of edit history to go on here, and as a result there's little to go on to determine familiarity with Wikipedia. --Durin 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Talk page shows very little community interaction. Jtrost 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above edit summary usage also very low. Suggest withdrawal. --pgk(talk) 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - premature. Please withdraw this and concentrate on editing. Jonathunder 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - sorry, but no. Far too premature! ComputerJoe 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, too little experience. It's interesting to note that 4836.03 complained about Bling-chav randomly nominating people for adminship and said that when he was nominated he didn't think he was ready, but accepted anyway. If Bling-chav continues frivolous nominations he should be blocked. JIP | Talk 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per above, lack of edit summaries/lack of edits --lightdarkness 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above. Please consider withdrawing and trying again later. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose lack of experience, lack of edit summaries. I was also going to make the point that JIP has made for me. --kingboyk 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Lack of experience, needs more time. WikiFanatic 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per all other votes in opposition above. --Aaron 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - per all other oppose votes. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per above. Recommend withdrawal as bad-faith nomination. NSLE (T+C) 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose as per above comments. I also advise you to withdraw as bad-faith nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above. --tomf688{talk} 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose simply not enough editing experience, suggest you withdraw. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose until more experienced. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 06:29Z
  20. Oppose as per all above. --Terence Ong (恭きょう喜き发财) 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Netural Sorry, 186 edits is too soon. Please improve your edit summary rate, as well. Finally, your sig appears to be broken. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral It's advised to withdraw. This is just too little time. Kusonaga 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Not enough experience. I concur with the advice to withdraw and become more involved. Please use edit summaries.--Dakota ~ εいぷしろん 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - If you don't have anything more to say on oppose but "per X, Y, and Z", then there's no reason to pile on. This isn't succeeding this time but I would hate to scare off a potentially great contributor. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 18% for major edits and 67% for minor edits. Based on the last 102 major and 12 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See 4836.03's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Yes, where they are related to me and are things that I am skilled at.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Inventing the Eastenders Stub category and system, and writing articles on Eastenders and Pokémon
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. I have not encountered much conflict yet.


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/4836.03&oldid=1142577650"