The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (3/7/2); Ended 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Czarbender (talk · contribs) - What can I say about myself? I'm a fighter for justice, whether it be on the streets or in Wikipedia articles. I'm against vandalism, but I'm not the type of person that will scream "Vandalism" and block a user at the first sign of misuse. I'm more of the innocent until proven guilty kind of person. I review what happened, tried to rule out non-user intervention (such as a little brother messing with his older brother's account and thus creating a false case of vandalism) I am also a constant user of the discussion pages. I collaborate with other users on how to make an article better. Sometimes my ideas aren't properly fitting for the article (according to "more experienced" members) but I still try. If it's reliability you worry about, you need not worry. I'm on Wikipedia everyday, save for the occasional day. I feel I would be a good administrator, because I'm neutral in my decisions, I'm never quick to delete articles or block users, and I'm always nice and I try to create a friendly environment on Wikipedia. C. Pineda 07:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to become an anti-vandal admin, as well as one who reviews and deletes article or blocks users.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My fields of expertise are in the video games/technology sections. I'm also known to dabble in lifestyle pages, especially sexuality.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: There is one memorable conflict. It was on the DARPA page. There's a section called DARPA in fiction. I added that it is part of the plot in Metal Gear Solid, a video game. Someone deleted my addition. I asked why, and they said because "In Fiction" sections aren't encyclopedic, but I said it already existed, so why not add upon it? I never received a response yet. That's all I did, I asked why it was deleted, and am waiting until I receive a response to try and repost it again. And that's what I will do in the future. I will ask why in the discussio page, and await an answer. However, it a response takes more than 5 days, then I might redo my deleted addition anyway, if I feel it's necessary.

• See Czarbender's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Czarbender: Czarbender (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Czarbender before commenting.

• Suggest withdrawl per Pedro's diff, and oppose votes. Giggy _U^CP 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Giggy. Politics rule 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Moral Support per my unasked for advice kudos on the self nom and the good intentions as per your opening statements. Best. Pedro |  Chat  08:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Sadly, this RfA is not going to pass, but you have good intentions, and that is what matters. I would recommend an editor review, and to use an edit summary more often. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Good advice, Matt, but there's nothing to review yet with only 100-odd edits. Do an editor review in a few months. A Train^talk 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Moral support You have the right intentions but with 114 edits there is no way this will pass. My suggestion is to get some great editing going in an area you know a lot about, or help out in some of the backlog areas. Good luck for next time. Orderinchaos 10:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, I don't believe you need the tools at this point in time. No vandal reverts or reports to AIV, and you want to be an "anti-vandal admin"? You would like to block users and delete articles, but you have limited contributions to discussion pages. I am worried about possible misuse (not abuse) of tools. Also, quote answer 3, "However, it a response takes more than 5 days, then I might redo my deleted addition anyway, if I feel it's necessary." This doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence. – Chacor 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Chacor's points and Pedro's diff. Sebi _[talk] 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak oppose - per answer to Q1 - shows lack of understanding. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per all the above concerns. I suggest you try again after a few months and you may have my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Per ansewer to question #1. Shows lack of knowledge in what an admin should do. Politics rule 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose You have too little experience to become an admin. Do not let this discourage you! Try again when you have more experience and you will surely have more support. Captain panda 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Answers to the questions were insufficient for me, especially to question one. You can fight vandals without needing the admin tools. Adminship is not power. Keep on editing, do what you can where you can, demonstrate a requirement for the tools and the responsibility to use them and I will happily change my vote in a future RfA. Best of luck - WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. It's just too early. I suggest installing twinkle and Anti-vandal tool. They're a good way to become accustomed to tools, and it's a quick way to boost your count. Just make sure you keep up your writing! J-stan ^Talk 14:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Too early by months. If you intend to work in anti-vandalism, I suggest you spend some time doing recent change patrolling or new page patrolling to gain some experience. Trusilver 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.