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

Final (0/10/0); Ended 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

General Eisenhower (talk · contribs) Hello. My name is General Eisenhower. I have been a Wikipedian for 1 whole year. I am running for adminship so I can improve this Wikipedia. If I become an admin, I promise to uphere all Wikipedian laws!

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 participants:

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.

I would like to stop vandalism and block vandals. Reverting edits is hard sometimes. Deleting nonsense vandalism articles. Helping with the main page.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

My favorite contribution is The Holy, which I created at the begining of my account.

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?

Yes. I have been stressed by these conflicts. I dealt them pateintly and will continue doing so.

4. Have you been blocked in the past 3 months?

No. I, however, was blocked 10 months ago for not changing my signature.

5. Have you ever vandalised on Wikipedia?

I did early on Wikipedia, but back then I was just confused. I have changed my ways.

6. Do you belong to any WikiProjects?

Yes. I created the Anti Stub Project.

General comments

• See General Eisenhower's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool, for the edit count see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Well, for starters, low edit count, poor edit summary usage, and weak answers. Also, I can't see how you can run for adminship when you have been inactive for the past 6-7 months. - Anas ^Talk? 13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not inactive. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, poor answers to questions and not a reason for self nomination is rather vague. Inactive and lacks of experience. Doesn't seem to need the tools, imo. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Suggest withdrawal --Doc^g 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. OpposeNot much going for him--St.daniel 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose less than 200 edits since last July? Beside all else, simply not active enough for me I'm afraid. The Rambling Man 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. I strongly suggest self-withdrawal.--Húsönd 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Very poorly-constructed self-nom RfA - no clear idea about the requirement for and applications of the admin tools, coupled with lack of evidence as to suitability for the position of admin and periods of inactivity together suggest that you would be of more use to the project making constructive contributions in the article space and learning about the policy space over the next few months. Withdrawal is recommended at this time. (aeropagitica) 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - Weak answers that fail to show how admin tools would help. Admin tools are not necessary to revert vandalized articles. He says he would like to block vandals, but I see little to no AIV participation. Need more experience. Luis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Poor RfA, and you need to be a lot more active before you even consider requesting again, plus your username is misleading. Please withdraw. John Reaves (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. The project's need for this user to have adminstrative tools is not even close to espoused in this RfA. I would also strongly urge self-withdrawal. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.