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

Final (1/14/0) Ended 22:42, November 30th 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and close this RfA as I can't see the tide of opinion expressed this evening turning around in the next seven days. This isn't so much WP:SNOW as a hailstorm. (aeropagitica) 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat235478683 (talk · contribs)

I'm a very hard working type of person that is very dependable. I know that I've made mistakes before, but I would just like to let everyone know that I'm sorry and would like a chance to start over. If I would be voted in as an administrator, I'd make sure that Wikipedia is meant to be the site that it was made for. To state the facts and to be a peaceful and tranqual place, while keeping the place fun at the same time.

–Rat235478683 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: Well to start off with, I'd be fine and dandy with looking through all of the article that are either a speedy delete or a proposed deletion, I can also get used to looking through possible sock-puppeteers.

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

A: Being a WikiGnome, I generally work on many articles, but I do have to say that I greatly improved the article Shuriken School. There was such little information, I just thought that it needed some sprucing up.

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:Yes, I have to admit that I have had some conflicts that have caused me great amounts of stress. I might not of dealt the right way the first time, but nom I've changed. Everyone should be givin a second chance, that is my motto. In the future now that I've been on Wikipedia for a while, now I will act in a more mature way. I promise.

General comments

• See Rat235478683's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support and suggested withdrawl, I understand you have good intentions but per below. Work on your weaker areas and try again.__Seadog ^♪ 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose, per many civility concerns I have with this user, especially an enemies list that used to be on his userpage. I see you didn't take my advice not to do this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. You need to start over as an editor first. The list mentioned by Amarkov is too recent to be ignored. Prove yourself as a good editor, then try here again. --Majorly 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Two things, First: Darius_Rose was a very recent behavior that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and an apparent unwillingness to use discussion to solve a problem (it's an article that this candidate reposted many times following speedy deletion without any conversation). Second: The name. The name is simply impractical and would make interacting with this user in any context other than clicking signature links/etc difficult. I advise the candidate to change his or her name, acquaint themselves with Wikipedia policy better, then come back with some good experience under the belt. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. Agree with all of the above. I suggest following the advice of Chairboy, especially concerning changing your name to something more manageable. Perhaps go through an editor review in 3 months and apply for adminship again in 6. SuperMachine 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per comments above. Second chances don't begin with becoming a sysop.--Kchase T 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - inadequate nomination and civility concerns. Suggest withdrawal and come back later. Moreschi 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. A very new user with less than 500 edits. Your contributions are appreciated, but you need to spend a lot more time on Wikipedia before people will be willing to trust you with admin tools. You should consider withdrawing. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose not experienced enough. Less than 500 edits, and no participation in Afd, vandalism reversion and several other areas, and very low edit summary usage. Hut 8.5 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Edit-conflict Oppose Very poor answers to questions - diffs for evidence? - and less than 500 edits don't give any confidence that this user either requires or knows how to apply the admin tools and responsibilities. I urge withdrawal, either by the candidate or a Bureaucrat at the earliest opportunity. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Not experienced enough and per the userpage posting. Hello32020 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Shocked at this idea of an enemies list. I was going to Moral Support but I can't see anyway to justify that position. I urge the candidate to withdraw this nomination and I would say come back in a year or perhaps even 18 months. I think it's going to take a considerable period for people to be able to trust this candidate, and there will need to be a very strong reason and track record for me to support come RfA #2. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose < 500 edits and already with an enemies list!? Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND. We all run into other editors with whom we disagree. Sometimes strongly. That does not make us enemies. Just because people disagree does not mean they have to be disagreeable-- or enemies. Two tireless contributor Barnstars-- from an editor with 3 contribs??? Not to mention all of the other reasons mentioned. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Candidate has less than five hundred edits. Someone who has not even seen AfD yet should not be engaged in speedy deletions. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Dude you straight up blow why would you think you could ever be an admin on such an impressive site such as Wikipedia? You have an enemies list. 1st make friends with your enemies. 2nd make better post and then come back. Sorry if I offended anyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.129.64 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose You need more experience on Wikipedia, and need to improve your civility. You're a good contributor most of the time, but you have to learn Wikipedia policy before you think about even applying for adminship. Nishkid64 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.