Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJS102793

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.

CJS102793[edit]

Final: (1/10/0) ended 23:34 December 5 (UTC)

CJS102793 (talk · contribs)-self nominating- I have been with Wikipedia for almost three years. I have many different things, while trying to keep NPOV on all the articles I edit. I continue to read, write, and edit articles.--Chaz 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:--Chaz 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the candidate blanked the page, this probably indicates that he wishes to withdraw the nomination. Rhobite 22:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support blah blah, editcountitis is bad, speak to him on IRC, blah, teh bestes, extreme lesbians, WP:Editcountitis, blah Proto t c 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. While you've been here for almost one year, you only have five edits in the Wikipedia namespace not related to this RFA. Adminship requires a substantial degree of community involvement, so I'm obliged to oppose. Come back when you have had more experience dealing with other users. Titoxd(?!?) 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Per Titoxd. Plus you show very little use of edit summaries which makes it problem-matic for RC patrol. Give yourself another couple months to become more involved and try again.--Dakota t e 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Please use edit summaries when you contribute, and the preview button. All that is making it easier for other people to understand your contributions. Remember, you are not alone in here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Please consider contributing more to wikipedia before re-applying. Several other users have posted unofficial standards they consider will qualify potential admin candidates. Although this is unofficial, this is a good guideline of what will qualify you in many users' eyes --Rogerd 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I concur with other above. Limited Project edits and no user-talk edits will cause many to oppose. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose since I can't say per above, I won't say anything at all, since I can't give more advice than what's already given. Quentin Pierce 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, indeed, being here a year doesn't count for anything. You'll need to get more involved with the Project and community side of things. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want to be an editcountitor or anything, but 136 edits in 11.5 months; 39 pages edited, works out to 0.422 edits per day. NSLE (讨论+extra) 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, lack of edit summaries, not a large history of vandal fighting vs your fighting vanadlism reason. xaosflux T/C 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Should be more active, take more time to familiarize her/himself with Wikipedia, then try again. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I know editcount isn't everything, but you've got under 150 edits in total, with virtually none of them being in the Wikipedia namespace (i.e., very little community involvement). You really need to be involved in the community side of Wikipedia to have the necessary understanding of the beast to be an administrator of it. I'd advise you to have a look at the standards that some of the more frequent RfA voters suggest a potential candidate needs, here. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • User has 136 edits, including almost 10% related to this RfA. I urge CJS102793 to withdraw his nomination and get some more experience with Wikipedia. I might mention that getting rid of vandalism and promoting NPOV is something you can do without admin privileges. —Cleared as filed. 00:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Maybe we should stop piling on oppose votes and give him a chance to withdraw gracefully. Tintin 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't bother adding an Oppose, but this should be withdrawn, by candidate or bureaucrat. Xoloz 18:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya someone should take tihs down. Jobe6 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
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. One of the things I would help with is blocking users thst vandalise Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am probably most proud of my work on the NASCAR pages, especially the "Year in Review" pages, because I am a huge fan of NASCAR, and I enjoy doing my share to improve the articles associated with the sport.
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. Sometime last year, I was part of an edit conflict over part of the September 11 article. I may have mishndled the situation, by trying to prove my point a little too aggressively. In the future, I will prove my point, but not so much that I become obnoxious.


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/CJS102793&oldid=1080616783"