Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CompuHacker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KojiDude (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 7 May 2008 (→Support: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

CompuHacker

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/8/0); Scheduled to end 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-Crat, Non-Admin closure per WP:SNOW. Dreamafter (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CompuHacker (talk · contribs) - Me. CompuHacker (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real expectation of becoming an administrator. The administrator page states that in the early days of Wikipedia, everyone functioned as an administrator. So I aspire to be one. I don't have any admin experience, but I will always research an administrative procedure before carrying it out (assuming by some miracle I become an administrator anyway.). Please don't judge me based on my early edits, I learn quickly.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: None, unless asked to and I can throughly understand the procedure requested. I don't plan to actively partake in administrative duties.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not have any outstanding contributions to the main namespace, but have a basic intermediate understanding of Wiki software.
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 haven't been any major issues.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CompuHacker before commenting.

Discussion

Please mark comments with Comment for my own records. Thanks.
In fact, please clearly mark any comment, opposition, or support with a bold tag.
To number 3... I'm not going to revoke this unless there is a good reason. I'd like everyone to have their opinion until this is closed. Thanks for the information
To number 4/5, I would really rather try then give up. I know about the guidelines of Wikipedia (had no idea WP:snow existed lol) and that following every policy to the letter is discouraged. But I really don't want to give up.
To number 8... Technically, it's not a policy, but it's also not a guideline either, so never mind. However, it's not official, and I've never seen it before. I don't actively read RfA.

Support
  1. Moral Support I must applaud you enthusiasm, but unfortunately your lack of experience isn't going to get you adminship. Keep on editing, fighting vandals, and being a great contributor to the project and you can come back here to try again. Every RFA deserves a support vote :). CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Every RFA deserves a support vote" Oh? What if Osama Bin Laden was running in an RfA? What then?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not enough experience or understanding. I need faith you will know to follow policy. You need to demonstrate that before I would support. MBisanz talk 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very little activity. Wizardman 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Sparatic activity, good chunk of your contribs (which are sall enough as it is) are to your own userspace, and very little WP/WT work. Sorry, dude/dudette, but you're not there yet. You might want to withdraw this and ask for an editor review/coaching.--Koji†Dude (C) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Suggest withdrawal - Sorry man, as you said, you don't expect this to pass, and I think if you don't withdraw soon it will be closed per WP:SNOW. asenine say what? 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You may not want to withdraw, but it will be snowed in any event as you have approximately 300 edits, plus sporadic edit summary usage. ArcAngel (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. Sorry, but with 300 edits, this is a WP:snow. Spinach Dip 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose (ec) 151 main space edits is great! Keep going... However, in order for the community to support you as an administrator you need a much higher volume of edits than you have along with diverse experience across and within many namespaces, particularly main, project and user talk. I have no doubt you can learn what to do but you may wish to look into admin coaching if your goal is to become an admin. κaτaʟavenoTC 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, didn't know about one of the biggest policies that is quoted, WP:SNOW. Dreamafter (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CompuHacker&oldid=210701885"