Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceres3 2

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

Coastergeekperson04

(1/7/0); Ended 07:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Coastergeekperson04 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing since January 2006 as Ceres3, and I made an account as a newbie in December 2005 at Ceres3, but lost the password. I've been editing since July 2005 as an anon and at home my IP was 69.85.184.7 until recently when it changed to 98.207.43.189. I did not pass my RfA as Ceres3, and now I have 400 more edits. My username was changed here. —Coastergeekperson 04^{'s talk}@11/21/2007 05:19

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: AIV, XFD (MFD, AFD, TFD, etc.)

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

A: I think my TW edits are my best.

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: I often skip edit conflicts, except with vandals.

General comments

See Coastergeekperson04's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Coastergeekperson04: Coastergeekperson04 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Coastergeekperson04 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support Wow, I guess he's a good vandal fighter... -Go od sh op ed 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a good vandal-fighter does not mean this user will be a good administrator. Daniel 07:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong Oppose. I'm sorry, but I do not feel that the problems from your last RfA have been responded to adequately. Firstly, your answers are not very extensive and do not show knowledge of policy. Further, looking at your contribution break down, I see eight reports to AIV. I also do not see large contributions to AfD that allow me to be confident with your knowledge of deletion policy. As such, I do not see real need for the tools. Further, I do not feel as though you have made enough mainspace edits to allow us a good glimpse into your understanding of policy. While I do not support 1FA, attempting to bring an article up to at least GA is always a good content building goal. Such heavy editing to the Sandbox also seems strange to me. Finally, when adding this nomination, your edit [1] to the your last RfA is a little worrisome. There is nothing here to suggest you do not have the qualities nessasary to become an admin, I would however ask that you become more experienced before trying again. SorryGuy 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was expecting to see a lot of Twinkle edits, but I didn't see too much reliance on that, so I was pleasantly surprised. However, I don't think you have enough experience yet. Not much work in the Mainspace, only one article with more than 6 edits, which is the real reason why we are here, pretty good work in the Wikipedia namespace, but I'd like to see more experience overall. It's been a long time since an editor was sysopped with fewer than 2000 edits. Edit summary usage is also not great, and it's very important that other editors be able to easily see what we're doing and/or our motives behind the edit. There is an option in your preferences that you can set to warn you if you didn't leave an edit summary, if you like. Lastly, the answers to the questions were pretty short and didn't expound at all, which isn't a requirement, I just like to see a little more depth in the answers. If you ever have any questions on anything at all, I'm always available on my talk page. Useight (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are well on your way, but I would hesitate to give you the tools right now. Gather some policy knowledge, work on a wider variety of stuff around here, perhaps try an admin coach, and try back a little bit down the road. I look forward to supporting you in the future! Best of luck! Jmlk 1 7 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to this account supported by this diff while I've seen other admins use these types of accounts to lighten the mood, it really should have been mentioned in this nomination since it was only created on the 20th Nov. Gnan garra 06:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near sufficient experience to be a good administrator. Answers are not compelling, and being a good vandal fighter does not prove to me that you can be a good adminsitrator. Daniel 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - clearly lacks the required discretion needed to be an effective administrator. This, amongst a whole stack of others, is deeply concerning. Daniel 07:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: (EC) Not quite sure what you would use the tools for, as your answers above don't really say much. I see that you do mention AIV, yet you currently only have 8 edits to AIV. Theres a lot you can do without the extra admin buttons. I currently fail to see that you really understand some of the basic policies here. Oh, just a friendly tip - as a courtesy to your fellow Wikipedians, try to use an edit summary more often. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, per the reasoning of Useight and SorryGuy. Your answers to the questions are highly unsatisfying, and I think you miss the point of Q3. The questions are there to help other users judge your capability as an administrator, and providing a short sentence at the most isn't doing this. Spebi 07:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even stronger per this MfD. Not impressed with the behaviour and immaturity issues displayed by Ceres3 (or Coastergeek... ?) Spebi 07:04, 21 November 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.