Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CrossHouses
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.
Final (0/9/0); Ended 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (non-crat closure per WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW by 7 and earlier by King of Hearts and Triplestop)
Nomination
[edit]CrossHouses (talk · contribs) – Long-time Wikipedia user wishing to asist more and more with the upkeep of WP. CrossHouses (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Helping combat Vandalism and helping new users finding their way around Wikipedia.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I cannot say. I believe all my main contributions have been on the whole of good informative value to the WP community.
- 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 have performed a couple of acts of Vandalism and have learned why i shouldn't have done this and now actively patrol for Vandalism.
- Additional optional question from The-Giant-Andrew
- 4. During your account's life on Wikipedia, did you ever get into a problem because of a policy or guideline? The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes for editing the article Lenny Henry after a joke made by him about Wikipedia's inherent knack for containing incorrect information. CrossHouses (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional optional question from Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL)
- 5. Please explain why you made this edit.
- A. I made this edit because frankly i was Typing Under The Influence whilst watching Question Time on the old BBC, no Anti-Semitic feelings here.
General comments
[edit]- Links for CrossHouses: CrossHouses (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for CrossHouses can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CrossHouses before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
- RfA reopened per request of candidate. Triplestop x3 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit stats copied to the talk page. 7 02:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
Oppose
[edit]- Oppose.Just over 500 edits. Maybe later. Sluggo | Talk 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalizing holocaust denial two days before submitting an RfA makes it pretty unlikely to pass. Looie496 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Your block for Vandalism was only just over two months ago, I like to see much longer gaps between blocks and RFAs. Also this is not the sort of edit I would expect from someone who might one day become an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose WP:NOTNOW, You don't have enough experience to understand policies and implement them. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent vandalism = no. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per vandalism and the tasteless Holocaust denial thing. Crafty (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for the recent vandalism, lack of experience, and lack of pretty much any substantial statement of purpose above. It's not for me to judge who's tasteless, but vandalism is vandalism. Equazcion (talk) 02:41, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose based on lack of visible experience with policies and recent vandalism. 7 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. I especially find the answer to Question Five disturbing. Why would we possibly want to give you additional powers and responsibilities if that is your explanation for the edit you made just four days ago?? Singularity42 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- 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.