Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darkness Shines

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.

Darkness Shines

[edit]

Final (0/13/1); ended 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Unsuccessful per WP:SNOW. MBisanz talk 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination, I fully expect it to fail. However times do change and I believe some new blood is needed in the admin ranks, we should not be blocking people for saying "fuck" the WP:CIV has turned into WP:Political Correctness. Wikipedia is not fecking censored, nor should it ever be. Also as it is new year son I figure people are drunk and will vote for me Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Edit warring notice board to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Far to many. however Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is, though horrible my best contribution so far. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yup, shitloads, and usually badly. I am a tad calmer nowadays. but still give short shrift to those who wish to rewrite history. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hahc21
4. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?
A: Well CSD would be attack pages(BLP) obvious advertising(G11) copyvios(G12) AFD I would put as poorly sourced BLP's (or barely notable), company's, content forks and whatnot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • As a matter of personal policy, I don't cast pile-on oppose votes in RfAs that aren't going to pass. Although this one is only at 0/3/0/0 so far at the moment I type this, it clearly falls in the "not going to pass" category. I respectfully suggest withdrawal at this stage to avoid taking up community time, and as important, to avoid sabotaging a more serious and more likely RfA later on if you address the many obvious problems present in this nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - the fact that you view the compulsory questions as "silly querys" [sic] shows you do not have the correct attitude. The answers themselves are also poor, as is the reason for self-nominating. GiantSnowman 21:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, But I feel answering personal questions over a questionar far better Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vehemently oppose - based on the nomination statement. Go Phightins! 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am sorry, but I must oppose this nomination. It appears to be premature at this point and "expecting to fail" is not really the best attitude to have; as well as the "silly queries" above; this is a big concern. In addition, you have only made about 3,000 contributions to the article namespace, which I do not feel is enough yet. However, I would strongly advise to obtain some more edits to Wikipedia and then nominate yourself again perhaps. On the plus side, your recent contributions are generally good. Happy new year, TBrandley (what's up) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3000 contributions?11,653 thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not understand what "article namespace" means? GiantSnowman 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) TBrandley was pointing out that you have about 3000 contributions to the article namespace. The counter you point to includes all edits, including talk, userspace, project space, and everything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion, but it looks like Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs). There is no need to be uncivil, however. TBrandley (what's up) 21:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)That is not uncivil, my fault for misreading it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per nomination.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Lacking experience in admin-related areas. Answers do not suggest a good understanding of policies. (Perhaps some form of mentoring may be helpful prior to another RfA in the future?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose per nomination. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per nomination. KTC (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per nomination (now that's ironic). And if possible, this should just be closed as a joke nomination and a waste of the community's time. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per nomination and answers. I am particularly skeptical about Darkness Shines' stance towards "those who wish to rewrite history"; he has strong points of view on contetious historical and political topics himself, and for edits such as this one (full discussion by now archived here) he'd have to start by blocking himself as a POV-pusher. Huon (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] Historical facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose and speeedy close this as WP:SNOW, as it's clearly not a genuine request. I find this insulting to everyone who's had to go through the pain of RfA with the best of intentions, whether successful or not. RfA is not the place to make a point. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per nomination and answers. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. This joke really isn't funny, not even if you've been drinking - we have enough things wasting our time as it is without this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — ΛΧΣ21 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. DS, you have your moments. This isn't one of them. Using the RfA system to make a point isn't constructive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well den to be honest I have had a few drinks and got a little silly, but have no idea on how to pull the plug here sorry Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just say you withdraw. GB fan 22:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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/Darkness_Shines&oldid=1187818390"