Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nookdog

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.

Nookdog

[edit]

Final: (0/8/2) (Withdrawn by candidate) Ended 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nookdog (talk · contribs) – I've been here for about a month. I think Wikipedia need's more admins to prevent vandalism. The more admin's available, the less the likelihood, that vandalism will stand. Nookdog 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I have decided to withdraw at the request of numerous editors please see,Wikipedia:Editor_review/Nookdog. Nookdog 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support

#Support it's time for a real admin. Nookdog 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote on your own RfA and worse this was originally added with a faked signature. Gwernol 00:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did not know cant vote for self :) Nookdog 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This only serves to confirm your unfortunate lack of knowledge on WP policies and procedures. Please, Nookdog, if you care at all about your reputation, stop bringing more criticism on yourself, and make things easier for you - withdraw this nomination. Nothing positive will be gained from this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose because of time here being only a month. Sorry. --Alex9891 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose You really haven't demonstrated any understanding of what sysops do. True, they fight vandals, but there is more. Come back in a couple of months. Alphachimp talk 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose with fewer than 250 edits and less than a month of time sent here it isn't possible for us to tell if you'd make a good admin. The fact that you haven't been able to properly construct this RfA or answer the questions below with specifics suggests you should come back in a few months once you've had more time to learn about Wikipedia. Good luck, Gwernol 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, too new. Naconkantari 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, absolutely not. comments on other RfA's show complete lack of understanding of the sysop duties. pschemp | talk 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What comment? Nookdog 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose, until he learns to spell and to punctuate. Urhixidur 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. This user "used to be a vandal" and has edited for only a short time since "being booted off Wikipedia." I'm going to need to see more evidence of familiarity and trustworthiness than what has been demonstrated. —David Levy 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose. If this person is a self-admitted former vandal, it'll take more than a month to establish a trustworthy reputation, even if one assumes good faith. This nominee's exchange on Gwernol's talk page only further confirms the lack of experience of this user. Nookdog really ought to consider editor review if s/he wants to "get some good advice/comments". Gwernol also observed the irony of this user opposing Kylu's RFA nomination on the basis that she has been around for too short a time. By his own standards, this nomination ought not succeed. Agent 86 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was an outside editor I would vote oppose too. But if Kylu can do it so can I! Nookdog 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, in addition to WP:AGF you should read WP:POINT. This just pushes me over to strong oppose. Agent 86 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC) — because I'd rather not pile on oppose. I reccomend that you withdraw, read up on Wikipedia policy, gain more experience and a better reputation, and come back in 6 months.[reply]
  2. I commend your eagerness to further help Wikipedia. I agree with Digitalme's suggestions and humbly add the suggestion that you sign up for admin coaching. This might help you in your desire to help make Wikipedia a better place, as your coach will be able to suggest some great ways to get more involved in helping out without needing the extra buttons. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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: Like I said, the more admin's available, the less time vandalism exists.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My edits to air based navigation articles are the ones I'm most pleased with.
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: Yes, I was once accused of sock puppetry. However, I stayed cool and in the end just decided to ignore my accusers, and we both go on to edit on our own paths.
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/Nookdog&oldid=1142574226"