Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ONaNcle 3

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

ONaNcle (3rd nomination)

Result: 20% support - Unsuccesful

Not my first self-nomination. This time, my motivation happened while comparing myself with another less active sysop. ONaNcle 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

as a stimulus (as the prev time), but read What adminship is not and this --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too --Eptalon 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on people, be nice! Let the other guy have his share too. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the stimulus

but the three of you realize your votes won't be enough.

To answer Eptalon in the comments below, it's imho wiser to postpone this election waiting for http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2007#Majorly ONaNcle 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure an "admin on probation" thing is a good idea, if that's what you mean. Archer7 - talk 14:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Oppose~~ Strong Oppose - Administration is not a competition, and admins are not compared with other users, or selected by their level of activity. The main requirements for becoming an admin are being trusted, understanding the policies and the nature of admin tasks correctly, and understanding how and when to use admin permissions. You are a good user, ONaNcle, but with the motivation you explained above, I cannot convince myself that you meet all these criteria. This leaves me no choice but to oppose your current request. With my regards, - Huji ^reply 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very basic to know you shouldn't post a message and sign as if you are another user. I changed my vote to strong oppose, and require you to read Wikipedia policies (those on Simple English Wikipedia and those on English Wikipedia) very carefully. - Huji ^reply 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Still does not want the responsibilities of an administrator. Has blanked my question to help decide how I should vote here. I cannot trust this user with the admin tools. -- Barliner talk 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. You obviously don't understand our policies if you are still being warned about blanking pages instead of marking them with {{QD}}. You were first told about this issue 6 months ago. You don't listen to the advice of other users and to be perfectly honest, I don't trust someone who refuses to listen and to follow policies. The admin team is a team. We must work together to accomplish the goal of making a successful encyclopedia. You don't seem to want to work cooperatively with others. Unless/until you change these key behaviors, I will not vote to support you. · Tygrrr^·talk· 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll keep on blanking six more months ;-))) In my stats, you'll notice 10% among my edits are deletion ones. Most sysops dont worry about my blanking and cancel those creations at sight. In the rare case where they don't, I have then the time to fulfill your beloved bureaucratic procedures.ONaNcle 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. By blanking you create the sysops extra work by making them go look at the stuff you deleted to check to see that it really is something that can be QD'd. Your unwillingness to work with others on this issue only creates more animosity. You just don't seem to get it. - BrownE34 talk contribs 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)~[reply]
Oppose per comments on Majorly talk page, doesn't know the criteria. --Yegoyan 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Doesn't meet my personal sysop std. --M7 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments above. Oysterguitarist 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments above un-nerve me. Jet Lover ^Bam! 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for obvious reasons. How dare you. Majorly (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. — Lights (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit count does not give you a free pass into adminship. Also, I fail to see why you keep tying Majorly into this RfA (what does the Steward link have to do with anything?). As Browne34 mentioned, blanking the pages is not helpful to administrators. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think you care too much about statistics instead of actual edits. You shouldn't support or oppose someone's request just because of their edit count...there could be a vandal who had over 1000 edits (Hopefully not), and be in the "top 49 editors" or whatever it is. Please don't take this personally, but I don't think you understand what being an admin is about. Sysops aren't the editors with the highest edit count. They are the people that the community trusts to use the tools in the right way. I also don't understand why you keep blanking pages. You don't have to to blank a page before deleting it. Right now, instead of racing to adminship, please take a step back and just edit for a while. --Isis §^(talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll probably end myself this vote for the third time at midnight (French hour) because not a single sysop will dare oppose two sysops against me about this UWP story. Nevertheless, I'll remain an User, staying in top fifty among other Users... and dreaming that one day, each top fifty will be given a chance to prove during a one week trial whether or not he can be trusted as a sysop. ONaNcle 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONaNcle, I don't think being an admin (meaning being trusted by others) has anything to do with being a top-50 editor. - Huji ^reply 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming just a little

I tell you. ONaNcle 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ONaNcle. As pointed out above, protecting Simple (That is what Admins do) is a team effort. You will see that for most deletes, there is a broad agreement amongst admins. We might differ on how long to ban someone, or to protect a page, but generally, we agree that a certain behaviour is vandalism, and needs acting upon. I for my part believe that you could make a great administrator here, but that there are certain (minor) things that need honing. Marking a page for deletion (with the respective tag instead of blanking it) is one such thing. Using the edit summary (at least most of the time, I know I am guilty of forgetting that too sometimes) is another. There are a few such things, that we have not been aware that you changed. Most of them are small things, as pointed out. I personally think you have great chances of being awarded the status change. As to the "admin on probation" thing, I don't really know, it sounds unusual to me (I have also no idea how hard it is to change the status back to normal user). Do not despair, there is hope. --Eptalon 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ONaNcle, I think {{QD}} is created to be used for marking pages for quick deletion, and almost every user uses this method to mark pages for quick deletion. So what is the point in calling what everbody does (and works perfectly) as beloved bureaucratic? What exactly do you get by naming it in such a way, other than making people who use this method unhappy about your tone?

No matter you become an admin by the end of this voting or not, you are still welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in many of the other available ways, and things can be facilitated if you show more coordination with the other users, even in such minor things like how to mark a page for quick deletion. Best, - Huji ^reply 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONaNcle, I think you really need to look at why you're doing this. You seem to distrust us and see administrators as above regular users, but it's really not that different. You talk about sysops not daring to disagree with each other - most of us have disagreed with each other on many occasions, we don't stick together. However, we do have to be able to work together, despite differences of opinion, and it seems you find it difficult to communicate with people effectively. Even if you don't agree with something, you must be able to express your opinion without sounding rude. Archer7 - talk 14:05, 16 November 2007 (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.