Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runningblader 5

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Runningblader (5th nomination)

[change source]

Ended: July 17, 2008

Result: Closed per SNOW. -- Creol(talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to try once more.

Candidate's acceptance:

Support

[change source]

Opppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose After being inactive for a long time, you come back, make a few edits, and run for adminship. Please note that this is not a game. Only people who have shown a need are given adminship. Chenzw  Talk  06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose - You asked Lights to delete your then-150 revision user page to boost your deleted count. This is outrageous. Also, creating an account just to inform people about your milestones shows that you don't understand policies very well. Single-purpose accounts are highly discouraged. Chenzw  Talk  08:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Lights brought that idea to Runningblader, not the other way around (see: RB's archive 3). The deletion was to decrease his very high userspace edit count, not to increase his deleted edits although it did have that effect and is still a very questionable way to deal with balancing his edit distribution. -- Creol(talk) 10:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. However, that is still not very right as the created account has done nothing anymore and has the word "bot" in it. Chenzw  Talk  11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — I don't know you; this is a close knit group of editors, everyone knows each other; you seem to be missing from that group. Therefore, you probably don't edit recently/much/enough to become an admin. If that makes sense... (it does to me). Sorry/. mC8 06:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Creol(talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - The candidate has been too inactive for the past few weeks. I see not very many WP:VIP reports, which shows he doesn't need or has a use of the block tool. Needs to focus more on the mainspace rather than the user talk space which are almost equal at the moment, mainspace just over 37% and user talk over 38%. Has 475 deleted edits but not a good amount of them are QD tags, which shows not a very good need for the deletion tool. Anyway, Runningblader, it seems your treating this as a game. You'll have a very small chance at passing an RfA unless you show a need for the tools, that you will not misuse them, and that the community trusts you with the tools. If you try every month or so, without showing you will be a good administrator, your RfAs will always fail. It seems like a game when you try again and again and again every few weeks or a month without changing your ways of editing, and I don't think it has changed very much since your last RfA. Maybe create a WP:GA from scratch would be a good start. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per inactivity and per Chenzw's comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - We usually give the tools to those people who show us they need them, and who can be trusted not to abuse them. Show us that you meet both criteria and you get them. --Eptalon (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose — weak, because I've not been here too much lately. RB is rather obviously not admin material. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ditto everyone else (TRANSFORM INTO PIKACHU!) --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry but I have to Oppose due to the comments above.  ThePageChanger 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • Ho-hum. A very laconic nomination, in my opinion. You boast about nothing and make me search around for hints as to what kind of person you are. I'm surprised to see that you have more user talk edits than article edits, with a low 36% mainspace. 475 edits does seem to indicate a lot of QD tagging though. Cassandra 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just curious to what those deleted edits are. I don't believe all 475 of his deleted edits are QD tags. Could an administrator count his QD tagging edits? I would really like to see how many of his deleted edits are QD tags. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) After counting of edits, there are 28 valid and correct QD tags. Approx. 4 are not counted as they have been tagged before by another user and about 150 are in his userspace (which exist now). The rest are his own creations that are deleted for other reasons. Chenzw  Talk  08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(three edit conflicts) Of those 475, 405 are from the userspace. There are some qd's in the main space (under 50 deleted mainspace edits, but not all QDs) but that 475 is not a good indicator of them at all. -- Creol(talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Cassandra. Try putting a bit more effort into this RfA. It doesn't even have a link to your userpage or talk page or contribs or anything. No info about articles you started or contributed to. Right now, im leaning towards Oppose but will re-evaluate depending on whether you give us some information about you, and what you will be doing. The period of absence doesn't neccessarily bother me though, but only if you let us know what you will do. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (wikiproject collaboration) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (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://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Runningblader_5&oldid=8893839"