Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sethdoe92

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

Sethdoe92

Final: (0/7/0); Closed per WP:SNOW by Nick (talk) at 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sethdoe92 (talk · contribs) - really deserves it —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly, I feel that I need to deal with the problem of Vandalism, whick I think I have a lot of experience with.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think the massive expansion of Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!.

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 had conflicts just like everyone else has. A man who has'nt made any enemies has'nt done squat, I deal with them in a civilized way.

General comments

See Sethdoe92's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Sethdoe92: Sethdoe92 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sethdoe92 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Oppose – I’m so sorry to do this Seth, but I really wish you’d taken my advice with this one. You do some good things here like welcoming new users, but I see very very little of anything else. You have the odd article edit, but nothing related to what adminship is about. If I’m being honest, you’re a little silly at times – you use random strings of letters as edit summaries and I’m not sure how appropriate “ass cream” is as an edit summary, and I repeat what I said to you back in March, “you need to stop using wiki mark up, so for instance stop placing <nowiki> signs all over the place. I actually nearly blocked you without warning for those comments on the Rfa's. What was [1] this about? This is the sort of thing that could easily lead to an indefinate block, as people would mistake you for willy on wheels. Also, don't put userboxes into articles like you did here, here and here (they're not the only ones but there's too many to add all of them), this could be considered vandalism, even though you were trying to do something good. Articles aren't rated for appropriate content because wikipedia is not censored. What exactly are you aims for wikipedia? I mean, do you want to revert vandalism? Edit articles? Add stub and clean up tags? Check new pages (by going to the new pages log) for suitability and tag them for deletion if required?” – All in all, just take some advice and you could possibly make a sysop in the future, but you really do need to change somewhat first. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawl. With five times as many user talk edits as your 102 mainspace edits this doesn't have any chance of passing. — iridescent 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm sorry to have to do this, Seth, but I don't think much has really changed since me and Ryan were telling you about your behaviour back in March (me being Tellyaddict, incase you're unaware). The opening sentence of "really deserves it" comes over as a little arrogant, unfortunately. I just don't see you being able to use the tools wisely at the minute, but it could happen, someday. Good work on the welcomes and stuff, though. Qst 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and using your sockpuppet to go neutral on this RfA [2]. Qst 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest that you withdraw. Very little experience, questionable behaviour, and no experience at all in admin-related areas. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little experience. ~~I don't even see the acceptance mark.~~ Insufficient answers to questions, and sockpuppetry. Rudget . 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On self nominations, you are meant to remove the acceptance mark per Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship :) Qst 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Qst. :) Rudget . 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose withdraw per WP:SNOW. Sockpuppetry is not acceptable. EJF (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very little experience in the needed departments, and sockpuppetry is just not good. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

~~Bananaman1137 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (Sockpuppet)~~[reply]

Struck due to the note of being a sockpuppet, appears to be from talk page also. Rudget . 17:22, 18 January 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.