Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snake311

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

Snake311 (2nd nomination)

Snake311 (talk · contribs)

I perviously nominiated myself for adminship last June Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alastor Moody, but I decided to re-run for adminship. Currently, I have more than 2154 edits (1192 in mainspace) and has been in the simplewiki for a very long time (approx. 1 year + 4 months). My reasons to request for adminship are still similar as the ones I had in the past. I am now more familiar with simplewiki's policies than before and is one of simplewiki's top 20 most active editors. Cheers;) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nominiation. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 05:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each oldtime User reaching the 500 distinct pages edited mark should be automatically nominated sysop during a one-month probation period before any vote takes place. ONaNcle 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--vector ^_^ (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Archer7 - talk 09:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Helpful, hard working, and has clue ;) Phaedriel - 09:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose for a couple of reasons. Although I think you have done some fine work with our Very Good article process, I have some hesitations. The biggest of my hesitations is that I don't have as much trust in you as I would like in order to be comfortable in supporting you for adminship. Secondly, in reviewing your edits to user talk pages (here), only about a dozen of your last 100 edits to user talk pages have been warnings. Also, after looking at your deleted edits (here), it appears that you have only marked one page for quick deletion that was actually nonsense and it was after your RfA began. These two things do not really show to me that you have a need for the tools. I'm sorry, but I feel I must oppose for these reasons. · Tygrrr^·talk· 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While my contributions aren't entriely on reverting vandalism and on tagging RfD templates on vandal articles, I requested my adminship to help me on contributing to simplewiki. I never said that I would simply stick to just one job such as tracking vandalism, but instead use it for a variety of reasons i.e., discuss on simplewiki's policies, help my ability to work on simple's articles, blocking out vandal IPs and sockpuppets, etc. Also I understand that you and I don't send messages as often to one another, leaving both of us not completely sure about eachother, but I like to have discussions with other users when necessary. If you don't feel comfortable on my RfA its okay, but I would still like to contribtue to this wiki. Cheers:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. - BrownE34 talk contribs 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tygrrr -- Creol(talk) 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I feel more that perplexed reading this : .../.. also, after looking at your deleted edits (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&limit=50&target=Snake311 here), it appears that you have... explanation of vote. Unless I was not informed about the sysop vote being a cooptation one it should be forbidden to use such an argumentation. ONaNcle 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I did forget that sysop rights are needed in order to view deleted edits, so I apologize for that. However, I fail to see how my argument should be "forbidden". For those who cannot see, the page I linked to shows pages Snake311 has contributed to which have been deleted. If a user marks many pages for quick deletion, this would be an indication that he or she may need the ability to delete pages, as they are essentially the "middle man" for administrators. However, this is not the case with Snake311 as he has only marked one page for deletion that was a vandalism page. My personal criteria for who should be an administrator is trust, large activity here, and a need for the tools. Snake311 does not meet all of these criteria in my opinion. That was all I was trying to say with my vote above. · Tygrrr^·talk· 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is forbidden in an explanation. Explanations aren't even needed. She is saying that there are only a few times where he would have quick deleted a page himself. I guess I don't otherwise understand what you mean. - BrownE34 talk contribs 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above simply deleting vandal articles aren't just my focus for being an admin. My purpose for being a sysop is open to a variety of reasons; but I still would occassionally help out on deleting nonsensable articles. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} ^RFA 00:00, 29 September 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.