Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Two-face Jackie

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.


Two-face Jackie

[edit]

Final (2/7/4); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Useight at 1:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Two-face Jackie (talk · contribs) - I could not be considered a long-time participant on Wikipedia, although my editing history extends well before my history as a registered user. I realize that my edit count is atypical of an administrator, but, if given the opportunities and priveleges of an admin, I pledge to uphold their place as tools of order. A member of several projects, I have composed pages, though not many. I am confident in my familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, and also in my editing ability. Perhaps I am being too bold: a young, over-zealous optimist. Perhaps I can help in unexpected ways. That is fully left to the judgment of the community. Thank you for your consideration.Two-face Jackie (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In reflecting on the opinion of the whole, it is my opinion that while administrative status is not an exalted position, users do respect it. I am well-versed in page editing and research. As an administrator, I would not only continue that, but I would be at hand to help in the resolution of debates in the acceptable non-partisan way.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It is difficult to say. If there are any users keeping track of my record, they know that I have an eclectic manner. Obviously, my edits pertaining to history or politics outweigh my aesthetic changes involving various recreational series or my own user page. All of those contributions that seem longer and more in-depth are most likely my proudest work. After all, anyone with a knowledge of grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation in the English language can make a mere correction, despite their vital place in a healthy encyclopedia.
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: No, I have not, but I am prepared for the worst. Once, I may have had a trifling little dispute over the nomenclature of a certain native tongue, but what occured between myself and the other party can hardly be called a "conflict". Again, I am prepared for the unpleasant, being a long-time debater, but I prefer to quash any genuine opposition in the first stage of a controversial statement if at all possible.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. You're going to fail miserably, so this is pointless, but what the hell, you had an interesting (if unusual) nomination statement and yes, I am that easily swayed. naerii 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support - since this RfA is not going to succeed. It might be wise to withdraw now. You can always try again when you've had more experience. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Hate to be the first contributor to the miserable failure that Naerii predicted, but I'm afraid that you're just not ready. Keep up your mainspace work, use edit summaries consistently, watch out for copyright violations, and respect different varieties of English. From there, you might want to get involved in some of the nuts and bolts of how this place works (Articles for Deletion and various noticeboards can be good places to learn)...if you work at it, I'm sure you'll be able to pass an RFA someday! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but I have to oppose. You have very little experience in general, particularly in admin areas. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I would close this RFA.--LAAFansign review 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Too little experience in any area. You might want to scrape up some dignity from the bottom of the bowl and withdraw before this gets WP:SNOW closed.--KojiDude (C) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Withdraw You have 160 edits. There is no way you can pass. Withdraw while you still have dignity. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoed, oppose noted below in case. Prince of Canada t | c 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Editcountitis is a bad thing, but 83 to mainspace and 11 to Wikispace is, by any measure, way too low. Prince of Canada t | c 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. You're using your user page as a blog!! That alone speaks volumes of your level of experience in Wikipedia. I also recommend you read WP:AAAD (the part about edit count in particular). VG ☎ 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. There's nothing wrong with the candidate, it's just a lack of experience. And since you're only here to help, I will not oppose, but your lack of experience is the reason I cannot support. iMatthew (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's no reason to pile on oppose. Good intentions, but like Matthew above me here said, not enough experience. This link shows your current edit count and usage of edit summaries. As you can see, both are rather low. But, beware, do not become obsessed with your edit count.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral low edit count. Try again in a few months! —the_ed17— 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Your enthusiasm is commendable, but your timing is a bit premature. Some more experience will make you a stronger candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:00, 2 October 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Two-face_Jackie&oldid=1259257409"