Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/21655 2


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

21655
Final (0/10/0); withdrawn by candidate 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

- After reading this and realizing what I did two days ago was beyond stupid, I decided I'm not going to go down without a fight. Withdrawing my nom was a sign of pure panic and dread that more Opposes will come until it gets closed per WP:SNOW. Total. Mistake.

As if acting like a child during my RFA wasn't dumb enough, threatening retirement here was totally uncalled for. I shouldn't have gone aggro because 8 users all agreed that my non-Wiki stress bout and the incivility that followed on 2008-03-14 and decided that I was inherently worthless because of such. I apologize sincerely, and solemnly affirm that will NEVER happen again.

Why I deserve to become an admin is already here, and I'd like to add that I can help out at WP:AFD as well.

So...it's on.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nom per WP:SNOW. Just proves that I'm not ready...eh.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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: WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:RFR.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Other than Master Control (Cartoon Network), I have none.


 * 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: As shameful as it is, I'll come right out and say it. The failure of my RfA (and the process itself, as you can see from my edit summaries on my previous RFA) led to tremendous Wikistress, eventually culminating in an episode of emotional blackmail that I don't doubt will lead to Opposes through the roof.

As for the future, it's simple. Fight vandals until I forget why I got mad in the first place. People tell me it causes serious stress, but to me it doesn't. In fact, there's a sense of pride in doing this. But I'll get to that later.

General comments

 * <>COmment. Not to be mean or anything, but the whole withdrawal and then reapplying thing raises a question about your temperament. Adminship can be very stressful. An apparent crackup during RfA is going to not be received well this early on. My advice, based on taking part in many RfA's, would be to try again in about 6 months/5000 edits. Oh well, I'll decide which way to go after reviewing your contribs and so forth.   Dloh  cierekim'''  19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See 21655's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for 21655:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/21655 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Completely and utterly wrong temperament, as shown in the diffs mentioned in the first RfA, the resultant behavior from the last RfA (including edit summaries during and post-RfA, as well as the retirement), and even the nominating statement for this one. I'm sorry, but you're in dire need of relaxation, and I'm extremely hesitant to provide you with administrative tools. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. No, just no. Plus, this is a completely inappropriate edit summary. Why not act on some of the concerns raised in your previous RfA and set your mind on improving the encyclopedia. Qst (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Man. I'm so sincerely sorry to be here in the oppose section.  You are a good editor.  The things you do are valuable to this place.  But your previous nom was yesterday.  You "quit" the RfA after a handful of opposes, then "retired" from Wikipedia in a huff (and a prolific amount of cursory language at that).  Now you're here again.  This is highly unlikely to pass.  You need an admin coach, or some sort of guidance.  I'm afraid you'll leave again (which is not what is wanted by anyone).  I believe your sincerety and completely accept your apology to the community above for your rashness yesterday, but this won't pass because of it.  Please withdraw again and find an admin coach.  I'm an admin coach by the way.  Feel free to visit my talkpage anytime.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Very strong oppose, and possibly a never. The behaviour after the last RfA is ridiculous, as describe in your nom, and shows that you're unfit for adminship as you can't properly react to stuff. Also per EVula, who puts it well, too.  Maxim (talk)  19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maxim might say never, and that's his opinion that he is entitled to. I won't ever say never to a good faith contributor.  But not now.  This isn't helping your situation at all, but I will not say never.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I am a firm believer in people learning from their experiences, but before I feel that I can trust the candidate's judgment, I need to see evidence of the change. At this point I would counsel withdrawing this nomination, and editing for a period of two-to-three months at the minimum, so that there can be concrete evidence of your stated changes. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose - RFA is not a fight. Take 6 months or so, build some experience and temperance and come back. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose until user undergoes a complete shift in temperament and attitude (note that I do not foresee that happening in four days). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose - as per the above. Suggest at least a bit of admin coaching, as per above, and at least a few months of regular editing before another nomination. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose, per quick review of your recent contributions. You're focusing on your previous RFA experience with some sort of vendetta attitude, the last thing we need in admins. You need to cool down a bit. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose - this statement on your userpage after your first RfA is quite frankly rude, provocative and more inline with what I would expect off a disruptive user, not an aspiring administrator. I suggest you edit productively for quite a while and consider how to react when things don't go your way.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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.
 * 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.