Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A.Z.


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

A.Z.
(0/11/1); Ended 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

- I want to become an administrator. A.Z. 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
 * A:


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


 * 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:

General comments

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



''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/A.Z. before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as there's no reason to support. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I might change to support if there is more added to the RfA by A.Z. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to oppose. Well, I can add that I'll stop being an administrator if I start abusing the tools. A.Z. 06:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Reading this candidate's talk page evidences that the candidate has had significant conflict at the help desk recently, and in general I see discussions there that leave me with doubts about the candidate's ability to work collaboratively. In addition, I am not exactly inspired by the fact that this candidate left uncommented "Support" votes on every open request for adminship at about the same time as the candidate's self-nomination.  I find that I have little choice but to register my objection to the promotion of this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose No reason to support per above. And I really don't like the candidate's answer above. Jmlk17 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose and recommend withdrawal due to a lack of experience (fewer than 50 mainspace edits et al), and a lack of reasons to support in the answers to the questions. Not that the questions are compulsory, but they'd certainly help get a handle on things here. The comment that the user would stop being an admin if he/she abused the tools is hardly earth-shattering either, since egregious abuse is a sure-fire way to get de-adminned anyway. I'm also concerned over this idea which the candidate came up with, which would appear to be almost the definition of a Bad Idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Virtually no effort whatsoever expended on this RfA, and doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of what goes on around here... I'm trying to fathom what this place would be like if everyone could block each other (could we still unblock ourselves?) Grand  master  ka  08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - the candidate demonstrates no need for the tools and BigHaz' diff is troubling. - Richard Cavell 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Lack of experience, no need for the tools, edit summary usage far below the least acceptable, spamming 13 RFAs with support... I strongly recommend withdrawal.-- Hús  ö  nd  10:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Very strong oppose per conduct in talk page.-- Wizardman 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose. If you believe that all users should be able to block and unblock others, and that WP:SNOW should not apply to your RFA of 9 opposes, then you seriously need experience.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose trolling, disruption, not here for the right reasons (43 contributions), evidence he'll abuse the block tool, unnecessary fuss about this RfA. Normally I wouldn't pile on, but he says himself he wants it so bad. Just a completely and utterly unqualified candidate who should never be an admin here.  Majorly   (hot!)  01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Never. The hissy-fit that this user had at Majorly exposed two things: a) they can't control their temper and cut their losses; and b) they don't understand what the hell they're talking about. Oh, no, no, no.  Daniel Bryant  10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Recommend withdrawal, as this will eventually be closed per WP:SNOW. —AldeBaer 08:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this recommendation. Jmlk17 08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.