Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluejean


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

Bluejean
[ Vote here] (0/5/0) ended on 18:16, May 26 2005 (UTC) Your nomination/description of the user BlueJean Bluejean 03:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Obviously a joke nomination! Less than ten edits! And look at some of the ones he has made -     . STRONG OPPOSE! Harro5 04:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and speedy remove nomination. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Needs a lot more experience. Sjakkalle 06:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose. Fails to answer nomination questions, too few edits and obviously not well-versed in wikipedia policies and janitorial tasks. Mgm|(talk) 10:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Andre ( talk ) 18:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments Questions for the candidate
 * User has less than ten edits. El_C 04:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a waste of our time to let this stay here until the voting expires. I propose that it be removed immediately.   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk  04:54, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * I concur. El_C 05:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So do I.-gadfium 05:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't bite the newbies, please. -- 199.71.174.100 05:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Given some of the edits he's made, I find it pretty hard to assume good faith. They're not vandalism, but they're not constructive, either.  (Some are even destructive.)  Note also among his ten edits was a vote for the adminship of a user that had been unanimously opposed.  Now, I don't want to be too much of a curmudgeon, but in this case I think he needs to have some sense shaken into him (assuming good faith), or watched closely (assuming bad faith).   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk  05:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * Of course, the first encounter on their talk page should always assume good faith (bad Harro5, bad, bad!). So, I left this message.  (Just in case anyone still wants to accuse me of biting the newbies :) )   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk  06:24, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I feel it is fine for newbies to play around on pages, have their edits reverted, and learn from it. But this user has decided to jump in the deep end - supporting failing RFAs, vandalising, asking for adminship - and sometimes tough love is required. I'm usually very nice to newbies, but the fact that this user is signed up and hasn't done anything to help the project means I thought some choice words (not mean, just fact) in order. Harro5 07:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.