Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crash Underride


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

Crash Underride
Final (1/13/3); Ended 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn per the accepted snowball clause. Rudget . 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

- Dedicated to removal of vandalism, expansion of articles, removal of redundent statements. Doesn't argue with others. Works rather well with other editors.

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: Removal and blockage of vandalism and vandals. Expanding articles, as well as adding as many credible sources. As well as anything else I can do to help Wikipedia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Josh Stewart. Webster County High School (West Virginia), Craig Kobel, David Saunders, Dominique Barber, Team Alabama, Team Arkansas, Team Florida (AAFL), Team Michigan, Team Tennessee, Team Texas many more are located on my user page.

I view this among others to be my best contributions because I have expanded, sourced, and even created (David Saunders and all Team such and such for the All American Football League) them. I have done searches and found reliable sources and expanded, and will continue to do so.


 * 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: I have, once. It was sometime in 2007. It was a 3RR violation and I was blocked for 48. I dealt with it by accepting it as I understood why I was blocked, and I have not done that since. In fact, I have warned at least one other editor approaching a 3RR violation.

General comments

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


 * Links for Crash Underride:

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

Discussion

 * I would just like you to know that I support your agruments, you're entitled. However, I have numerous contributions. I have over 3,000 edits. The major contributions are not ALL listed here as I thought it might take up too much space. If you go to my user page you will see the number I have. Also, I have made major contributions to a few of them more than once. -- Cra sh U  nderride  09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your block log shows you have never been blocked, yet in your answer to question 3 you claim you were blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. Can you explain this discrepancy? Thanks, Gwernol 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have found out the cause, you underwent a username change and were blocked for 24 hours under the previous username in October of last year. Gwernol 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support per cheesy Hackers reference. I wish you good luck in the future. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, but I'm afraid you lack sufficient experience. Your lack of edit summaries is troubling, and you haven't participated much in many Wikipedia namespaces. Also, you don't really sell yourself in your answers or nomination. You certainly have potential though. Come back in 4-5 months and I'll probably support.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) It wouldn't be fair on you if you were promoted at this time, there's so much to see and do and without having a healthy amount of experience, adminship can be much more difficult and confusing than it otherwise need be. Nick (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Too few contributions. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, doesn't seem to understand fully the functionality of adminship; you don't need the tools to improve articles and remove vandalism. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but oppose on the basis of this edit to a new editor, which was totally out of proportion to the alleged vandalism . —   Tivedshambo  (t 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm afraid this is a premature RFA because: The answers to the questions are bare and you might want to expand them, not enough edit summaries, not enough wikipedia namespace edits. Perhaps in 4-5 months you should consider adminship. Spencer  T♦C 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Your heart is in the right place, but you need to lower the temperature a little. It would be better to start with test1 type warnings and then progress to the heavier warnings if it becomes clear the person does not intend to contribute constructively. Here you jumped right to a test 3 for what looks like an easy to make mistake. When dealing with less experienced editors, it is best to WP:AGF until it becomes unrealistic to do so. I would recommend getting a coach.  Dloh  cierekim  12:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not appropriate to give someone a strong warning for not understanding the external links policy (my mistake, they added redundant wiki links) and then giving them a block notice when they are not blocked.  Dloh  cierekim  13:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * make it a strong oppose. Trigger happy and just plain too harsh. Too be horrendously blunt, the more I read your talk page, the more surprised I become that you have not been RfC'd or hauled off to the ARBCOM. Definitely, get a coach and wait at least 5,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. I fear you have much to unlearn.   Dloh  cierekim  13:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Administrator candidates need more experience in many areas, especially neutral tone, before tools can be granted. An effort to give more complete engagement to questions would have demonstrated more commitment to this process. Someone should snowball this process, or the candidate would be wise to withdraw. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose mainly for this to a new editor and lack of edit summaries is a worry. Not ready yet. Suggest you withdraw? Sting au   Buzz Me...   13:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose sorry, but adding a fake block notice to a user's page is pretty serious abuse - effectively passing yourself off as an administrator when you are not one. That combined with your tendency to bite new editors, shows you are a fairly long way from being ready for the admin tools. Sorry, Gwernol 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per all the above concerns. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Simply reading the content vs. vandalism discussions on your talk page gives me pause. I’m sorry, but you tend to be way too abrupt with other users which is not a desirable quality in admins. — Travis talk  13:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose After reviewing your contributions I was troubled by some of your biting comments. --Ozgod (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Try to get a coach. Malinaccier (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral As per Malinaccier.Never question your commitment.Please try again after a few months.Good luckPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - To avoid pile one. Suggest withdrawal, and try a coach like Malinaccier said. Best of luck. Tiptoety  talk 15:09, 26 February 2008 (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.