Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Empty2005


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

Empty2005
Nomination withdrawn by candidate.

(0/9/0) ending 13:15 5 October 2005 (UTC)

– I am very happy to expand the articles in wikipedia. I have created several Resident Evil based artciles including the Afterlife And Resident Evil 4 movie pages. I am a member of the Wikipedia Adelaide Project and I have created several pages including the Blair Athol article and Prescott College article. I have made lots of edits to several of these pages and have expanded the Resident Evil movie articles by adding information only a die hard fan would know.

I have expanded many other articles and added some hard to find images for the Resident Evil box cover art. I love movies and happily correct fauly information. If anyone has questions regarding my nomination please feel free to use my talk page anytime. Thanks :)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept the nomination of acceptance to the Wikiedian Administartion page. Thank you for those who have accepted my nomination. Empty2005 21:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose: Did not follow instructions in creating RfA (I corrected it). Engaged in vandalism . Last edit before submitting his own RfA was an AfD  for an article that should be tagged for speedy deletion. Nominee did not follow instructions on this edit either, as he did not create the AfD page, just added the AfD tag to the article. Uses edit summaries just 22% of the time. I won't be doing a chart for this one. --Durin 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I agree with the points brought up by Durin. Good editor, but needs more experience. Carbonite | Talk 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Fewer than 1000 edits, many of which are minor in nature.  A shade more than two months experience.  Still no user page, which will annoy some people.  Might support in future with further seasoning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per Kate's tool (which is working for me right now, see here and above comments. I don't think edit counts are that big a deal, but the lack of experience is obvious from it.  No article talk edits, 6 Wikipedia edits.   Friday (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per Durin. I believe you are a very good editor who does hard work, but please just get a few more edits in there. Here are a few links: Newpages, Recent Changes, Untagged images etc. Also, try to get involved in the community. You could join Esperanza, WikiProject Kindness Campaign and you could vote here and participate on the talk page. All the best and Good luck! →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  15:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, way too few Talk namespace edits, and engaging in blatant vandalism only a month before requesting adminship doesn't look good at all. &mdash; J I P | Talk 17:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: Not even remotely within a cannon shot of the standards, and the very self-nom here is nearly a sign of contempt for our processes. Geogre 18:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it nearly a sign of contempt? The only two ways I could see someone would abuse a request for adminship would be:
 * 1) To request adminship with specific intent to vandalise, and
 * 2) Mistaking adminship for a reward for successful contribution to Wikipedia, instead of a way to better keep contributing to Wikipedia.
 * I don't think Empty2005 is doing either of these. Still, I don't think he's currently suitable for adminship at all. &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats just what I was gonna say, before the edit conflict.:Please George, could you be a bit more subtle in your criticism? Im not saying your points are wrong; its not what you say, but how you say what you say. There are many potentially good administrators who are reluctant to nominanate themselves or others because they are afraid of being bitten, so please, take it easy. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose not enough edits, hasn't been here for long enough, engaged in vandalism, needs to use edit summaries more, needs a bit more than 7 wikipedia namespace edits. You are a good editor, but correct what I just listed and re-apply in a couple months and I'll gladly support. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose because of all the reasons already mentioned. Private Butcher 21:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Kate's tool is down at the moment. The first contribution for this user are on July 21, 2005.  Approximate edit count is circa 800.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For future reference for Empty2005: not putting an edit summary and having a redlink user page are rather sure signs that one will fail an admin nomination. Oleg Alexandrov 18:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kate's tool is back up, here's the page for this candidate. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think my vote will be necessary, but I'd like to address the candidate's responses to question 1 below: You can't prevent the creation of bad articles or inaccurate edits, regardless of status (even as a developer).  You can provide useful links and bring vandals to community attention without adminitrative tools. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 I would help by preventing irrelevant articles from being created. Some of these which have spam links attached to them. I would help out the Wikipedian Adelaide Project by providing useful links and prevent innaccurate edits from being made. Iw ould help out the Adminstartor community by provinding users that are cause vandelisum to other users pages and talk pages..
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A I am happy with all the edits I have made but some of which were never noticed because of the leak of my IPP Address. I have made a few mistakes while editing a page but never have I abused anyones user page or articles. I am a Resident Evil fan and have provided the Resident Evil catergory with several book based articles..
 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A I have been I one coflict with editing the Resident Evil page. The page had the Movies located under the name of Movies. I did edit the title to Movie Series but other users found this irrelevant so I changed it back. In the future if I am elected as an administrator I promise to resolve issues within othe Articles such as Vandelism and Abuse against other users.
 * 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.