Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Footballfan190 4


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

Footballfan190
FINAL (0/5/0); ended 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC); closed per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. - Icewedge (talk) 07:17, 23 July 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: I want to work with articles that have to do with animals. I also want to deal with vandalism, protect pages that need protection, and delete certain pages.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are dealing with vandalism because it helps Wikipedia.


 * 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: Yes, a user sent me a warning, but I didn't do anything wrong. I went to the page 2007 and listed an event. The event was when someone vandalized the page Sinbad (actor) and made it say that Sinbad died. I event stated that the claim was not true. I deleted the warning on my talk page, went to the Administrators' noticeboard and this user stopped it. The other users did not agree that this was a notable event, but they did not call me a vandal.

General comments

 * Links for Footballfan190:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Footballfan190 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) As I said on your talk page, there is a lot you need to work on.  You almost never use edit summaries.  I realize this was 7 months ago, but if you still believe this edit that you reference above in question 3 is a good idea, that's a very bad sign.  Though you do a lot of good work, you aren't really at a point where I think the admin tools would be a good idea. --B (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can u clarify about the edit summaries? It looks like he has ~99% usage according to 'wanabe kate'. - Icewedge (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at his last 100 edits. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot, I just got owned. Your are correct, I guess 'wanabe kate' counts section titles is summaries. - Icewedge (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) strongly oppose. You must be kidding. You should learn the basics about NPOV and reliable sources first. Example:  --Floridianed (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Fourth RfA in seven months, poor edit summary usage, etc. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. You have 1808 total edits, and now you're starting on your fourth RfA. Hey, you need to sit down and think about what you're doing. We want people who want to build an encyclopedia. We... are not an Internet hangout where you can build up a high score/rank like a video game or something. I say this with all kindness: Is Wikipedia the place for you? Do you want to work? It's a lot of work. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 07:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose, and the massive and very recent POV issues prevent me from even giving any moral support whatsoever. You are not suitable to be an admin, and a quick glance tells that you're never going to be. Please don't waste your and the community's time. user:Everyme 07:20, 23 July 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.