Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Invisible Robot Fish


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

Invisible Robot Fish
Final (1/10/1) ended 0:14, September 12 (UTC)

– I've been good here and I've been here for pretty long and I would be a great administrator. I always try to improve wikipedia. &mdash;  Invisible  Robot   Fish  !  20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Support
 * 1) Moral support because I don't want this to go down that you got no votes at all and drive you away from Wikipedia altogether, but urge withdrawal or speedy closure. There are basic requirements to be an administrator, and as discussed in the Oppose comments below, you don't meet any of them, at least not yet and probably not for awhile.  People who are made administrators have made hundreds or thousands of edits to the encyclopedia, have participated in the activities that are important for administrators, and have interacted with other people on Wikipedia.  You haven't really done a lot of those things yet.  In fact, there are only 15 edits to the actual encyclopedia.  I'm sorry but there is no way you are going to become an administrator right now.  Fortunately, you don't need administrator tools to edit more articles on topics you know about.  I hope you will withdraw your nomination and do some good editing for awhile instead. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Less that 500 total edits and extremely weak answers to questions. sorry. alpha Chimp (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose few edits and short answers to questions. As above basically. Sorry. -- Al e  x  (talk here) 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You also have not accepted your nomination, and this RFA is malformed (there is no tally and the date is wrong). -- Al e  x  (talk here) 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Malformed RfA, less than 100 user Talk edits, less than 500 edits in total, answers to questions below. Better to go for an editor review at this stage and work on weak areas identified there. (aeropa gitica)  22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per aeropagitica You need thousands more edits and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia polices and guidelines as well as positive interactions with the community. Please try again once you have done this. :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Alex9891 and aeropagitica. Michael 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Nacon kantari  22:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Less than 500 edits. — Moe Epsilon  22:50 September 11 '06
 * 6) Oppose less than 500 edits. Over half of them are on user pages. Very few article created or been edited by this user --Ageo020 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Oppose - malformed, questions provide no indication of knowledge of what admin tasks are. It's not a status symbol :) - suggest WP:SNOW -- Tawker 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Your answer to q. 3 is highly disturbing. You should never use your admin abilities in an edit war or other dispute that you yourself are involved in. Also your answer to q. 2 is very unconvincing. T REX speak 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, doesn't seem like they'll do anything very harmful, but I believe the uses needs a lot more experience before becoming an admin.-- Andeh 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

Editcount stats from Interiot's tool on RfA Talk page.
 * See Invisible Robot Fish's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I would create new articles, delete vandal pages and block vandals.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Yes. I gave better descriptions about things on 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:No. The way I would deal with it is to try and settle it. The second thing would be to warn them a few times and the final thing would be to block them for a few days.
 * 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.