Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Iwilleditu


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

Iwilleditu
[ Voice your opinion] (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

- I nominated myself because I think I will be a Great administrator. by looking at disputes as if I am not a administrator but as a fellow Wikipedian. Iwilleditu (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I Nominated myself because i Could be a great mediator.

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 intend To take part in all problems I observe in Wikipedia and one brought to mt attention.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am new but i Just added New External links to Catnip and replaced the Area Section with Hardiness Section which show in a more detail of where it Grows.


 * 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 not but I did Secretly Watch the "Edit War" between 2 users where Fighting over a templete. I Believe that the Administrators acted improbably by not looking at the dispute as a third party. Where I intent to look at disputes as a third party.

General comments

 * Links for iwilleditu:

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

Support

 * 1) Support Iwilleditu makes a good point how do you know whats hes done before he created a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmar15 (talk • contribs)
 * That's not the point, Patmar15; admins are required to be regular faces on Wikipedia and to have done some administrative work on Wikipedia-space pages; be it commenting at WP:AN/I or clerking for WP:CHU or WP:RPP. Further, adminship is a high-responsibility job; hir answers to the questions are utterly pathetic and only act against her. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuddle If you ave a problem tell me on my talk page and if you have a problem with do so on his talk page.
 * REBUTTAL: As concerns RfAs, I (and every other editor) have every right to bring concerns up here and to discuss things in this section. You do not own this page. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose
 * I hate to be a curmudgeon, but the very existence of the election sign is, in and of itself, a Bad_Thing. Adminship is not an election in the sense you seem to be taking it as.
 * Secondly, the username "Iwilleditu" sounds confrontative. While adminship is not some "high and mighty" authority trip, it does entail a position of trust. I would be reticent to trust someone with a username like that.
 * Thirdly, while I try to assume good faith when it comes to editors, I'm afraid that my views on administrators means that good faith cannot merely be assumed, but must be demonstrated via a history of good, solid edits; positive interaction with the community; the ability to admit that one is wrong (and a history of admitting when one has been wrong); and a certain degree of competence with the MediaWiki software.
 * In short, I must regretfully oppose your request for adminship. Justin Eiler (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuddle Yes it is true that my account is only 2 days old but that does not include all the time i have spent editing wikipedia before i had this account. I t does not count all the good i have doen for wikipedia already. So Can you realy judge me on time not counted? --Iwilleditu (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Your account's two days old and you've got 24 edits. All successful admin candidates are experienced, with at least 5,000 edits, better still 10,000.  Dethme0w (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This cannot be proven. You have no experience at all.  Prove me wrong.  Dethme0w (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to take the time to comment from Justin Eiler
 * The election Sign is just for fun.
 * My username i just used because i dont whant to use my real name. its the only thing i could think of. --Iwilleditu (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand "just for fun" ... but this kind of "fun" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Justin Eiler (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun as a haha Joke if you want me to delete it i will. Please note that i was not able to delete it but due to just I dont know how to. But i did remove it from any page that it used on.--Iwilleditu (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's let others have their say. It could be I'm being too hard on a prospective admin. It could be others share my views--it could even be that others have higher standards. (I've considered running for admin myself, but I'm too much of a chicken. :D ) Justin Eiler (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuddle Thank you i promise to join them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but users seeking adminship need to demonstrate that they have earned the community's trust in respect of enforcing policies and guidelines. With only 24 edits that we can credit to your account, that's not the case here. I'm sure you will turn out to be a great editor, but you need some more experience. Try getting involved in counter-vandalism patrols, deletion debates, and other general tasks. You may also be interested in the adopt-a-user program, which helps coach new users in important policies and procedures. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose strongly; unproven. Come back with a bit more experience, please, and maybe a few thousand edits under your belt - you currently have less than 50. Your answers to the mandatory questions are also somewhat tepid, and I am a tad concerned that you are taking somewhat of an ownership to this page. - Jéské   ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Strongly This editor has made few constructive contributions to the project, as demonstrated in the editor's answers above. I think it's very premature for this editor to be considered for an adminstrator position.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:23, 23 March 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.
 * 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.