Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rainbowwarrior1977

This RfA has been removed as a bad-faith nomination. -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rainbowwarrior1977
Total (0/10/0) ends 07:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)'''

- This man is very smart and well educated and handsome. He is my husband and a great guy!--Pamstar 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wholehearedly accept. I look forward to helping Wikipedia grow and know I am up for the many challenges I might face.:Rainbowwarrior1977 04:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, not nearly enough experience on Wikipedia. I note that your user page says you are 15 years old. That in itself is not a problem, but it makes it rather unlikely that you have a law degree (or that you are married to Pamstar), and lying on your RFA application doesn't go down well.-gadfium 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Less than 30 days, and I am concerned about these edits which were made in the past 3 weeks:, . In that I don't expect to see rfa candidates labelling other people's user talk pages as candidates for speedy deletion. --Mysidia 05:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to recent virulent conflict with user:Casito... basically, the same reasoning given by Mysidia, plus the answer to question 3 below seems to me indicative of a temperment wholly unsuited for the powers an administrator is equipped with. The Literate Engineer 05:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, user has just started out. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I am glad that is user is eager to help Wiki, to short of timespan to be nominated, and doesnt meet the at least 1000 edit mark, which is more important for experience and not edit counting. Also, any editor can do these: Fact-checking information, dealing with vandals and trolls, which I think are notable admirations, and hope they still have them when they return wim more exp. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  08:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No. Looking at the candidate answers and profile, this needs no explanation. Harro5 08:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I have to agree with Harro, looking at the responses below to the questions asked makes me feel a bit uneasy giving this user the keys to the Wikikingdom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Sorry, but less than 100 edits (let alone 1000), one month, and - well - somewhat dubious answers, leave me with little option. Grutness...  wha?  08:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose and delist. This nomination is nothing more than trolling, and anyone who follows Rfa should remember Rainbowwarrior1977's previous badfaith nomination of Purplefeltangel. --Scimitar parley 14:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I delisted it this morning (though, as I'm not a b-crat, perhaps I've stepped over the line) as a nomination in bad faith. -- Essjay ·  Talk 16:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, you did step over the line.  These decisions are not for you to make.  And this nomination is in Good Faith.  You know I am smarter than most of you.Rainbowwarrior1977 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)!
 * I'd like to see a policy citation for this claim. Do you have one? -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * If Essjay didn't take it down, someone else would have. It shouldn't matter who took it down. We all can see this has gone on long enough. This is no need for you to experience further humiliation. Ryan 18:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if the nomination was in good faith, if it clearly fails, it can be removed. From the top of the requests section " Nominations which will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some users oppose early removal under any circumstances. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again (say, a month)." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose in the Strongest Possible Terms. (Just in case.) User lacks the experience and knowledge of policy necessary to be an admin, and if his interactions with other users over this RfA are any indication of his ability to communicate with others, he lacks the communication skills necessary to be an admin. De-list, and if there is a pattern of such activities (as is indicated by the commentary above) refer to appropriate authorities (ArbCom?) for disciplinary action. -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and delist. Spurious attempt that cheapens the process, SqueakBox 19:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose wholly inappropriate given the answer to (3)     ( ! | ? | * ) 19:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose An administrator coming in with the agenda noted in question 3 is far too great a risk. It reminds me of a Senator who stood up with a list of 200 names. --Habap 17:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * Less than a month, 79 edits at last count, and sometimes doesn't use edit summeries.... -- Ryan Norton  T 04:50, 6 August 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.)
 * Fact-checking information, dealing with vandals and trolls..
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Having a law degree from NYU, I have improved the many idiotic legal entries in Wikipedia. Plus, as a native of Peru, I have written extensively on the indigenous cultures of South America and related topics such as the emergence of Bolivian Hip-Hop.
 * 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?
 * I am planning on purging a few select segments of antisocials and malcontents so they can no longer bastardize the intellectual purity of our great wiki with their inferior ideas.