Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball 2


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

Wiki Greek Basketball
(1/14/0); Ended 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC) – To leave this open is to waste the community's time. The user's last request ended slightly over a week ago; this has no chance of passing. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– An excellent editor and well deserving of this post. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I want to help control the abuse issues where certain members (this can also include admin) are harassing and being rude to others and the site has some issues with this. Also, I kindly ask please do not remove this request and please do not make personally insults to me or leave rude comments here. Also, please do not send insults or rude comments to my user talk page.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Anyone can review my contributions and decide for themselves that. I have mainly focused on European basketball because I have a lot of knowledge on this and because when I started here it was almost a non-existent part of the site. However, I would also like to contribute in other areas that I also have good knowledge in more and more. Such as Eschatology for example.


 * 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: There have never been any issues that were caused by me. Of course, I have been treated poorly and unfairly by others here in some cases, but this is a fact of life and happens everywhere. There are some difficult people here, like there are everywhere but you have to be able to handle this. I am a very fair and nice person and I would be extremely so as an admin. So basically, no worries there.

General comments

 * Links for Wiki Greek Basketball:
 * Edit summary usage for Wiki Greek Basketball can be found here.

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

Discussion
(Return Fire) 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to implore that this RfA be re-closed despite the wishes of the applicant. The editor is merely trolling.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. It seems that WGB is trying to make a point, albeit a bad one.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Letting this run the full course will give him one less reason to complain. User:Zscout370
 * His bitching and moaning is just going to result in another block - which will disgruntle him further and cause more drama. Oh well.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It could work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Q3: "There have never been any issues that were caused by me." Wow. --Rschen7754 07:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I need the money, my children are sick. I don't know why everyone's opposing, I guess their cheques were lost in the mail? --Closedmouth (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose per WGB's disastrous first RfA that closed less than two weeks ago. That RfA closed at an unprecedented 1 support, 38 oppose, 4 neutral, with the only support coming from a known troll who almost certainly wasn't serious. This second try feels really, really cynical, so let's quick close per WP:NOTNOW WP:SNOW. What's sad about this is that, with a little effort in behind-the-scenes stuff, this guy could have turned into a genuine candidate. Şłџğģő  06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose see block log. ~ DC (Talk&#124;Edits) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, these gems    . User deserves a ban more than adminship. ~ DC (Talk&#124;Edits)
 * 1) Hell no. The drama that's occurred over the past month is enough to make me sick... Plus your answer to question 1 makes me think that this is all an attempt to get your way against User:Coffee... "help control the abuse issues where certain members (this can also include admin) are harassing and being rude to others." The T hi ng H a p p y New Year! 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I hope you take Prodego's advice instead of just deleting that post from your talk page. - Spaceman  Spiff  06:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose as above and . Open the collapsed thread, read his comments on his own ANI thread.  Has been off the block resulting from that and other events for all of 2 days.  -- Pakaran 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . All since starting last RFA. -- Pakaran 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest Possible Oppose Based on the behavior of WGB after posting his first RfA, there is no way in hell I would ever support him for adminship. This should be snow closed with out prejudice and WGB be topic banned from RfA.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but without prejudice would mean he could refile for adminship again, which he couldn't do if he were topic banned from RFA. ~ DC (Talk&#124;Edits) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right. I have corrected my !vote.  (This is why I failed English in high school.  :P ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose We offer a special program for editors of your caliber. It's called WP:VANISH. Why don't you go do it? Bullzeye contribs 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Disruptive behaviour following very recent failed RfA shows unsuitability for this role at this point in time. You need to show a turnaround in attitude over a much much longer period of time. Camw (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - When it's an obvious SNOW or NOTNOW case I usually refrain from piling on. However, in this particular case I feel compelled to voice a very blunt opinion. This user simply does not have the demeanor or maturity necessary to be an admin. Ever.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for fairly obvious reasons. Can't we just WP:SNOW this? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Coffee's Most Extreme Oppose Ever - WGB, created this RFA to troll just 2 days after his block expiring. There's no chance of him being an admin at all now, even if there was a chance before. The door is that way --->. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 06:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) No, No, and for the last time NO!!! – I am seriously starting to wonder whether something gave way here, the user is deliberately engaging in WP:POINT, or if this user's account has in fact been compromised. –MuZemike 07:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Not a chance After that last RFA, to come back from a block and decide to run again? No way. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support... some sort of sanction. No. This is my strongest oppose ever, and I've made some pretty strong opposes (1 for example). --Rschen7754 07:16, 2 January 2010 (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.