Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wonderfool 1

Second attempt at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wonderfool 2

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

Note: This RfA was archived by copy-and-paste, see link in page history. Also fixing inconsistency between counter as shown by votes here and in the closing bureaucrat's, Cecropia, edit summary, and the one listed. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. final (1/12/2) ending 14:19 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Self-nomination   Wonderfool t(c)e) 14:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be accepting here then

Support

  1. I like him--Bluejean 03:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose, at this stage. Cyberjunkie 14:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1400 edits, sparse use of edit summaries. Some strange edits like saying in an article that something was "really cool", redirecting the Angela article to User:Angela (deleted now and replaced, so it's not in the history). That "Onefool" business is a bit weird, too. CryptoDerk 15:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. His edits to this page alone do not fill me with confidence about his potential ability to be an effective admin, let alone some of contributions and the Onefool thing. Rje 15:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hasn't really made the case for becoming an admin, and has exhibited some bizarre behavior on occasion, so I oppose at this time. --Michael Snow 16:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wonderfool, I don't feel you're ready yet. Try again in about six months - and use that time to prove your mettle. Kingturtle 01:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for all the reasons above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for all reasons mentioned. Mgm|(talk) 12:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Come back later, please. PedanticallySpeaking 17:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for all reasons above. utcursch | talk 06:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for all reasons above. Gilgamesh he 13:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Why? The others have said it all. I think you have to hang around for a while and take on the Wiki-"culture" to a much greater extent than you appear to have done. I'll be prepared to support you later if you make progress. David Cannon 11:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Cya later...Harro5 04:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Now now, please be nice. El_C 22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Make a load of good edits, and come back in a couple of months. — Chameleon 18:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What's my name doing here? I guess it's just got connotations. Anyway, come back in a few months and a few more edits, Wonder. humblefool® 23:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm an admin dude at Wiktionary. No, really, I am. So is User:Uncle G.

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.)
A. Transwiki to wiktionary stuff'll be one. And that handy Wikipedia:Did you know.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. competitive eating because its a fun subject, and all thh IEPs I dug out from :fr
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Well, I sorted out some page on Welsh cheese. And had a run-in about my sockpuppet User:Onefool. There was this crazy dude going on about him, who made a whole family tree of -fools, with User:Humblefool too.
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.