Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encyclopedist 4

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

Encyclopedist

Final (0/9/0) ended 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) I would like to nominate myself as an admin. here. I have actively participated within the community for over a year, I have participated in nearly every activity available for non-admins. here (and by this I mean VfD, TfD, RfA and a WikiMeetup [1] etc.) and have over 9,200 edits [2]. Although I have not been the perfect user at all times, I believe that I would benefit the well being of the encyclopedia for two main reasons: 1) I do help other Wikipedians and newbies if they ask me, and I have and will look at any articles or participate in various activities if I am asked to do so. 2) I will not abuse my status as an admin. I sincerely hope that I have overall aided the encyclopedia during my time here; by submiting this RfA I hope to do so on a larger scale. Please help me aid Wikipedia by voting support. I will understand any opposition here, but I hope that my ability to become an admin. here is not negated.

I would also like to note that several people have requested on a number of occasions that I consider adminship. After some misgivings that I had, and my questioning of the RfA process in general (which I still, to an extent, disagree with RfAs) I declined the offer. But I think that it is time for me to put those things aside, after all, I don't think a "rollback" and "block user" button would give me so much power to cause any damage :-)

I just ask that you vote your conscience, even if that means oppose. And if saying this means something, here goes: I am very nervous about the outcome.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Now, after two months of vandalism, I want to reënter an RfA, just to see if I can have the appropriate tools to fight, rather than produce vandalism. If I win or not, I am just happy to be apart of the community, again. I sincerely apologize for my actions - and I will understand any outcome. But I assure you that if I become an adm, I'll do my damn best to be better as that than I was as a vandal. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would again like to nominate myself after a two week hiatus, I think my work as an admin would be very productive. Let's face it, Wikipedia is headed toward the Fascist drain, I think I could help pull it out. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Comments

I recommend that this RfA be withdrawn to avoid further discouragement to the candidate. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedist's edit count using Interiot's Tool 2:

Username	Encyclopedist
Total edits	9228
Distinct pages edited	3486
Average edits/page	2.647
First edit	21:10, January 15, 2005
	
(main)	2212
Talk	208
User	1261
User talk	3666
Image	309
Template	74
Template talk	1
Wikipedia	1393
Wikipedia talk	102
Portal	2

--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Encyclopedist's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. Edit summary usage for Encyclopedist: 56% for major edits and 28% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Support

Oppose

Sadly, I must oppose. I don't doubt good intentions, but this candidate has demonstrated a serious lack of maturity. Way too temperamental to be an admin. Admin candidates must demonstrate an uncommon ability to stay cool under stress. Friday (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My AGF is run out. The candidate has made just four edits since his last nomination. We are being trolled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per BoG, and the less than inspiring edit summary percentages. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got off an indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry less than a month ago, has done no productive editing since then, and is already making comments about the "Fascist drain" Wikipedia is apparently being pulled into. AGF only stretches so far. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All recent edits (and by recent I mean almost a month ago) have been apologies, and before that, attempting to quit with much drama. His comment about "Wikipedia is headed toward the Fascist drain" also worries me, as statements like that tend to have an implicit POV. Sorry, but I can't support this. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That nomination statement is quite tempting, but no. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not jack-booted enough to support the emergent fascist clique. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. With the events that lead to his temporary exit from the project, he has shown that he is capable of "Losing it", big time. I just would not be comfortable giving the powers of an admin to someone capable of such. - TexasAndroid 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. I don't know this user very well, and judging alone by the statistics above, he would be fine. His mention of vandalism and incivility does worry me, but he did give a heartfelt apology and seems to have had a change of heart. This vote may change pending other users' comments. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Check the contribs, Lefty...changed to oppose. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.